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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Request for Comment: Conservative influence in the lead

There has recently been a very extended conversation regarding how Mr. O'Reilly should be described in the article introduction. Mr. O'Reilly has invented the term "traditionalist" to describe his political views. He is a registered independent voter, and he strongly denies being conservative. However, a significant number of individuals and organizations consider O'Reilly to be conservative himself, or to be an influence on conservative discourse. A large number of O'Reilly's followers self-identify as "conservative", and the media syndicate upon which his shows air are largely accused of conservative bias. As far as I know, none of these facts themselves are wholly disputed, though there may be some contention over the degree to which some of the facts are applicable, which manifests in the appropriateness of weaselly-words like "widely". A plethora of sources attesting to the aforementioned facts may be found in the discussions above, and were well researched and summarized by editor Fences & Windows.

There has been significant effort by some editors to insist on excluding a mention of O'Reilly's conservative standing from the lead section, with varying rationales.

1. O'Reilly says he's not conservative.
   • I've always stated that a subject's chosen description must be presented before any other viewpoints. However, Wikipedia articles are not promotional vehicles by which the subject of the article may choose how he/she/it is presented.
2. O'Reilly says he's a "traditionalist"
   • The two aren't mutually exclusive, or probably even at odds (unless he says they are, I guess). In either case, there is no requirement to choose one or the other.
3. "Conservative" is a pejorative term
   • The term is not being applied in a negative manner, and is balanced by O'Reilly's self-dscription; others reliable sources may be used as tertiary descriptors if it's really necessary.
   • I've honestly never heard it used as a negative term (except by politicians i guess ;-) )
4. Not all sources agree he is conservative
   • We're not saying he is conservative or not. We're saying that he is seen to be a significant influence on the conservative community; or, another way, is that he is often associated with conservative thought by at least a significant number of reliable sources.
5. We need to stick with the "just the facts, ma'am"
   • It's a widely documented fact that lots of people think O'Reilly is a significant conservative figure... that fact is no less significant than what O'Reilly calls himself (I would contend that it's more significant).
6. Others' opinions are discussed in a section of the article and/or We shouldn't put others' opinions in the lead
   • WP:LEAD is pretty clear about the introduction being a concise summary of the entire article, with special attention paid to the significance of the subject. I think anyone would be very hard pressed to deny that O'Reilly, self-described or not, is more often than not associated with conservative thought, conservative speech, conservative media, and conservative people. It is, in my mind, unfathomable that Wikipedia would omit such a significant detail in an article about the man.
7. You said something different during a discussion about Keith Olbermann
   • One, there is no "tit-for-tat" battleground or "fairness" doctrine by which articles are paired and kept in sync. One editor in particular has tried his damndest to personalize the argument...
   • Two, arguments for or against inclusion of content should be made without referencing what you think should happen on an unrelated article.
   • Three, no two subjects are equal. For a complete response to the notion that O'Reilly and Olbermann articles should be mated pairs, see this.
   • Four, such an argument is an ad hominem fallacy that has no place here.
8. This is all original research
   • One, this is discussion on a talk page, and I wouldn't propose that any of the ideas we use to formulate reasons why content should be included be used as content themselves (complicated sentence, re-read it for clarity).
   • Two, there is ample empirical evidence that O'Reilly is largely associated with "conservative", as well as a large number of sources that outright label him as such (and/or refer to his standing amongst self-identified conservatives).
9. O'Reilly is no conservative like Reagan or Buckley
   • The degree of his conservative-ness, or that he is conservative at all (or not) is irrelevant -- the fact that he has a reputation for being conservative is. To put it another way, the standard is verifiability (not truth).
10. Mentioning "conservative" in the lead is undue weight
    • This is the most puzzling claim of all... not mentioning his conservative significance gives undue weight to O'Reilly's self description. Again, I don't see how anyone can argue that people who consider O'Reilly as "conservative" are a minority or fringe view, and allowing a subject to be the end-all authority on how he will be presented is improper and dangerous.

Now, one editor has offered a thoughtfully presented compromise version, however it still fails to mention O'Reilly's association with conservatives or his significance thereto. I believe that such a link is a core fact about the subject that the article's summary must mention specifically. I'm asking for the community's input on whether it must be mentioned in the lead, and (if so) the proper way of doing so. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well argued. I am happy with either of Happyme22's or Blaxthos' suggested leads, and will stay out of this RFC from now. Fences and windows (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not said and will not say that O'Reilly is the final authority on how he is viewed. But I am saying he is not some big influence within the Republican party like Reagan, Goldwater, the Bushes, or like you have repeatedly attempted to label him as. You argue above that it doesn't matter that he is not as involved as Reagan or Goldwater -- well, evidently, it does because you are saying that he is a huge influence in the conservative movement and it appears to be at the center of your argument. And I'm saying he is not at the center of the conservative movement. He has been called conservative by some organizations, yes, but that is the perception of him by others rather than a solid fact.

The lead should not mention his "associations" with conservatives because it is a portion of the public's perception and not detrimental to the understanding of Bill O'Reilly. The fact that conservatives watch his show is notable, and properly represented in the public perception section. His viewpoints on issues, however, many of which lean to the right, are detrimental to our understanding of the man because they reflect his values and ideals, and the type of views that he espuses on his show. Some of his views lean to the right, others (like civil unions and gun control) lean to the left. He is not overtly conservative, and frankly I will continue to object to this being placed into the lead.

From what I read above, you seem to be placing a higher standard on how the public perceives him than what he actually believes. Public perception does not belong in the lead in this case -- period. I do not know how else to get it across. These perceived conservative viewpoints (and they are only perceptions) belong in the public perception section.

You also argue above that O'Reilly's self description of traditionalist is no better than including a portion of the public's perception of him as a conservative when it comes to WP:WEIGHT. I'll lay out my thought process for my compromise version above: O'Reilly's viewpoints on issues and general stance is what is important. It is a fact that many of his views lean to the right, so instead of overtly labeling him as a conservative, which is very controversial and which cannot be proven, I chose to go with a fact. As far as I know, O'Reilly has not denied that many of his views lean to the right, but he prefers to call his views "traditionalism," and that is why I retained that in the new version. It is not an example of O'Reilly being the highest authority in this discussion or to imply that his self description is the only one that matters, rather it is there because O'Reilly does not accept or deny his views leaning to the right -- he just calls them something else.

I've compromised by proposing the addition that many of his views lean to the right. I've abandoned the "just the facts, ma'am" approach in the interest of working toward a solution. I haven't seen any compromising from those who disagree with me. I'm just telling you that so long as I am working on this page, I will make sure that public perception gets into the public perception section because it is not detrimental to our understanding of Bill O'Reilly. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always given you good faith and credit for working towards a compromise, which I appreciate. However, you're confusing/equating "conservative" with "Republican Party" -- the two are assuredly not one and the same. In the end, I suppose it's just a difference of opinion: public perception of Bill O'Reilly, especially the view of him as a voice of conservatism, is essential to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. We're not labeling him or his views, we're talking about his overall significance in a biographical article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support Happyme22's formulation. As for Blaxthos's points they collectively remind me of the what Robert Bork said about Laurence Tribe's constitutional theory: It was protean in that it took whatever form was necessary in order to reach the desired political result. I would also suggest that Blaxthos and I have had more than our say in this tempest in a teapot and should give way to fresh voices which is part of the purpose of an RFC. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seemed three out of four editors agreed with Happyme22 formulation (i know...not a vote, CCC, so what). I am not sure why this RfC is necessary as it seems there was a version of the inro, that we could all live with. That being said, I'll restate my support for Happyme22 version of the lead. Also the introduction to this RfC is not neutral in the least as I have not read about seven of the above arguments made anywhere on this page. Considering how my one sentence post was stretched incredibly, I'm unfortunately not surprised. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire, my apologies if I missed some of the exclusion rationale -- I was working from my notes and didn't mean to give the impression that the list is holistic. I tried my best to neutrally present both the facts and the arguments for inclusion (in most cases I copied them verbatim); an overlooked rationale doesn't equate to an attempt at a non-neutral presentation. Add any that weren't covered, as they are excellent fodder for the RFC. I strongly caution against characterizing Requests For Comments as "necessary" or "unnecessary" -- any user is entitled to ask for the input of the community, and often times the five or six editors on a particular talkpage fall into the habit of groupthink. We're all aware that, in many cases, contentious pages are often shepherded by people who have a particular view and who are invested in the subject. Widening the scope of the discussion helps ensure balance. Regarding the point of this RFC (and why it was called), let me copy what an editor who doesn't often frequent these discussions stated above:

I think that a large part of what makes O'Reilly important is that he is an influential player in conservative thinking/politics, however you like to put it. He's not just another talk host, he's a big force in shaping conservative viewpoints. I think, however it's worded, that that needs to be put in some way into the lead para, or we are not really being true to why he is so important. It doesn't need to say explicitly he is conservative - just that he is a major influence on current conservative thinking.

Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this RFC logged correctly?. It doesn't appear at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Biographies. Fences and windows (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like RFC bot isn't doing his job. I left notes on the WP:RFC talk page and on the bot owner's talk page. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22, all in all, you are arguing that the opinion of a person is more important or equally important than the (fact of) the pubplic perception, is this correct? I strongly disagree with that, because this would be evident POV.

If you were right, then for example the opinions of Hitler would be more or equally important than the today's "perception" by historians, and Hitlers core claims should be part of the lead, but not his "perception" by historians.

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to primarily report self-descriptions, but neutral facts seen from outside. Self-descriptions definitely are important facts for an article about persons, but they are only one minor part of the overall information about a person. At the end, a self description is only the opinion of one single person.

I don't want to claim that I have the final overview about all sources, but it seems that O'Reilly is the only one calling himself "traditionalist", while there are uncountable sources for calling him "conservative". Do you really think that O'Reilly is so important that his single own opinion has more weight than the sum of all these other sources? Just because it is the article about himself, this does not change the fact that this is only the opinion of one single person. NPOV would have no meaning anymore if a person gets extra rights about defining his own description.

BTW, I don't like your proposal also for another reason: I would prefer sticking to facts, avoiding saying for example "his views lean to the right". I think it would be better to say "he says ... ", and "the public perception is that ..." etc. The "only" question is which of these facts are important enough to be part of the lead, this is what I am arguing above, concluding that, because of NPOV, a widely considered view about a person is more important than a single opinion.

All in all, I am just an outsider who came accross this article, and I my personal impression is that the article and the discussion is very biased. Maybe this is natural for articles in Wikipedia related to politics, since probably articles are primarily edited and discussed by persons who are somehow in favor of this person. But I think this may be a principle problem, because it disgusts persons coming from outside, especially also people reading the article. Suppose for example a school child is preparing a small talk about political commentators, and hears O'Reilly and Olbermann for the first time. With the current article, it is hard to get the overall coarse picture that "O'Reilly is conservative" and "Olbermann is liberal" at all. Of course, at the end these labels are somehow wrong. But on the other hand, they are also somehow a good summary - whether the respective persons like that description or not. Coming back to the school child: I think if you read the article from his/her perspective, you don't an good overview about this person. So all in all, maybe it is good for all persons involved into editing this article and discussion (of course including me, too), to focus more on an outside view instead of dissecting the lead more and more, basically destroying it. Usually I am reading (and sometimes contributing) non-political articles, for example about physics and software, which - I think - don't tend to have this problem. So maybe I'm fastidious a little bit, and therefore a little bit surprised about the POV problems and discussion in such an article. ;-)

(BTW, I am the original IP starting this discussion - yes, probably I should register to Wikipedia ;-) )87.163.66.237 (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Some addition: Happyme22, you say "I haven't seen any compromising from those who disagree with me". I still think that my proposal posted as 87.163.94.67 is such a proposal. I think it is not only a compromise (mentioning both sides), but - more importantly - a objective description of facts and giving the correct weights for a lead.87.163.66.237 (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok.... I have a lot of responses to make :)

Blaxthos: I'm sorry if my last post came across negatively, implying that you are not respecting me. I didn't mean that at all. It appears three editors so far are fine with my compromise version. Blaxthos, if you can dig up some citations, references (whatever you want to call them) on O'Reilly being an influence on the conservative movement and on conservatives, then try to I'll see what I can do (but I can't promise anything). As for the definition of conservative, to many I'm sure, being a conservative is another way of saying to be a part of the Republican party, which of course is not entirely true but which can surely come across that way. That is what I wanted to stay away from. Perhaps I should have clarified that earlier.

IP 87: with all due respect, you are flat out wrong. You must not have read my posts above in which I said:

I have not said and will not say that O'Reilly is the final authority on how he is viewed. But I am saying he is not some big influence within the Republican party like Reagan, Goldwater, the Bushes, or like you have repeatedly attempted to label him as.

Furthermore, I suggested sticking only to the facts before (as IP 87 suggests above), which many editors disagreed with. But saying that many of his views lean to the right is indeed a fact and 100% neutral. What's your beef? As I said above and have said numerous times, IP 87, public perception does not belong in the lead in this case. These perceived conservative viewpoints (and they are only perceptions) belong in the public perception section. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, but a few points I must again clarify:

1. Any and all arguments based on equating "Republican" and "conservative" are non sequiturs. The two are not the same, and the words don't mean the same things.
2. Your compromise, and indeed the entire thrust of your suggestions, is an attempt to merely describe the subject without dealing with its significance. Public perception is a huge part of O'Reilly's significance, as is true with any media figure (and most any biography).
3. Again, one doesn't have to be "Reagan or Goldwater" to be a conservative influence, and Wikipedia isn't going to strike the conservative influence from every less-than-Reagan biography.

Regardless of the limited support for the compromise version, the point of the RFC is to widen the scope of discussion beyond the four or five editors already involved in the discussion. For the most part, I haven't seen responses that deal with the actual substance/points contained in the RFC. Given that RFCbot hasn't been working properly, it's not surprising that we haven't had (m)any outside contributions (yet). Hopefully a week or so will bring a broader discussion, as I think we've both made our points ad infinitum. I am going to yield the floor to some new voices...  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reiterating your points. As I said before, please provide some sources for O'Reilly being a huge influence on conservatives, etc. That seems to be the crux of your argument and the main point of our discussions. I'll see what I can do from there. As for the RFC, all my past experiences with the process have yielded little or no results, even when the bot was working. I understand and fully respect each and every editors' right to call additional voices to a discussion, and RFC would seem the most logical, but the results are not very promising (just FYI). So go get some sources and present them here. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Response

• Conservative absent evidence that a preponderance of sources characterize him differently. Dlabtot (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that we overtly refer to him as being conservative in the lead? If so, then editors should disregard this response because, as clearly indicated above, this RFC has to do with whether or not to include O'Reilly as being an influence upon conservatives in the lead. Perhaps some clarification would be nice. Happyme22 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Woah! I think there's been a drift in the argument. I was always saying that he is widely viewed as a conservative. This formulation of "an influence upon conservatives" has crept in and I think it's a bit of a straw man. I sourced 20 references that refer to O'Reilly as "conservative", so I'd much rather we stuck to discussing what those sources show, rather than muddying the waters with discussions of how much he actually influences conservative politics and thinking. Fences and windows (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm just saying that from what I gather, Blaxthos began this RFC as a way to get different opinions on whether or not to include O'Reilly being an influence upon conservatives in the lead, not as a way to determine whether or not to say that O'Reilly is a conservative; I thought that we had shifted the focus and agreed before the start of this RFC to focus on O'Reilly's presumed influence on conservatives. If this RFC generates support for adding conservative influence/public perception in the lead, I plan on slightly altering my proposed version. Right now, a majority of the editors at this page like my proposed version. Fences and windows, you say above that you are comfortable with either my version or that of Blaxthos. Happyme22 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of different iterations ("influence on conservative thought", "widely associated with conservatism", "major voice for conservatives", etc), and they hall have subtly different meanings. I'm struggling with the best way to present the concept and I'm hoping this RFC will give us community input on how exactly the concept should be presented. In no case am I advocating for one particular presentation above the others; hopefully the RFC will produce more guidance from the community's perspective. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot or no bot. I suspect that most still-active editors who have previously shown an interest in O'Reilly related articles know that this discussion is taking place and have had their chance to comment. Thus, I'll take the liberty now to make my main pitch and in doing so address a few points made in the request for the Request for Comments.

A. O'Reilly did not invent the term "traditionalist". He chose to use it. Though "traditionalist" is often used apolitically, it is a perfectly reasonable term to describe one's socio-political views. It basically means someone who respects tradition and takes a heuristic rather than a theoretical approach to socio-politcal issues. It is certainly more revealing of one's politics than is the term "American".

B. The fact that O'Reilly has a regular program on the Fox News Channel counts for very little in this discussion. Greta Van Susteren and Geraldo Rivera have regular shows on FNC. Juan Williams and Alan Colmes are regular Fox contributors. None of them call themselves conservatives and none are widely viewed that way.

C. Though this is purely my speculation, I don't believe that O'Reilly has had a major influence on conservative thought or on the conservative movement. He's an entertainer. He is certainly no theorist. Most of his thinking is expressed (like his rival Olbermann's thinking) in negatives. When he does make positive policy suggestions they tend toward populism rather than toward doctrinaire conservatism. He is not ideologically pure enough to satisfy the hard-right on most branches of the conservative tree. His greatest appeal is to the kind of folks who were often described in the 80s as Reagan Democrats: nationalistic on foreign policy; bullish on "law and order"; vocal but only moderately conservative on "social issues", and tinged with a measure of populism on economic issues. Even here, his views tend to echo his fan base rather than to lead it. Again, all of this is speculative, but then so is the notion that O'Reilly has had a highly significant influence on American conservatism.

D. That being said, one must grant the fact that O'Reilly has often been described as "conservative" by WP:RS sources with no political axe to grind (just as his rival Olbermann has been described as "liberal"). I would submit that the question before us is how best to reconcile two competing visions of how, if at all, do we quickly characterize the politics of subjects whose political ideologies are often described in ways with which they do not "self-identify". Both visions are exemplified by the writings of the Wikipedia editor Blaxthos.

The first of these visions, exemplified by Blaxthos 09/2008, says that unless the subject so self-identifies, we should scrupulously avoid political labels as they inflame passions, are subjective, and poison the well. In this context, the argument subsequently made by Blaxthos 04/2009 that a formulation such as "Foo is widely considered a conservative/liberal (although he denies it)" is somehow more acceptable than simply saying that "Foo is a conservative/liberal" is quite dubious. If anything, the first formulation is more invidious toward the subject than is the second because it tends to suggest that Foo is either "out of it" or else duplicitous.

The second of the competing Blaxthosian visions is exemplified by his numerous statements on this talk page expressing his concern that the article's subject not be able to dictate the content of the article. Here Blaxthos emphasizes the presumed public perception of the subject. According to this vision the subject's self-description is stated, but the presumably conflicting public perception is given at least equal billing.

While these two visions may not be absolutely contradictory, they are certainly quite at odds in their emphases. How do we reconcile the two in a satisfactory manner? In the case at hand, I suggest something like the following:

Although O'Reilly's views usually lean to the right [sources], he describes himself as a "traditionalist" rather than as a conservative [sources].

The "usually" here is not especially vital. I've included it because reliable sources can probably be found to show that his some of his opinions (on the death penalty and on gun control, for example) don't lean right. With or without "usually", this formulation gives deference to the subject's self-description per Blaxthos 09/2008. On the other hand, it suggests that it would be perfectly reasonable to call him a conservative and that many likely do; at least partially addressing the concerns of Blaxthos 04/2009 (on the O'Reilly talk page, at least). One cannot be expected to completely satisfy all Blaxthoses all the time.

As for the point raised apropos the subject's supposed effect on conservatism, reliably sourced information on that subject is welcome. It could even be used to create a new article subsection or a completely new article. However, using the possibility that it might be discovered at some future time to delay our work here is silly. We are talking about one sentence for goodness sake. It's time to put this baby to bed. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open to Badmintonhist's compromise version and comend him for attempting to reach a solution all can agree to. Happyme22 (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, we've had exactly one response other than the individuals already involved in this discussion. The entire point of an request for comment is to broaden the scope beyond the myopic stance of the editors involved in the discussion (myself included). Simple mention of the word "conservative" doesn't satisfy the point of the RFC. I assert that the mountain of sources serve as prima facie evidence of his influence/association/whatever with conservative thought. Badmintonhist's response indicates that, with proper sourcing, it is "welcome"; I agree that statements about his influence on conservatism must be properly sourced to avoid synthesis concerns. Keep in mind, I have asked for community guidance on the best way to formulate the statement and don't have a perfect solution. However, I do know that avoiding mention of the O'Reilly-conservative link entirely is not an option. Fortunately, there is no deadline to "put this baby to bed", let's see what the community writ large has to say. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Point to consider: O'Reilly is so tightly associated with conservatism that he inspired a hugely successful parody of him and his show (see Wikipedia here). IMHO, more prima facie evidence of the strong link/influence/association... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a research paper. Arzel (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All statements in the section listed are supported by reliable sources, and serve to demonstrate my point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As Fences and windows has said, Woah!. The topic here is how Wikipedia should handle labeling the political views of a subject, in this case Bill O'Reilly, whose politics are often labeled in a way that he contests. It is very similar to both earlier and on-going debates over how Keith Olbermann's political views should be labeled. These are not discussions over the degree of influence either has had on political thought (which are very difficult matters to assess).

In any case, what Blaxthos is saying about O'Reilly's influence seems to conflate two very different topics. He confuses O'Reilly's influence on the way liberals view and parody conservatives (or those whom they think are conservatives) with O'Reilly's actual influence on the way conservatives think about issues. Were we to see a Ben Affleck style parody of Olby on Saturday Night Live each week, we might get a very good idea of how many conservatives see Olbermann or even see liberals in general. However, it would tell us very little about Olbermann's actual influence on liberal thinking. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid constructing strawmen, as you've either missed my point(s) entirely or chosen to misrepresent them; in either case continuing to try and explain it to you (Badmintonhist) is wasted effort. I think the position of everyone previously involved has already been stated (half a dozen times); again -- the goal of an RFC is to broaden discussion beyond the usual suspects and incorporate the opinion of the entire community. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comments so far. Blaxthos: I said this above but I'm not sure if you saw it. While every editor has the right to call for more views from the Wikipedia community, let me just say that all my experiences with RFC's (I've been involved in four of five of them) have not wielded great results -- modest results at best. Two people at most added comments. If you are expecting more than four or five people to chime in and then have us write based off of their comments, then I don't think you have the right idea. RFCs usually last for about a month, and in that time you will be lucky to get three responses. Personally, I recommend withdrawing it because I am coming around to the idea of adding something about O'Reilly's influence. You are correct in saying that there is no set deadline for us to be finished with a discussion, however I am going to present another compromise version most likely tomorrow, which this time will include some points about O'Reilly's public perception and influence.

Badmintonhist: I'm not very happy with your new version that you implemented. It actually ignores a lot of what we discussed and talked about, especially regarding the "widely viewed as a conservative." That said, I think you are correct in saying above that Blaxthos' use of Colbert's show as an example of an influence of O'Reilly on conservatives really doesn't amount to much. Colbert could have modeled his satirical show after anyone (but see my comments in the paragraph above this on O'Reilly's influence).

In the meantime, I am going to revert the lead to a version which was stable for a long time, before IP 87 came in and before these discussions began. Please do not change it until we have a version that the consensus agrees upon worked out on the talk page. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Include conservatism in the lead section. First, pardon me for being frank, and I assume you all mean well -- but this RfC is a mess. I clicked on the link and found myself in the middle of the discussion, with no clear presentation of what the alternatives were -- and partway through my reading I discovered that the involved editors weren't all clear, either. If you want to get useful responses, it's worth taking a little time to work together to create a concise summary that makes the dispute intelligible, including clear presentation of alternatives. See Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 1#Request for comment for an example.

Now, as to the substance: The version of the lead section that's now in place includes the phrase "self-described "'traditionalist'" but no variant of "conservative". I don't think that's a good solution. One possibility would be to say that he's widely considered a conservative, although he resists the label and describes himself as a "traditionalist" (I gather all those statements would be true). Another possibility would be along the lines of Happyme22's compromise of April 16, that many of his views lean toward the right,[14][15] though he describes himself as a "traditionalist"[16] and he is a registered independent. Either of those would be a big improvement. The RfC seems to have been sidetracked by the issue of his influence on other conservatives. That topic is worth considering for inclusion in the body of the text but it needn't be up top. What's appropriate for the lead section is a quick precis, tailored to the readers who may not go beyond the lead section. For that purpose, "traditionalist", standing alone, doesn't cut it. Does that mean he believes in a Flat Earth, or in any of the diverse views listed at Traditionalism? O'Reilly comments extensively on contemporary political issues, and the reader deserves to know up front that he's far more likely to be found on the side generally referred to as "conservative". JamesMLane t c 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with JamesMLane. This discussion seems (from what I've seen) to be very civil, and so credit is due there, but it's insanely disorganized and I have trouble knowing where to start. The sentence JamesMLane uses, "he's widely considered a conservative, although he resists the label and describes himself as a 'traditionalist,'" is on the mark. "Traditionalist" clearly has some special meaning to O'Reilly, but those unfamiliar will be baffled by it (as was I). "Conservative" has a well known meaning, and many have called him that. I say mention that he has been widely called conservative, but that he disputes the accuracy of that term. Shadowjams (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Include 'conservative' in lead: He is widely viewed as a conservative, and this can be documented with reliable sources. Its one of the central facts of his public persona. Should be in the intro. Locke9k (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you support my compromise version (located above, which JamesMLane also registered support for), or were you thinking along other lines? Because my compromise version has picked up a lot of support. Happyme22 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you enunciate the exact version to which you refer? (not being difficult, just for complete clarity). I think it's fairly significant that every outside editor has supported my contention that "conservative" is a "central fact of his public persona", and I believe that the pattern will continue if more time is needed for additional evidence of that community consensus. Given that level of support, and that the respondents have all more-or-less stated that "widely considered a conservative" with "O'Reilly disagrees", I would venture to say that common thread has more support than a consensus version that fails to mention those facts (which, incidentally, they've all contradicted by explicitly stating "conservative" belongs). But, maybe I'm thinking of a different compromise above, which is why I ask for clarity.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• ATTEMPT TO CLARIFYThis was the last version of Happyme22 lead that received the most support:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. He hosts the cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, which is the most-watched program on cable television.[13] O'Reilly's views vary on a number of issues; many of his views lean toward the right,[14][15] though he describes himself as a "traditionalist"[16] and he is a registered independent.[17] He previously anchored the entertainment program, Inside Edition and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program.[18] He is the author of eight books.

I do not support this compromise version. To simply say that 'many of his views lean to the right' does not seem to adequately describe his position and role. Mr. O'Reilly is one of the central popular voices in the US conservative movement. I don't see how the reader is getting a full overview of his persona and role if something clearly denoting him as conservative is not included in the lead. The fact that he describes himself using other terms is far less important than his actual role and the perception of commentators and viewers. Whats more, his self description is even less reliable in this case, given that it is potentially biased by his vested interest in appearing "fair and balanced" and hosting a "no spin zone". His conservatism should notonly be mentioned, it should dominate the line describing his political stance in the intro. Locke9k (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Blaxthos believes it falls short because it doesn't mention his influence on conservatives. I do not believe he has presented an alternative version yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly the version that I am referring to, Blaxthos (you can even add in "rather than conservative" after "describes himself as a 'traditionalist'" if you would like). I have opposed and will continue to oppose the "widely considered a conservative" and "O'Reilly disagrees" formulation, as it sounds much to confrontational and argumentative and is too controversial for the lead. Didn't we already discuss this above? Happyme22 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I _do_not_know_ if I believe that the influence context is appropriate; If you re-read the RFC, I specifically wonder if it is, and sought a broader community input. My read on the responses is that the community widely (thus far) supports the specific inclusion of the concept of "widely considered conservative", but no one has thus far addressed the influence idea. Given that, it would seem that something along the lines of:

O'Reilly considers himself a traditionalist, though he is widely considered a conservative commentator.

Wikilinks and citations should be added, and there is no intent in the verbiage beyond incorporating the broad support for specific mention of conservatism and my continued assertion that self-descriptors should come first. NOTVOTE notwithstanding, I think the community consensus thus far is clear, but we can continue to gather input if you guys think it's needed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is horribly wrong here! Blaxthos and I seem to be in almost total agreement!! I think the influence on conservatives issue should be tabled for another day. Although I once included it, I would no longer put the "registered independent" info in the lead (placing it in the body is fine, though) because it is not really vital to O'Reilly's public persona. I also don't like the "O'Reilly's views vary on a number of issues" formulation because though I think I know what Happyme2 is trying to say here (vary from straight conservative orthodoxy) the thought as expressed is incomplete. I still rather like my previous descriptions of O'Reilly's ideology. Either:

Although O'Reilly's views usually lean to the right [sources], he characterizes himself as a "traditionalist" rather than as a conservative [sources].

Or for those favoring a stronger mention of his perceived conservatism:

Although he is often described as a conservative [sources], O'Reilly, instead, characterizes himself as a "traditionalist" [sources]. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the phrase "widely considered", mostly because almost every uninvolved editor has said it verbatim (or a variation thereof). Also, we're not talking about his views, we're talking about his public persona and how it's seen writ large -- subtle but significant difference. Also, I agree that the voter registration stuff (see section below) is not appropriate for the lead, and should only be mentioned in the article text. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that "often described as a conservative" is more directly demonstrable from reliable sources than is "widely considered a conservative". However, if one wants to engage in some hardscrabble (and perhaps cynical) bargaining here, Happyme2's point about O'Reilly's views sometimes varying from conservative orthodoxy could be brought into play. For example, on the assumption that reliable sources support it, we could say something like:

Although O'Reilly's political ideas sometimes vary from right-leaning orthodoxy [Sources], he is widely considered a conservative [Sources]. He prefers to characterize himself as a "traditionalist" [Sources]

Badmintonhist (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is going in a better direction from my standpoint, but I think we can be even more succinct:

"Although O'Reilly characterizes himself as a "traditionalist" [Sources] and argues that his views vary from right-leaning orthodoxy [Sources], he is widely considered a conservative [Sources]."

I think this gives a better balance in terms of emphasizing the mainstream view of his position. Locke9k (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much acceptable to me, but I will not support replacing "conservative" with "right-leaning". Honestly, the "leaning" verbiage seems excessive and open to too much interpretation. Respondents have all indicated the succinct "widely considered conservative" is preferred, and almost (if not) all have explicitly said "conservative" should be mentioned. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How's this?

Though O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative [sources], his views sometimes depart from conservative orthodoxy [sources], and he characterizes himself, instead, as a "traditionalist" [sources].

Allowing the "last word" in the statement to be the subject's self-description is consistent with Blaxthos 9/2008's view (and the consensus in that particular discussion) that the subject's self-description should have priority in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with your wording. I copied the phrase "right-leaning" from an earlier proposal without actually thinking about it. "Conservative" is preferable to me in every way. Locke9k (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

On the assumption that the recent lack of activity here indicates that there is a general willingness to go with the most recently suggested wording above, I have incorporated it into the article's lead. However, if we adopt the policy here that numerous reliable descriptions of O'Reilly as a conservative is tantamount to his being "widely considered a conservative" (and not WP:Synthesis), then we should not be seeing the editors involved in this agreement objecting when a subject widely and reliably described as a liberal is similarly designated in Wikipedia as being "widely considered a liberal". Badmintonhist (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No sir, the question and the responses were specifically about Bill O'Reilly. Discussion elsewhere isn't contingent upon agreement here about this issue, and vice versa. That being said, you're welcome to open discussions on other talk pages as appropriate, but we're not going turn this into a false dichotomy or tu quoque generalization. To be clear, I'm not objecting to your specific underlying point (which undoubtedly is an attempt to broaden this consensus to a content dispute over Keith Olbermann -- that discussion should occur at Talk:Keith Olbermann), I'm objecting to the attempt at over-generalizing the specific responses here. Regarding the content, I removed the excessive appositive "instead" to simplify the language. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support happy2me's compromise version. Yes, it might be accurate or acceptable to describe him as widely believed to be conservative but in the end we should not be very interested in labels, we should instead let the facts speak for themselves. "Many of his views lean towards the right" is sufficient to get the point across. Mangojuice^talk 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be some mention of conservatism in the lead if we're going to characterize his politics at all. "Traditionalist" is not widely understood to mean rightward politics, and O'Reilly specifically denies that he is conservative. The fact that so many reliable sources describe him as conservative is relevant. We should still put his self-description first. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Registered Republican

The source used to state that O'Reilly was a registered republican is Media Matters for America, which is a liberal media watchdog group. Since it is a partisan, it cannot be used to prove a fact. My advice is to either remove it or rewrite it to make it look like an opinion. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a New York Daily News reporter who broke it: "A reporter at the New York Daily News revealed that O'Reilly, despite claims of being an Independent, was a registered Republican. O'Reilly insisted this was a "clerical error" -- until the actual registration form surfaced, showing O'Reilly's signature and his check-mark in the box beside republican".[1] There are reports in reliable sources, e.g. see [2]. I will source it properly. Fences and windows (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that, his statement regarding the source "cannot be used to prove a fact" is equally baseless. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do not believe it is written accurately.

On December 6, 2000, the Daily News of New York reported, however, that he had been registered with the Republican Party in the state of New York since 1994. When questioned, he said that there had been "no box to fill in" to register as an Independent. When the form was disclosed, it was discovered that there was a box entitled "I do not wish to enroll in party." O'Reilly said that he was not aware of it and subsequently registered as an independent.

I was trying to rewrite it to make it correct, but it has been repeatedly reverted. The Daily News states: "a search of voter registration rolls in Nassau County, where he lives, shows he has been a registered Republican since 1994 - something he insists he was not aware of until The News asked. Clearly rattled, he called the Nassau County of Board of Elections on Monday to change his registration to what he contends it should have been all along: "I am now officially an independent." [3]

According to the interview O'Reilly registered as an independent after he was confronted about it by the Daily News. The way it is now, it looks like he registered as an independent after his registration form was released. Also O'Reilly did not tell the Daily News that there had been "no box to fill in" to register as an Independent, he said that on his radio show: "But I traced it back. And then I learned about a month later that at the time I registered there was no independent registry in Nassau County, that there was no box to fill in." [4] Of course his registration form had a similar box.

I believe it should be written like this:

On December 6, 2000, The Daily News of New York reported, however, that he had been registered with the Republican Party in the state of New York since 1994. When questioned about this, he said that he was not aware of it and says he registered as an independent after the interview. During a broadcast of The Radio Factor, O'Reilly claimed that there was no option to register as an independent voter. However, when his registration form was disclosed, it was discovered that there was a box entitled "I do not wish to enroll in party".

Showtime2009 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reads like a BLP violation. Point seems to be to try and prove the BOR lied about his registration. Material purely used to denigrate an individual is a violation of WP:BLP. Arzel (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Then do you have a suggestion? Because the way it is written now is incorrect. Showtime2009 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of response from Arzel beyond his standard "BLP violation", I think your version is fair and accurate (other than changing "claimed" to "stated"). I think it's okay for you to insert inline citations and place your version in the article, Showtime2009. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The information is reliable, verifiable, and informative. Regardless of whether or not people feel it reflects poorly upon him as a person, it is true, and it is useful to article readers attempting to understand the American political landscape, and Bill O'Reilly in particular.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep conservative in the lead. The sentence as it reads now seems cumbersome. Few people share precisely the same political views but in American political thought people are generally characterized as conservative or liberal. Normally I don't hear people parse their words when referring to someone's conversativism or liberalism as no reasonable person would expect that any one person would have to agree with every other person in that label. Using :While O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative he prefers the term "traditionalist." Conveys the same message to me. Ngaskill (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment case

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

No mention of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.160.156 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

:No kidding, when/why did this get removed? It's quite verifiable, quite significant, and has been the subject of a lot of discussion (and subsequent consensus on presentation). Someone should probably fix that... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like it's discussed rather extensively in the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should bring this here since space provided for edit summaries is limited. I also have a problem with the word "reportedly". It means "according to report" but the source provided basically concedes that it is speculating about the amount of the settlement and uses the term "likely" (in the millions). We should probably use that term as well. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Croctotheface is right in his edit summary point that "likely" is not really being an improvement (even though the cited source uses it) but wrong in restoring "reportedly". It's really better to leave it as "an undisclosed amount". The source that the "reportedly" is based on basically admits that it is guessing. Not only is the amount undisclosed by the parties to the dispute, but it also isn't truly "reported" by the source cited by Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be presented as the source does -- "reportedly in the millions" is fine, as long as it's attributed. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Language fixed & presented almost verbatim from source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

`

Agreed. Some of the best wording you've done on Wikipedia, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't think that I would have to return to this section but one never know. Croctotheface's modification says that Makris had earlier rejected an offer of well over two million. That may be both a fairly reasonable inference and true, but it's not what the source says. The source simply says that negotiation broke down. The negotiation might have broken down, for example, over the issue of an apology demand rather than money. We don't know from the source. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, unless there is another source that explicitly states why negotiations "broke down", we can't state the reason. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I read in a different source that quoted someone saying that Mackris considered $2M "too low." The better form, honestly, is not to predicate the amount on the prior negotiations, considering there are plenty of sources that don't include that kind of "since" clause to purportedly explain where the dollar figure came from. If you like, you can look through the hundreds of sources and find another if you don't like the one I added or somehow regard the "since" clause as necessary. Croctotheface (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"Mackris reportedly had turned down an offer of $2 million before she filed her lawsuit." Croctotheface (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're a hard man (I'm assuming) to please, Croctotheface. But, yes, the copy reads fine to me, now. Let's be done with it. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Subsection title

While I appreciate Blax's contributions in wording the result of Mackris's lawsuit (above) and his agreement in keeping falafels and loofahs out of this article (below), I can't go along with him on the title of the subsection, Sexual harassment incident. The mere fact that it is almost identical to the subtitle used in the talk page means little. In Wikipedia there are all sorts of talk page subtitles that should never be used in the article itself. The particular subsection title in question, I think we can agree, is a pretty clear example of begging the question. O'Reilly never admitted to sexually harassing Makris and the issue was never adjudicated in court. I think The Mackris lawsuit would be better and I might even accept The sexual harassment lawsuit but not The sexual harassment incident. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT put in a section subheader!!!! It was a controversy surrounding O'Reilly -- one of many -- and that's it, nothing more. It was settled. It did not have a lasting impact on his career. So for the sake of retaining due weight and staying neutral, it is best (believe me) not to include a subheader. It is only elevating the prominence of the story, which is neither neutral or appropriate in terms of undue weight. Happyme22 (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point there, Happyme22. Standard outline form requires at least two items under a heading, so unless more were added it wouldn't meet that requirement. On the other hand, adding more is rather redundant since there are already a separate articles for both the Mackris lawsuit and for O'Reilly controversies. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

On top that, the controversy/critisicm/pardoy section is already tagged with a {{criticism}} template, which strongly recommends editors move whatever is in there and disperse of it throughout the article according to WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV; this is not uncommon and has been done with numerous articles. Adding yet another section header underneath one which should be removed means that both should be removed because neither adheres to NPOV or especially WEIGHT. It would be pretty easy to restructure this article because, unfortunately, there is not much written in it. I'm willing to take a whack at it. Happyme22 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Falafel

The discussion of the suit is certainly appropriate. A closer question is whether to include the "falafel" reference. It's explained in an article in the New Yorker:

Olbermann has repeatedly conferred on O’Reilly the top place in a “Worst Person in the World” competition, and, probably more to the point, when discussing O’Reilly he often finds ways to work in the word “falafel.” That is a reference to a sexual-harassment suit that a former Fox News producer named Andrea Mackris filed against O’Reilly a couple of years ago. (The case was settled out of court, but not before it got extensive press attention.) Mackris produced what she said were quotes of O’Reilly on the phone discussing things that he imagined they might enjoy doing together. The most notorious of these was a scenario in which they would be in the shower and he would massage her with a loofah, a scrubby sponge—but then, as he went on talking, he slipped up and referred to it as “the falafel thing,” which is funny not only because the picture of smearing wet mashed chickpeas on someone’s body is profoundly unerotic but also because the mistake seems to be a peculiar by-product of O’Reilly’s suspicion of things non-American. That’s why, for O’Reilly, “falafel” is a fighting word.[5]

A Google search for [falafel "Bill O'Reilly"] gets more than 18,000 hits. Someone might come to this article wondering why "falafel" is associated with O'Reilly. JamesMLane t c 07:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not important, or as important as "Bathtub Boy" is to Olbermann which has 18,000+ google hits as well and is also fighting words for KO. Arzel (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, "Bathtub Boy" is one right-wing broadcaster's nickname for Olbermann. It doesn't arise from anything the bio subject said, whereas "falafel" does so arise. Also, the numbers are different. For the search [Olbermann "Bathtub Boy"] I get only 3,260 hits. JamesMLane t c 16:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

18,100 hit. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&ei=iSgHSt_1C5uwMcTZ0aID&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=olbermann+bathtub+boy&spell=1 Arzel (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing how some editors try to turn every issue to some sort of O'Reilly-Olbermann comparison. WP:BATTLE anyone? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It is amazing how some editors fail to see the forest for the trees. The whole Falafel issue is KO specific. It is not my fault that KO chooses to focus on a shower specific loofah in order to try and enrage BOR while at the same time go to such lengths as getting NBC/GE to use copywrite issues to pull the origin of the whole Bathtub Boy issue. Hey Pot, Kettle is waving at you from across the room. Arzel (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, your search is flawed. You didn't put the phrase "bathtub boy" in quotation marks. Therefore, your result gets pumped up to 18,000 by includings hits that use the words "bathtub" and "boy" in completely separate contexts. For example, one of your hits is this page summarizing blogs about Air America Radio. One passage reads, "Ann Coulter's slipping her emaciated frame into the gilded bathtub of her NY penthouse with an 18-carat gold razor blade in her bony hand." A different post says of Rachel Maddow "(she appears regularly on my former addiction, Keith Olbermann). And Bill Wolff is GREAT on the air! Love his bad boy eyes...." So we have an Olbermann fan who uses "boy", plus another liberal who disses Ann Coulter by using the word "bathtub". That doesn't constitute an instance of someone using the phrase "Bathtub Boy" to refer to Olbermann.

And, of course, your statement that the falafel issue is "KO specific" is false. It's O'Reilly specific. It was O'Reilly himself who used the word in an improper phone call that he then had thrown back in his face in court. It's not something Olbermann made up. Are you suggesting that, if Olbermann had never mentioned it, all other liberals would have studiously ignored it, forgoing this wonderful nugget out of sensitivity to O'Reilly's feelings? I assure you, on behalf of liberals throughout the country, that we don't have that much self-restraint. JamesMLane t c 08:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

JUST CURIOUS. What the hell are you folks actually debating here? Does it even have anything to do with a proposed edit to the article? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The current article text mentions the sexual-harassment lawsuit. One aspect of the evidence in that case -- O'Reilly's reference to "falafel" in one of his lurid phone calls to a female subordinate -- has been widely used to mock him. I raised the issue of whether our article should explain the reference, for the benefit of people who see "falafel" in material about O'Reilly and come to Wikipedia looking for an explanation of the connection. JamesMLane t c 03:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicely stated explanation. I would say that the degree of detail on the Mackris lawsuit is just about right . I notice that the article on Mackris, which is basically an article on the Mackris lawsuit, covers the affair in somewhat greater detail, including the loofahs and falafels. Someone seeking more detail could be directed to the Mackris link (see Andrea Mackris). The title of the Mackris article could even be changed to include O'Reilly's name as well, since it isn't really a bio of Mackris but a description of her relationship with, and subsequent lawsuit against, O'Reilly. However, I would advise against putting the falafel stuff in the main O'Reilly article. It would come across as undignified and gratuitous. I notice that the "blue dress" doesn't appear in the Wikipedia bio of President Clinton. It does appear, of course, in the specific article on the Clinton-Lewinsky Affair. I would take my cue from that example. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with that comparison is that a President of the United States has much more material competing for space in his bio than does a broadcaster. That's why the Bill Clinton article has multiple daughter articles. We don't have nearly that much information about O'Reilly. JamesMLane t c 18:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt for a moment, JamesMLane. Are you really trying to improve this article or are you trying to cleverly bust balls? Or, perhaps, you don't find the two to be mutually exclusive? Anyone using Google can discover the connection between O'Reilly and falafel in about twelve seconds, they don't need to read O'Reilly's Wikipedia biography for it. Without the blue dress President Clinton might not have been impeached. It is a far bigger cultural artifact in Clinton's career than are either loofahs, or falafels, or both combined, in O'Reilly's (a bigger relative stain on his career, so to speak). Nevertheless, I approve of the way it's handled in Wikipedia, because bringing up the dress in the Clinton bio would come across as gratuitous and mean-spirited, just as would bringing up falafels in O'Reilly's. It has to do with common sense, the spirit of fair play, balance (i.e. due weight), and a sense of decorum. Incidentally, there are presently at least a half dozen Wikipedia articles primarily concerned with O'Reilly. Cheers! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If the falafel detail is covered in detail elsewhere, I don't see any great benefit to detailing it here as well. A {{see also}} at the top of the appropriate section is sufficient. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A see also template with Andrea Mackris' name is lunacy and departs from WP:NPOV. According to WP:Layout: "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided they are not wikilinked in the text." But Andrea Mackris' name is wikilinked in the text -- in the first sentence no less! While I always attempt to assume good faith, this act, combined with the insistance of adding a subheader to isolate the sexual harrasment lawsuit (see my comments above on that one), tells me that something is just not right. I wonder if a few editors here are trying to elevate this story into something that it was not; I agree that it should be mentioned but it needs to be written with due weight. It did not change O'Reilly's career, it did not have lasting impacts on his marraige, personal issues, his TV show, etc. And every disagreement between O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann does not need to be written here, as well. Happyme22 (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to ambiguate

Please see Talk:Bill O'Reilly#Move to ambiguate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The debate was just closed with no consensus.[6] Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert re Westbury vs Levittown

I've reverted this edit. The wording seemed a bit snippy, and it would have changed a section marked with a request for talk page discussion prior to changes. I don't think this deserves more than, just perhaps, a footnote in this article; perhaps not even that. This is discussed a bit in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home and upbringing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

Without giving opinion of the overall appropriateness of inclusion anywhere, a sourced mention of it would belong in the overflow criticism article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There are attempt from various quarters to make hay

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

VERY notable, --137.144.145.25 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Study of spin

The external link titled Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor' has no value. If anything, it'd be fine as a reference (assuming that there's anything to use). The "study" claims that its a non-POV source. While the data may be notable, the quotes used in the article suggest bias. Removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.244.105 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An edit, when made in good faith and explained in detail, is not vandalism. 216.14.244.105 (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry man, but there are no better sources than studies performed by institutions of higher learning and published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Attempts to remove sources of this nature will be reverted on sight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The study claims that he's using "propaganda techniques" to "inject fear into his commentaries" and then goes on to compare Bill O'Reilly to Father Coughlin. It doesn't matter where it came from. That is a skewed point of view. Granted, it's from a university, but the only place it could be used as a reference is this article. So, why is it an external link on this page? 216.14.234.161 (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, are you denying that he uses propaganda techniques to inject fear? It's pretty clear to most people that he does; regardless of your opinion on the matter, in this case it's coming from a clearly reliable source. You can't exclude inclusion because you don't like the conclusions... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is not why I'm opting for its removal. Just because you like the conclusions doesn't mean you can include information. The study happens to be one of the first things on his criticism page! The external link section is for directly relative websites and more information, not studies that couple broad generalities and opinions with facts to sell their point of view. If you want to include it that badly, remove it from external links and use it as a reference for the "Controversy, criticism and parody" section. 216.14.250.63 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So to be clear, you're moving from "a skewed point of view" to "it should be used elsewhere" ? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Despite being biased against Bill O'Reilly (in my humble opinion), the study would be perfectly fine in Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). That's why it's there. That's why we have that article. I just don't believe that we should have it in the external links section of an article that isn't devoted to criticism. It simply doesn't belong there. 216.14.250.63 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the external link policy, we should definitely integrate the content as a reliable source as opposed to a context-less external link. However, please keep in mind that the criticism article is not a POV fork, but rather an overflow article for large amounts of content. Wikipedia operates utilizing summary style, in which the broad strokes from the child article are summarized in the main article. Given that there the criticism of O'Reilly's (alleged) bias is both numerous and widespread, a source of this quality (academic, published a peer-reviewed journal), I'd say it's a welcome source wherever the topic is covered. Regarding your insistence that the study is unacceptable: bias is introduced by deficiencies in methodology, not by disagreeing with its conclusions. Can you provide any reason for what flaws exist that you believe make it biased, or is this based solely upon the fact that it is critical of O'Reilly? Are there any peer reviews critical of the study? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You asked for evidence of bias and here are the most notable quotes:

-Paragraph 4: "...often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."

-Paragraph 9: "...was that he was prone to inject fear into his commentaries and quick to resort to name-calling"

-Paragraph 12: "...O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."

-Paragraph 13: "Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero..."

Propaganda is a hot-button word, and it's obvious that the researchers know that. The study may have been produced without involvment from any special-interest group, as they claim, but there is no accounting for personal prejudice and bias. In addtion to that, they claim in line three of paragraph thirteen that he "never" featured illegal aliens and foreigners in the role of victim or hero. This comes directly after a quote where O'Reilly called Mexican workers "good people". Before you argue that being a good person doesn't necessarily mean you're a hero, Blaxthos, you should understand that it's a matter of opinion. And, because the tone and words of the entire article are critical (facts and opinions alike), I am inclined to believe that, yes, the study is biased.

As far as usability, the study would be perfect as a source for Controversy, criticism and parody, but just not as an external link. I mentioned this earlier. 216.14.250.26 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Informational sections were counted as paragraphs in the interest of readability.

Sorry, but I think you're still missing my point, so let me be a little more clear -- in the scientific/academic world, bias is introduced by problems with methodology -- qualitative analysis, coding instruments, statistical regression, etc. You've demonstrated no such deficiencies, nor have you given any evidence of critical reviews by other scientists or academics. Your opposition is focused solely upon the conclusions of the paper and the terminology used therein, and has no value in terms of the actual quality of the paper -- even if you don't like the conclusions, you've given no evidence as to why it's invalid. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It should not be an external link per WP:EL. It also would be undue weight since there is no way opportunity to balance the link with a response from BOR. It is already well covered in the overflow article, but we could include a couple of sentences in the main article with a regular reference and remove the EL. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, no one is contending that it should be a context-less link; I agreed with as much early into this discussion. I'm challenging the editor's continual assertion that a peer-reviewed published study is unacceptable because it's critical of O'Reilly. That being said, I think you sorely misunderstand WP:NPOV if you're asserting that peer-reviewed studies are excluded unless Bill O'Reilly's "response" is also included. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not questioning the study as a non-reliable source. Per WP guidelines it certainly qualifies. You are correct, this type of research is unquestionable, as it is in a peer reviewed journal. I only question the weight given per an EL and the EL guidelines which we follow, as it is very much a one point of view, hence the NPOV issue that I have. I suggest that it be incorporated into the section and the EL be removed. If incorporated we can then state BOR repsonse to the study and provide a balanced and neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, my earliest comments may have made it seem like I wanted to remove the external link because of its (alleged) bias. In actuality, it was because of undue weight concerns. As Arzel mentioned, we can't offer O'Reilly's response. In addition, I never claimed that the study was unacceptable. I have repeatedly said that my reasons for wanting its removal (as an EL) have nothing to do with being critical of Bill O'Reilly. I completely support using it as a reference. Just what exactly are you arguing here? If you have no better argument than "you just don't like it because it's critical of O'Reilly", let's finish this pointless discussion, remove it as an EL, and find a better place to use it. 216.47.54.70 (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Mamledy

Why no mention of the Malmedy scandal and attempted coverup? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 21:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have waged campaigns to either excise it or obfuscate the significance of the incident over the years. If it's not here, it's probably been moved to the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments re George Tiller

I am repeatedly having an entry deleted that contains a reference to an article fact checking O'Reilly's denial that he called murdered abortion Doctor George Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer" prior to his murder. O'Reilly denied doing this after the murder but I noted a political fact checking site which cited at least 24 occasions when O'Reilly did so. The reference is topical, follows on directly from a related section, is not a statement of opinion but of fact, and is verifiable. The section in question begins with other people's contributions which comment on the criticism of O'Reilly by some (not cited) commentators, then goes on to mention O'Reilly's denial of the alleged comments, and my contribution cites research that quotes the very statements O'Reilly denied making. The effect of removing my contribution leaves O'Reilly's denial as the last word, even though it is not the end of the story. I can see no valid reason for removing the contribution, other than that it is presumably being done by an O'Reilly supporter and amounts to censorship. Can anyone give me a valid reason why the contribution should be removed? I attach it below:

ORIGINAL ARTICLE --- Shortly following the 2009 murder of George Tiller, a controversial late-term abortion provider, some media commentators pointed to claims O'Reilly made in 2006 about Tiller as incitements to violence against the doctor. Tiller had been discussed in at least 28 episodes before his death, sometimes described as "Tiller the Baby Killer" due to his performing of late-term abortions. O'Reilly has denied ever using the name "Tiller the Baby Killer" to describe Dr. Tiller, claiming instead that he only reported others have done so..O'Reilly has denied ever using the name "Tiller the Baby Killer" to describe Dr. Tiller, claiming instead that he only reported others have done so.[39].

MY OFT DELETED ADDITION --- However, O'Reilly referred to Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" without attribution on at least twenty four occasions, and further stated "Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcomeara (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 June 2009

BOR did not claim, per your ref, to not have used the term. The only claim he made was that he reported what others had labeled him. What he is saying is that he did not start the tag. Your inclusion is Original Research to try and prove that he is a hypocrite. Right now the BOR edit is incorrect, and your second section serves no purpose. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

www.politifact.com is neither a notable or reliable source. — R² 16:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the passage to quote O'Reilly's exact words, and to include verbatim quotations from the other sources as well, because paraphrases and interpretations are usually more contentious. PolitiFact.com is published by the St. Petersburg Times and is a perfectly appropriate source. JamesMLane t c 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That I did not know, thanks. — R² 02:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The final two sentences are not a neutral presentation. For one, you use BOR as a self-reference about what other people are saying about him, and presenting it as something that other people are saying. Secondly, the attribution part is an attempt to prove BOR a hypocrite. WP is not a research paper. Arzel (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I plead guilty to presenting O'Reilly's side of the controversy by using O'Reilly's own words. The passage I wrote summarizes a criticism and then gives O'Reilly's response to that criticism. O'Reilly's characterization of his critics certainly can't be taken as guaranteed accurate, but it's his position, so it deserves to be reported in his bio. I don't understand your phrase "presenting it as something that other people are saying". I gave verbatim quotations and made clear which was from O'Reilly and which was from a critic. As to your second point, having quoted a criticism and a response, I gave a third-party assessment of the dispute from a mainstream media source. I will again plead guilty, this time to the charge of having done research. Some of us frequently do research to obtain information for articles. In fact, according to Wikipedia policy, this "helps prevent NPOV disagreements." JamesMLane t c 17:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See comment below, I don't see why, with little MSM coverage, this should get more than a line or two in Bill O'reilly's biography. I'd say it goes in the O'Reilly factor article for the most part. Soxwon (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not part of O'Reillys living bio. It either belongs in the O'Reilly Factor article, or at worst in "beliefs and public perception". Not in the part of his bio that should talk about what he does on the show. This does not describe the show, but rather criticizes what is said on the show. It needs a new section called O'Reilly Facotcontroversy to be included if that is appropriate (But that really seems far more appropriate for inclusion in the O'Reilly Factor WP article). Just my 2 cents. But it is definitely something that must be mentioned somewhere, just not here. And if you are going to include it in his Biography, you might as well try to tie it to his bio by using his own words, thus by attributing it to something he said, it has more relevance in his bio.Anhedonic (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2009 (CST)

BOR Controversy section

This article has been edited heavily as of late. In one of the edits the link to the controversy sub-article was removed. What is up with this? Arzel (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the template, which is right at the bottom of this article, covers it. So readers shouldn't have too much trouble locating it regardless. — R² 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section was a mess and per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CRITICISM, and {{Criticism}} should be divided up and the cited, relevant, material dispersed throughout the article in relevant sections. The controversy/criticism sub article's link was retained; it is now piped and at the bottom of the Factor section where the criticisms are discussed. Happyme22 (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't find the criticism article until checking the discussion page. Considering that there's a multi-million dollar industry dedicated to criticizing O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh, I feel like the criticism overflow article should indeed by an overflow article and not attached merely through a small, barely noticeable end template.65.78.29.171 (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, who the hell completely gutted all mention of controversy, especially the more notable (Mackris, etc.) events? I know we see a lot of O'Reilly cheerleaders stop by, but come on... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Happyme22 took most of the content and dispersed it throughout the article, citing WP:CRITICISM (an essay). Given the massive amount of criticism of and near-constant controversy surrounding O'Reilly, I'm not really sure this is the best approach. As a reader just mentioned, it's damn difficult to gain a realistic understanding from a reading in the current form... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism should be dispersed throughout the article, rather than lumped together in a criticism section. The community is currently in the process of purging all criticism sections because they are god awful. — Please comment R² 10:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there some policy documentation or official project overseeing this effort? Or is it a grassroots campaign based on an essay? Seems like making generic "all criticism is bad" generalizations ends up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The former section entitled "Controversy/criticism/parody" in this article was, alone, chalk-full of POV. Indeed, it was tagged with {{Criticism}} for nearly a year; that template states: "This article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole." And that is what I did.

In addition, following up on what Realist2 said above, multiple criticism articles across Wikipedia are being merged with public perception or public image articles; for example: Criticism of George W. Bush. An entire industry dedicated to criticizing BOR? I'm not sure about that, but I do know that there is no one in the world that was criticized more heavily than George W. Bush. And look what happened: the article was determined to be in violation of WP:NPOV because it only focused on one perception. So it was merged with Public image of George W. Bush.

On multiple articles across Wikipedia, the content of controversy/criticism sections is being interspersed throughout relevant sections in the article. It was done at Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, etc. I'm not saying that all criticism is bad, Blaxthos -- I don't know how one could assume that. I am instead following the suggested guidelines in that criticism that is bunched together and presentented in a non-neutral manner should be edited and placed in relevant sections throughout an article. Happyme22 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, though I think that logic kinda breaks down when you try to apply it to individuals who are in large part (or majority part) known for saying controversial things and drawing criticism. The concept is certainly applicable to people doing other jobs who just happen to draw criticism (politicians, for example), but somehow it seems to me that when one's success is largely tied to the controversy he generates then it becomes disingenuous to insist that said criticisms and controversies become deleted entirely or minimized and sprinkled throughout parts of the article so that you almost don't even notice them. I can certainly see circumstances where we've deleted or avoided mention of relevant and significant criticism or controversy because there isn't really an applicable section for it -- giving a section entirely to one event meets with cries of undue weight (and rightly so), so instead of adjusting to account for the circumstances mentioned above it just gets deleted entirely. This sort of self-serving logic results in an article that doesn't accurately reflect the subject.

Granted, I self-reverted immediately and am now interested in community input. Hopefully we'll have some thoughtful consideration without any strawmen stopping by.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing my point, Blax. But I think I should clarify a few points:

The point about supposed "deleting" of criticisms/controversies doesn't sit well with me. Nothing was deleted -- it was moved, in order to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and the recommended guidelines at WP:CRITICISM. Now the reason why Wikipedia articles are written are for people to read them. By interspersing criticism throughout, we are not hiding or minimizing it (which is what it also seems like you are thinking, Blax).

The point about a commentator making a career out of being controversial may work in certain cases, but it is also easy to point out double standards. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck.... they are all television commentators/pundits who are plenty controversial, and there aren't any controversy/criticism sections in their articles, rather the criticism is throughout in the appropriate section. If those equally controversial commentators do not have criticism sections and O'Reilly does, there would be a double standard.

I hope this cleared up any remaining misconceptions. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not call this one done quite yet.  :) First off, I wasn't just referring to your edits (or recent edits) with regards to deleting of material -- it's a pattern I've watched over the last 5 years. Two, I think you have a ways to go in convincing me that any of the people you listed are "equally controversial" -- I don't think Chris Matthews comes anywhere close; a quick glance at volume of sourcing would indicate that O'Reilly is more controversial than all of those by a factor of at least two... so let's not jump to the "all pundits are equal"... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be that BOR's higher ratings than Olbermann or Matthews make him a larger target, and thus more open to criticism. Rather than speculate on that fact, perhaps we should look for a qualified opinion on the matter? Soxwon (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Either way, that would only validate my point that Chris Matthews and O'Reilly are not "equals". Still, Chris Matthews is hardly known for stirring controversy (beyond rigorously debating with his guests). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Both sides of the Tiller discussion

O'Reilly's side of the Tiller discussion must be posted, not just left-leaning progressive blog references. (Or as O'Reilly refers to them, 'Left-wing loons').

Here is O'Reilly's column on the subject:

http://www.billoreilly.com/column?pid=26686

Either post the whole story or remove it.

Nit-picking how many times he said "Tiller the Baby Killer" is not relevant. 74.60.91.2 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the issue really hasn't been given time to properly shift into perspective. Really, I think this has had enough time to become and issue and it hasn't really lept into the mainstream. Most of the items from Google News are either considered more "liberal" (The Examiner, Daily Kos, MMFA) than the mainstream (NYT, WP, LA Times), are reports of the left's reactions, or are editorials in more mainstream outlets. Really, this side of the story hasn't really gotten the type of notable news coverage that would warrant a large portion of the article in my opinion. The best thing that can be done IMO, is to give it more time to develop. Yes it's been almost three weeks, but still, without a whole lot of mainstream media coverage (big outfits like ABC, NBC, NYT), this hasn't really gone anywhere. I really don't think this should be in his biography, maybe a sentence or two. The rest should go in his show. (Disclaimer: This does not suggest in anyway that liberalism is not "mainstream," it's simply stating that more neutral sourcing, and those organizations that are recognized as reporting in a neutral manner, make for better material). Soxwon (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To 74.60.91.2: We aren't going to post an entire O'Reilly column -- copyright would prevent us from doing so even if we wanted to, which we don't. I quoted what I saw as the relevant passage. I included a hyperlink to the full column (the very column you cite, in fact -- did you read the Wikipedia article before demanding that O'Reilly's side be posted?) If you think you can improve on the way I summarized O'Reilly's views, feel free to post a suggestion here. In response to Soxwon, we can't include everything O'Reilly has said on every controversial subject, but obviously Tiller was a major part of O'Reilly's broadcast work (given how often he returned to the theme), and the conjunction of those broadcasts with Tiller's murder make this subject more notable than most of O'Reilly's day-to-day conservatism.

The general idea of posting both sides, as suggested by 74.60.91.2's heading for this thread, is of course correct. That doesn't mean, however, that we get into both sides of the merits of every underlying dispute where O'Reilly wades in. That's what wikilinks are for. Characterizing Tiller as "performing late-term abortions on over 60,000 viable fetuses" may be true, although 74.60.91.2 added that assertion without troubling to provide a source. It would be equally true to say something like "performing late-term abortions that were legal under Kansas law, and were so adjudged when a proceeding against Tiller was dismissed." We could end up turning this article into a rehash of the entire debate over reproductive rights. We should, instead, simply say that Tiller was "a controversial late-term abortion provider". Readers who want to know more about the controversy can click on the link and read Tiller's bio. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

However, wouldn't that mean it would be more related to his show, not the person? Again, this is Bill O'reilly's biography, not the O'Reilly factor. And the link b/w the two hasn't received much MSM coverage, making it more fringe and therefore it doesn't warrant as much space. Soxwon (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No -- to quote (twice) the admin from whom you requested a third opinion, "the criticism about Tiller is aimed squarely at him, not the show." Let's try to consolidate discussion to one location. I'm sure we're all tired of going in circles.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to the BLP/N, concensus has been to keep it on the criticism page, and to a sensible length. Soxwon (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping aside, your statement is incorrect both by process and by practice. Consensus is formed here, not there, and your sidebar with otherwise-uninvolved editors doesn't trump the dozen-plus editors who disagree with you on the actual article talkpage(s). Indeed, several editors have stated outright that they believe you operate in bad faith, and true to form your leading post at BLPN doesn't even attempt to present the issue neutrally. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, the "forum-shopping" was at the suggestion of Gwen. As for the "dozens of editors," it seems just a s many support me, so you're really in no position to make such a statement. Soxwon (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The politicfact section is inappropriate. It serves only to try and prove that BOR really felt that way about Tiller when there was nothing in the section to believe that he didn't feel that way. It is also seems to be a WP:POINT issue. Simply report the particulars. BOR reported on Tiller some 28 times. BOR used terms like "Tiller the baby killer". BOR was criticized for using such terms which some believe incited violence and lead to Tiller's death. And BOR condemned the killing. Leave out the Drama and the sensilization. Arzel (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the PolitiFact link -- not an expression of opinion, but a secondary source reporting what's to be found in the transcripts -- counts as "Drama and sensilization". If we quote the criticism about O'Reilly's use of the term "baby killer", which you agree is worthwhile, then, to be fair to O'Reilly, we should quote his defense. His defense raises the issue of the nature of his use of the term, i.e., whether he was expressing his own opinion or reporting what others had said. He's put that point in play, so we can reasonably quote a newspaper source that presents the facts. JamesMLane t c 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually very much confused as to why we having this discussion. Has any credible evidence come up saying that man who shot and killed Tiller was influenced by Bill O'Reilly calling him Tiller the Baby Killer? I've searched the web and haven't found anything. Left-wing blogs and progressive Media Matters says that it may influence people like the shooter to go out and kill abortion doctors, but that is all based on spectulation, not facts; what goes in Wikipedia should be based on facts (and left-wing blogs and Media Matters are not reliable sources). The bottom line is that there isn't been any credible evidence saying that the shooter was directly influenced by O'Reilly or that O'Reilly is to blame for Tiller's death. Happyme22 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, implicating BOR based on media speculation is a huge BLP vio in my opinion. — R² 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a body of opinion that characterizes O'Reilly's conduct as irresponsible, regardless of whether there is a direct causal link between his commentary and the murder. In fact, there were people calling him irresponsible before the murder. We certainly shouldn't adopt that opinion as fact but by attributing it to a named source we're reporting facts. We report facts about opinions even if some Wikipedians disagree with those opinions. If O'Reilly or a prominent defender of his argues that O'Reilly's comments were innocuous because they didn't influence Roeder, then we can report the facts about that opinion as well. JamesMLane t c 00:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So what. WP is not a research paper to be used to prove a point, this is really nothing more than guilt by association. In any case, your argument does not provide a reason why the politifact informtion is relevant, if anything it proves that it is not since that "fact" is completely irrelevant to whether BOR had any influence in Tiller's death. Do you seriously think that had BOR attributed his comments every single time that Tiller would not have been murdered by some psycho? Arzel (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the forest for all the trees. Finding sources "saying that man who shot and killed Tiller was influenced by Bill O'Reilly" is absolutely irrelevant. The critics suggest that Bill O'Reilly's repeated use of hateful/incendiary/murderous language while specifically targeting a doctor by publishing pictures of him, his office & home, and his address creates an atmosphere conducive to violent acts. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant as well (and likely unknowable), but the fact that the criticism exist and is attributed to multiple reliable sources is significance enough. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to understand more. How about this:

In 2006, O'Reilly reported on George Tiller, a controversial late-term abortion doctor, saying that he was "executing babies about to be born" and was guilty of "Nazi stuff." Tiller was murdered in May 2009 and many pointed to O'Reilly's comments as having been irresponsible. Jay Bookman in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that O'Reilly "clearly went well overboard in his condemnation and demonization" of Tiller, but "it's irresponsible to link O’Reilly" to Tiller's murder.

It's short, sweet, and to the point while capturing everything said above. And it doesn't delve into extraneous details in violation of undue weight. --Happyme22 (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One, we have to drop the contested "late-term abortion doctor" verbiage -- those are clearly loaded words. Two, I'm concerned that we give only nine words to the actual criticism, and even then we don't really enunciate the meat of the thing -- the critics suggest that Bill O'Reilly's repeated use of hateful/incendiary/murderous language while specifically targeting a doctor by publishing pictures of him, his office & home, and his address creates an atmosphere conducive to violent acts -- but we seem to go out of the way to say "it ain't so". Just my $0.02; please don't let me stand it the way of progress.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the basic Wikipedia bio of O'Reilly and not the "Criticisms" article, short and sweet is good. The only objection I have to Happyme's formulation is that O'Reilly didn't just criticize Tiller in 2006 but on programs extending over several years through 2009. Both the Washington Post and ABC News describe Tiller's practice as one of providing controversial late-term abortions. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's call it what it is: he was a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions; see [7][8][9]. All of the "hateful/incendiary/murderous language specifically targeting a doctor by publishing pictures of him, his office & home, and his address creates an atmosphere conducive to violent acts" would not belong in the article per WP:WEIGHT (and not mention because it is not neutral in the slightest). We as editors have to judge when we feel one aspect of an entry steps over the line and becomes too weighted in favor of one side's argument. By adding that O'Reilly used "hateful/incendiary/murderous language specifically targeting a doctor by publishing pictures of him, his office & home, and his address creates an atmosphere conducive to violent acts", we are adding something too balanced in one side's favor (in additon, I don't think I've ever heard more weasely, loaded words as 'hateful' and 'murderous' in this context). By using two quick phrases that all parties can agree to, we eliminate that problem. My goal is not to draw this out and make it the centerpiece of the Factor section in the article, because that too would be a violation of undue weight when comparing it to the rest of the section. How about this:

Beginning in 2006, O'Reilly began reporting on George Tiller, a controversial late-term abortion doctor, saying that he was "executing babies about to be born" and was guilty of "Nazi stuff." Tiller was murdered in May 2009 and many pointed to O'Reilly's comments as having been irresponsible. Jay Bookman in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that O'Reilly "clearly went well overboard in his condemnation and demonization" of Tiller, but "it's irresponsible to link O’Reilly" to Tiller's murder.

We're going to have to agree sooner or later if we want the article unblocked. --Happyme22 (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the verbiage "late term abortion", why not stick to "thirdsecond trimester"? The classification as "late-term abortion" is using spin-laced language (originally invented by opponents of all abortion). I'd recommend sticking with the Roe-Wade "thirdsecond trimester" abortion -- you're not going to convince me that using loaded language invented and championed by one side is a "neutral presentation". With regards to the rest, I'm sorry that I gave the wrong impression using quotation marks -- the quoted phrase wasn't intended to be a suggestion for verbatim inclusion in the article. They're quoted because I wanted to give a clear, succinct statement of the meat of the actual criticism, which has previously been misunderstood or misrepresented as "linking O'Reilly to Tiller's murder" (a far cry from what the critics actually allege). If the text should be included (and it should, IMHO) then you are bound to give an accurate representation of the criticism as well as the response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The defense of O'Reilly by Bookman can be considered for inclusion, but I think it's outranked by O'Reilly's own response to the criticism. What's the rationale for not quoting what he says in his own defense? The current wording is better in terms of presenting both sides fairly. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- I'm all for using O'Reilly's reply vs. a third-party regurgitation. My problem is with the fundamental minimization of the criticism by simply saying the critics called him "irresponsible" and then cherry-picking phrases, instead of accurately reflecting both the criticism AND his response. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of the reliable sources used "late-term" for a good reason. An abortion at five and a half months is not a third trimester abortion, but as abortions go it's still pretty damned late. I could be wrong, but I doubt that the majority of Tiller's abortions were done after six months which is extremely late, but they were done far later in the gestation period than is typical. On another concern here let's not pretend that Jay Bookman is simply defending O'Reilly in the quote that Happyme cites. Bookman is also criticizing O'Reilly. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Badmintonhist. Late-term is generally defined as when the fetus is first regarded as viable. This can range from the 22 to the 27 week, which is the late 2nd trimester or the very early third trimester. Arzel (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, corrected -- "second term". I find it amazing how quickly you guys want to turn this into a discussion about actual abortions, and the desire to judge the term as used "for a good reason" is only more indication that the attempt is to control the language to appeal to a certain point of view. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Ha, right after that post I found this on the front page of Newsweek. To be fair, I'll contend that the right obviously won control of the language debate, but I don't think an encyclopedia should choose emotional language over scientific. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are the only one who appears to have an emotional connection to the verbage. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with the medical community. Arzel (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the "medical community" doesn't use "late term abortion". Not sure if you're old enough to know this, but that phrase was coined in the late 1980's and early 1990's by activist groups on the political right who oppose abortion. Its usage has progressively become more common in the mainstream media (the right has always been good at controlling the language of debate), but don't kid yourself by thinking it's neutral, clinical, or scientific and don't pretend like it has anything to do with the "medical community". WP:NPOV is pretty clear about presenting material in the most neutral and clinical manner possible. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I originally favored something like "late-term abortion", but Blaxthos has convinced me. Choosing whether to say "late-term" or "second trimester" or "third trimester" or "nth week" is just getting into the whole abortion debate (like referring to fetal viability or the legality of Tiller's work). Why don't we just say he was controversial? I haven't looked at the Tiller bio article but these issues should be referenced there, just a wikilink away. They're really tangential to the O'Reilly bio. JamesMLane t c 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The reader should be given a clue as to why Tiller was controversial, James. It really doesn't matter much whether we use "late-term abortions" or "second and third trimester abortions". Notice, however, that there is a separate Wikipedia article on late-term abortion and that this article does not treat the subject as a political term. There is no separate article on either second or third trimester abortion. The Wikipedia article on Tiller also uses "late-term abortion". Another small advantage in using "late-term" is that early second term abortions are performed well before fetal viability, which make them less controversial. Late-term is generally thought to be after the 21st week. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I openly concede that the language war has been dominated by those who prefer the "late term abortion" language, and I'll agree that its usage is now commonplace in some sources. I'll also grant that it may be all but moot, insofar as Wikipedia has an article with that very title. However, I still believe that it is a term borne from an emotional appeal to a certain viewpoint, and cannot be considered neutral, clinical, or scientific. This is made abundantly clear by the lack of consensus on the specific meaning of the term. WP:NPOV should be a guiding factor in neutrally presenting the world's body of knowledge, and I can't think of any circumstance where choosing an ambiguous description appealing to a certain viewpoint is preferable over a clinical, factual presentation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, it makes little difference (to me) whether "late-term abortions" or "second and third trimester abortions" is used. However, I think that something should be used that describes the relatively late stage of pregnancy at which Tiller performed abortions. Simply saying that Tiller was controversial is inadequate. Actually, we don't even need to say he was controversial, and perhaps shouldn't, since that assessment is rather subjective. As a side note, I'm not aware of the derivation of "late-term abortion". However, it is not uncommon for terms that were originally propagandistic to acquire relatively neutral, denotative meanings. We don't usually say "FDR's domestic program", we say the "New Deal". Badmintonhist (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, though I don't think the two concepts (new deal vs. 2nd trimester abortions) are completely analogous. I don't mean to give the impression I'm just trying to say "Tiller was controversial". I'm okay with something like "Tiller, who had been targeted as a doctor who was willing to perform second trimester abortions..." I wasn't trying to skirt the detail.  ;-) And yes, I recognize that this is an ultra-nit-picky discussion over minutia; it wasn't my intent for it to become such. Heh. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if we can wrap this up. I would suggest saving the back and forth between O'Reilly and his critics for the Criticism article. How's something like this?

Beginning in 2006, O'Reilly periodically reported on George Tiller, a Kansas-based doctor who specialized in second and third trimester abortions [sources], stating that Tiller was "executing babies about to be born" and was guilty of "Nazi stuff" [sources]. When Tiller was murdered on May 31, 2009 some pointed to O'Reilly's comments as a contributing factor [sources]. Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that O'Reilly "clearly went well overboard in his condemnation and demonization" of Tiller but added that it was "irresponsible to link O'Reilly" to Tiller's murder [source].

Badmintonhist (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That brings us back to the fundamental misunderstanding of the actual criticism. Your proposed text gives plenty of voice to the "criticism is invalid" view, but you don't even accurately state what the criticism specifically is. The critics allege two things: O'Reilly helped create an atmosphere conducive to violence with his statements; and that he basically painted a target on Tiller's back. If you're going to bend over backwards stating that the criticism is "irresponsible" then you should very well accurately list the criticism. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what, Blax. Why don't you come up with a proposed formulation and we'll take it from there. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly we shouldn't say that O'Reilly "reported on" Tiller, and then summarize O'Reilly's smears. This gives an improper tinge of objective journalism to his demagoguery. One of the most notable aspects of the criticism, and one that O'Reilly singled out for his response, was the frequent reiteration of the term "Tiller the baby killer"; that's why, when I came up with a proposed formulation, I quoted that point and quoted O'Reilly's response. (When we're giving the verbatim quotation, we can of course include the contention that O'Reilly merely "reported" something, because that's the word he himself used in a statement that we attribute to him. We just shouldn't adopt it.) JamesMLane t c 17:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well, how about:

Beginning in 2006, O'Reilly periodically singled out George Tiller, a Kansas-based doctor who specialized in second and third trimester abortions [sources], calling him "Tiller the baby killer" dozens of times. Tiller was murdered on May 31, 2009, allegedly by anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder. Many critics, such as foo, have criticized O'Reilly for helping to create an atmosphere conducive to violence using anti-abortion rhetoric, and focusing that sentiment onto Dr. Tiller by repeatedly broadcasting pictures of him, his home, and his office. Jay Bookman in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that O'Reilly "clearly went well overboard in his condemnation and demonization" of Tiller but added that it was "irresponsible to link O'Reilly" to Tiller's murder. O'Reilly has responded to criticism by firmly stating "No backpedaling," and that "Everything we said about Tiller was true."

Of course, I'm sure that there will be someone to poke holes in this, but it's only meant as a starting point. Also, I only looked at the first few sources I could find regarding O'Reilly's response(s), so that could probably be expanded. Also, I didn't even bother tossing in conservative anti-abortion activist Frank Schaeffer's criticism. There's plenty of sources for each of the tags out there, please feel free to help fill them in. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For James's benefit, one man's "smears" and "demagoguery" are another man's "speaking truth to power". As for Blax's proposal it's actually somewhat better than I thought it would be. "Singled out" has a "picked on" connotation. I would change it to "periodically criticized" or, to make it stronger, "periodically denounced". I would change "calling him", which is often used in a "face to face" setting, to "referring to him". "Dozens of times" kind of falls between two stools. It's too vague if you're trying to be specific, and too specific if you're trying to be vague. How's simply "often referring to him as 'Tiller the baby killer'? "Focusing that sentiment onto Dr. Tiller" is rather awkward. I'll have more later. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it's just a starting point. Regarding the "better than [you] thought it would be", I can only say that your belief that I am some flaming "liberal" just because I don't let POV warriors run roughshod over Wikipedia is mistaken.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How's this?

Beginning in 2006, O'Reilly periodically denounced George Tiller, a Kansas-based physician who specialized in second and third trimester abortions [sources], often referring to him as "Tiller the baby killer" [sources]. Doctor Tiller was murdered on May 31, 2009, allegedly by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion fellow traveler [sources]. Critics such as Foo asserted that by his rhetoric and repeated display of Tiller's image, and those of Tiller's office and home, O'Reilly helped to create an atmosphere of violence around the doctor [sources]. Jay Bookman ... Badmintonhist (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good compromise. I'm not exactly sure what an anti-abortion fellow traveler is, but I'm sure others do.  ;) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll support that, with one caveat: add O'Reilly's own defense after Jay Bookman's piece. As James M. Lane said above, there is no greater defense than one's own statements regarding the matter. Since material about the images of Tiller's house and the Tiller the Baby Killer stuff was added, I think it is only fair to O'Reilly to add in his own defense. It can be the following which Blaxthos included in his proposal: "O'Reilly has responded to criticism by firmly stating "No backpedaling," and that "Everything we said about Tiller was true." --Happyme22 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm pretty sure Badmintonhist intended for his text to mirror the rest of mine from the point of the ellipses to the end, including O'Reilly's response. At least, that's how I read it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, Blax. I used the term "anti-abortion fellow-traveler" for Roeder rather than "activist" because I think that term more accurately describes him. He was more of a sympathizer and hanger-on than he was an activist. However, I'll admit that a number of sources describe him as an activist, rather facilely in my view. Either way it's no big deal. I would appreciate it if Happyme, or Blax, or someone else better at it than me could do the sourcing. I would only come up with bare URL's. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Before doing that, however, someone on this page must contact the admin who protected the article and request unprotection. As an admin, I would do it myself but some admins don't like other admins reversing their actions. Happyme22 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The protection is going to expire in less than 24 hours anyway, just letting you guys know. — Please comment R² 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Fellow traveler" strikes me as just silly in this context. Roeder was clearly an activist in that he was someone who took action, going beyond merely holding an opinion. As for O'Reilly's response, I don't think that "No backpedaling" has much substance. I still think that we should focus on the point he himself focused on -- we should quote his response to the "Tiller the baby killer" issue and we should present the data from PolitiFact. (In fact, to the extent O'Reilly responded that he had merely been reporting the "Tiller the baby killer" phrase, he was backpedaling.) JamesMLane t c 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously at the point where he shot Tiller, Roeder became an "activist" of sorts, but this isn't the kind of thing that the word generally connotes. Roeder apparently wasn't a lieutenant or even a regular foot soldier in the movement. Since the article is not about Roeder there is no great need to meticulously define him. "Anti-abortion zealot" or "fanatic" would do fine and there are probably sources for those descriptions. I would recommend against going beyond the basics here on either the criticisms of O'Reilly or his responses. There is already a "sister" article for that, one of at least six articles in Wikipedia primarily concerned with O'Reilly. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On the point about "Tiller the Baby Killer," it is already going in the article as a derogatory moniker O'Reilly refered to Tiller as. The consensus has agreed upon a version that doesn't draw out the issue to the point of placing undue weight on it, and I think that by adding in PolitiFact and elaborating on the name-calling, it does just that. That O'Reilly's comments were "demagoguery" is your own opinion, James. I think both sides are represented well in the consensus version and adding what James is proposing will tip the balance. Happyme22 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick thing, how about "radical" for traveler, as that seems to fit the bill. Soxwon (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to find critics of O'Reilly who specifically bring up his displays of Tiller's picture or pictures of Tiller's home or office. Since Blaxthos is the one who first put that into the proposal, perhaps he can help us out here. Otherwise we'll just have to go with O'Reilly's anti-Tiller rhetoric as the basis for the criticism. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edit removed the inline link to Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Probably best to restore it somewhere. Fences&Windows 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the link. Happyme22 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the page should be protected or locked

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

I disagree, Bill himself tell BS on his show, no wonder he is a target for vandalism. Unprotect this page!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsv (talk • contribs) 13:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Falafal / loofah

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

Merging content

I have started the merging of content from Criticism of Bill O'Reilly which should of course be included in the general article. I have left out some sections of the criticism article that I thought looked slightly weasly (e.g. the sections that used the word "alleged" repeatedly). I have added them as full subsections to the relevant sections. Most of them as subsections to the section on political views and public reception (the subsections all show O'reilly making a political point and the public reaction to that viewpoint) and the part about his upbringing controversy in the "early life" section. I think that all in all the additions makes the article much closer to a balanced picture of a controversial public figure.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that the sections on the Red Cross, and the Indiana University study, seems like a better fit for the O'Reilly Factor article. I feel more strongly about the IU study since it is explicitly about how he relays information on the program, and specifically the talking points memo. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets start by moving them to the Oreilly factor section and then see if there is a consensus to move them to the independent article on the show. Is that OK?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. I was just going on the record in both places since it seems like the discussion is going to get fractured over three or so articles. I was thinking about leaving the same note on the O'Reilly Factor article talk page as well. But that move is fine for now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FTR, I know it's early in the merge process and all, but I'd like to also point out that Tiller is now mentioned twice in the article. So I removed it from the beliefs section in the interim until a consensus is reached. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Advocating murder

Now if you want to start a debate over whether O'Reilly was right or wrong to do this -- in that case we could have a debate. But of course he did it -- that is a repetitively demonstrated fact.Paul (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the liberal equivalent of a birther. To claim one unbalanced individual's actions were solely caused by O'reilly is both unverifiable and laughable. Soxwon (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge of the Criticism page

It's been renamed, but nothing has been done with it, so it doesn't appear that there's much support for the alternative to the AfD decision. Unless someone actually plans to "fix" that other article, I intend to implement the AfD decision and merge some of the content from that article according to another editor's proposal, found here. SDY (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is the route we go, I'm in favor of including basically all the content in one form or another. It's going to end up that this article has much more information that's less flattering to O'Reilly, but that's probably a good thing on balance, since much (and probably something close to all) of his notability comes from his controversial nature. Croctotheface (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that more negativity is a good thing "on balance", because that simply doesn't make sense. Sure is O'Reilly is controversial, but we can't deliberately shift the balance of the article on account of him being a "controversial figure" -- that directly contradicts WP:NPOV. In any event, if merging much of the criticisms is the decided route, then go ahead; but expect what you add to the article to be edited further to achieve a true NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case, ending up with less flattering stuff is good on balance because this article is way out of balance. It completely fails to articulate how controversial he is. Croctotheface (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is way out of balance, however I believe that it is already leaning against O'Reilly in a non-NPOV way. For starters, it could use more biographical information and more information on the Factor itself.

But to get to what we have been discussing: including mass amounts of material supporting arguments that O'Reilly is an extremely controversial figure, in other words listing controversy after controversy, no matter how big or small, in this article is simply out of line and would not fly according to the core, non-negotiable policies of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Reporting on controversy after controversy in order to portray the man as controversial can be taken too far, and thus would violate a balance. After all, we can simply say that the man has generated both praise and controversy, then list a few people who have given him praise, and a few controversies and go into detail on the most prominent ones; that seems to be the most neutral way of solving this. Then they can be elaborated on further in the public image article. But all material on controversies needs to have both sides represented within it. Of course the main controversies need to be reported on, but the less important ones should be delegated to the public image subarticle or left out entirely.

In any event, put the material from the controversy article in, but keep the possibility alive that certain parts of it will be edited to adhere to the overall balance. As the note right below the editing screen says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I think that we are actually more in agreement than not, and our differences can be swiftly resolved. Happyme22 (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The public image article doesn't exist anymore. I agree that such material would be better handled in a separate article, but that doesn't look like the way things are going to be. Perhaps my comments make more sense in that light, as I am in no way advocating an indiscriminate collection of material, just what was already in our encyclopedia before that article became a redirect. As far as expanding the sections about his shows or personal life, by all means do that.

As far as your last paragraph there, I'm a veteran editor whose been here for over three years; there's no need to treat me with condescension. I made a comment here rather than just drop all the material in because inviting discussion seemed like a wise thing to do. Perhaps I was mistaken about that. Croctotheface (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

On the merits of "integrating criticism"

I know that a lot of editors believe (I think mistakenly) that any kind of "criticism" or "controversy" section is by definition an inferior way to present material and that "integrating it within the main article," whatever that means, is always better. The problem with that thinking is that it leads editors tto shoehorn material into places it really doesn't make sense for it to go. For instance, the Andrea Mackris lawsuit certainly bears upon O'Reilly's personal life, but it also bears on his professional life, as Mackris was an employee. It bears on his politics because it raises questions about his moralizing on issues related to sex. A more logical approach, by far, would be to treat this matter in a section devoted more exclusively to it, or to other controversies. It's much more in line with the way that a full-length biographical work would deal with it. Marvin Kitman's biography, for instance, includes a separate chapter on the lawsuit. Croctotheface (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think criticism sections lead to POV Forks, which is what happened and which is why the integration is taking place, We are just setting things up to repeat what we are trying to repair. Bytebear (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is not that it's always bad to "integrate," just that it's not always good, either. Often, "integration" means awkwardly shoehorning something in a place where it doesn't belong, which is what's happened here with the Mackris episode and perhaps with others as well. Croctotheface (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a well structured article will have a place for each aspect of the content. I think it's a cheap solution to just lump together a bullet list of unrelated issues without context, or relation to other aspects of the article. Bytebear (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing against a straw man, not what I've actually said. There is criticism or controversial material that can be integrated, but often it's not really integrated so much as awkwardly jammed into a section that doesn't really want it. That's what's happened here with the Mackris lawsuit. It's a mistake to think that the article is better because there is not a section called "criticism." In some cases, the article could be worse because material that doesn't lend itself to integration was "integrated." Croctotheface (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

YOu are essentially arguing that some things just don't fit. And I say that is not true, and that anything can be fit into a well formed article. I don't think I misrepresented your assertion. I just disagree with it. Bytebear (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

A separate section for criticism (and/or praise) is not the best idea, see WP:STRUCTURE. Please keep in mind the WP:BLP policy, particularly WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Well sourced, relevant and properly attributed criticism/praise should better be added in the relevant section. John Asfukzenski (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Speculated vs. Reported

Alright this is ridiculous, the amount was "undisclosed" so unless one or the other party officially comes out and confirms the amount it remains speculation on the part of the paper. Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not speculation if their source is someone who HAS seen the settlement documents or who is close enough to the negotiation to know the kind of terms that were on the table. We shouldn't use some form of the word "speculated" because that suggests that these major news organizations are just making shit up. They're not; they have sources who are being referenced on background precisely because the settlement is confidential. We don't need to say "reported," but we can't say "speculated" because that goes way too far in devaluing the accuracy of the information. Croctotheface (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A pretty sorry article

In its present form this bio is really, really bad; unbalanced and quite poorly written in spots. I'm starting off by changing the last sentence of the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving on, why are over two hundred words devoted to a tempest in a teapot over whether O'Reilly grew up in Levittown or possibly an adjacent development created by the same builder? Does this strike anyone as due weight? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that misrepresenting his upbringing for the purpose of assuming the mantle of working class hero is highly relevant to his biography. That criticism is not about zipcodes; it's about O'Reilly putting forth a false impression of himself to arrogate "down home" credibility. Croctotheface (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it's simply a few liberal partisans trying to score points off of O'Reilly. Soxwon (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Partisans trying to score points off of other people" is pretty much a description of O'Reilly's entire career. The assessment of the proper weight for controversies like this must take account of the context. The context here is that O'Reilly is notable as a controversialist. Things like this are more significant in his life than in the life of, say, a leading physicist. JamesMLane t c 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The "contoversy" was utter crap to start with. O'Reilly grew up in a Levitt built house in Levittown. It only stopped being part of Levittown when town districts were redrawn about the time that O'Reilly was turning fourteen. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem for editors pushing for detail on this is that O'Reilly's version seems to be pretty much correct. It's like someone born in the 1940's claiming to have grown up in India being called to task because he actually grew up in what became Pakistan. O'Reilly certainly didn't grow up on Park Avenue. I suppose an O'Reilly fan here could actually want the detail because it seems to vindicate him. Nevertheless, I think the whole thing is rather silly and most "outside" editors with no axes to grind either way would agree with me. Way too much weight. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. James, this is still a WP:BLP, proper context and sourcing matters just as much as here as a leading physicist. Soxwon (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit, there is no question of sourcing regarding this section. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you could probably afford to be a little less caustic. The text does have some dead links but it is still very well sourced regardless. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit like adding a substantial paragraph to the "Early life" section of the Keith Olbermann bio on whether or not he graduated from the "real" Cornell. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist again never missing the opportunity to try and tie articles together in a battle. If you can't make a point without mentioning Keith Olbermann and MSNBC, then your point is invalid. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured that last comment might draw you into the fray, Blax. Thanks for responding. Actually, mentioning Olbermann in a point about the O'Reilly article does not make the point invalid. However, in any case, I had already made my main points without regard to the Olbermann article. It's a paragraph on a tempest in a teapot. O'Reilly, as he said he did, grew up in tract housing built by Bill Levitt in an area that originally, at least, was part of Levittown. Why should we spend two hundred words pretending that this is some major issue? I'm just trying to help create an article that isn't fraught with "inside baseball" between O'Reilly's detractors and defenders. Had O'Reilly actually grown up in a Beekman Place apartment instead of Levittown (as he said) then making a big deal of it in the article would be justified. He didn't and it's not. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that analogy is fair since O'Reilly has made this a point of contention. Because he made it a point of contention, it probably belongs in the section. However, the text is given undue weight (in my opinion) and probably should be pared down by a sentence or two. Whether you agree with my opinion or not, paring down the text would at least be a fair compromise. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to refocus the text away from "Westbury vs. Levittown" and toward the real issue here, which is O'Reilly's distorting his background to create a working class image to enhance his credibility. As far as weight, I think that counting sentences or comparing how many sentences on this versus something else is a questionable practice at best. Besides, this is so highly relevant and illustrative that I don't think there's an issue with having four or five lines of text. Compromise is not an end in itself. Croctotheface (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but without a compromise, you guys aren't ever going to come to agreement in this case. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Did O'Reilley make it a point of contention? or did he react to opponents who made it a point of contention? I can't blame him for defending his statements (which happen to be technically accurate) against those who for whatever reason feel the need to try to disprove them. I personally think the whole thing is silly. It's obviously a partisan issue. No neutral party is raising contention on this issue. Bytebear (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

By reacting, he made it a point of contention. I can't blame him for defending his statements. I also can't blame people for writing about it on his wikipedia article. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought this section was undue weight, especially the very last segment.

"O'Reilly has also said, "You don't come from any lower than I came from on an economic scale"[22] and that his father "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has calculated that adjusted for inflation, $35,000 in 1978 would be worth over $90,000 in 2001 dollars.[23] O'Reilly has retorted that his father's $35,000 income only came at the end of his long career, at which point O'Reilly would have been long independent of his parents.[24]"

This is nothing more than a tit-for-tat. O'Reilly claiming he comes from a working class, some liberal commentator saying he doesn't, O'Reilly trying to use logic to explain that he does, some liberal commentator's trying to counter that argument and so forth. The biggest problem with the salary issue is that there is really no context for whether $35,000 is a lot or not. For example, $90,000 in levittown, NY is equivalent to about $60,000 in the heart of the country and about $50,000 in the small rural town I grew up in. I say that this last section be dropped for undue weight, and NPOV issues. Arzel (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"You don't come from any lower than I come from on an economic scale" is precisely the reason why this deserves weight in the article. It's patently ridiculous--talk to someone living on pennies a day in a third world country about O'Reilly being impoverished--and it's an attempt on O'Reilly's part to exaggerate his background to enhance his bona fides on working class issues. This goes to the heart of whether people should trust O'Reilly at all. Secondarily, Arzel, have you ever gone on record as unambiguously advocating the inclusion of information unfavorable to O'Reilly? Croctotheface (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Strawman argument. I seriously doubt that O'Reilly was comparing himself to people living in a third world country. By their standards the poorest people in the USA are wealthy. As for your question, there is little reason for me to unambiquously advocate negative information on this article because there are more than enough editors to make the argument past the point of a banlanced presentation. However, I have argued against negative information in the bios of several democrats and liberals. Arzel (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, there you go again asserting that what you believe is what counts... What you "seriously doubt" isn't a governing policy or guideline.  :) This is sourced, it's obviously relevant, and it is perfectly acceptable to use enough text to actually explain both "sides" of the controversy. /01:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, is it at all possible, for you to respond without making some snide comment? Arzel (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, your response doesn't really answer the point raised, namely that you only seem to pop up in defense of Mr. O'Reilly and that said defenses are almost always based on your own beliefs and interpretations instead of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, thy middle name is generalization. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Arzel, saying that I was arguing against a straw man when I was not could likewise be interpreted as snide (or worse). Blaxthos is right that you're substituting your interpretation of what O'Reilly meant for what he actually said. My argument in no way depends on what O'Reilly meant, just that he made a statement that is absurd however you interpret its scope. The guy had a middle class upbringing, went to private high school, college, and graduate school, and he said, "You don't come from any lower than I come from on an economic scale." That's ridiculous in the context of the entire world (which is how I initially interpreted it), or of North America, or the United States, or New York, or Long Island, or Westbury, or Levittown. And this is all in service of the narrative O'Reilly has chosen to promote, which is misleading. This is obviously relevant and should be explored within the article. Croctotheface ([[User

talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I called it a strawman because you setup an extreme example to which BOR is clearly not the lowest on the ladder. Of course his statement is ridiculous in the context of the entire world, and it is just as ridiculous to take that comment at that level. The assertation that he was speaking in terms of the entire world are beyond the pale. No rational person would assume that he is comparing himself to some Ethiopian child. I was once hungry enough to eat a horse, but that doesn't mean that I did or could actually do so. Here is the issue. Someone stated that this section is poorly written. I agree with them on this childish attempt to paint BOR as a hypocrite, and I'll debate the merits with you but could care less what Blaxthos thinks about my opinion. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And immediately after making the "economic scale" remark admitted that other people had it worse. Again, a tempest in a teapot of interest to, and argued by, O'Reillyphobes and O'Reillyphiles. Badmintonhist (talk)

He said that they "had a rougher life", but he didn't back away from his comment, which is ridiculous on its face. I suppose that people who are automatically sympathetic to O'Reilly would choose to see his comments, and the pattern they evince, as something innocent. But on multiple occasions he has exaggerated his biography to obtain sympathy and credibility he doesn't deserve, and that's clearly worth mentioning in the article. If there is an issue with the writing, then OK, but the content should be in there. Croctotheface (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to grant leaving in his exaggerated statement about his lowly "economic scale" and FAIR's reaction to it, but the dispute about Levittown versus Westbury should be taken out the article completely. As I see it, it is utter crap. O'Reilly's boyhood home was built by Levitt and was part of Levittown until O'Reilly was thirteen or fourteen when township lines were redrawn. If the dispute about this had somehow become major national news a few years back then one might make a decent case for including it. However, it was never really more than an insiders debating point between O'Reillyphobes and O'Reillyphiles. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So is it to be removed? The dead link and FAIR is all that's there, and if it's such a notable controversy, there should be plenty of reliable sources about it. Soxwon (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be plenty of reliable sources for it but do you really want to include what essentially was always a phony controversy? O'Reilly grew up in a Levitt built house in Levittown. It only stopped being part of Levittown when town lines were redrawn when O'Reilly was about fourteen. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead Change

Hey guys. I'm a little concerned with this line in the lead. Though many consider O'Reilly to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known to depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. This line seems to suggest there is some disagreement over whether O'Reilly is a conservative commentator. I think that has to be fringe POV. I think the wording has to be adjusted slightly. I suggest the following "Though generally considered a conservative commentator, O'Reilly's views have been known to.......". Anyone disagree? NickCT (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that "Many" is much better, "Generally" is also considered a weasel word. Simply replacing one weasel word with another doesn't seem like much of an improvement. The best thing to do would be to remove all the weasel words. However, that probably won't happen, even if it follow WP policies. A non-weasel word version could be. Though O'Reilly has been considered to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known to depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel- This is a little disturbing, but I think I may agree with you (I feel like I need to shower now). I like your wording, though we have to change the verb tense from past perfect simple, to avoid implying that he was previously considered conservative, but is not any longer. I suggest using the simple present tense. Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] his views have been known.... NickCT (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but the second part is still written in past tense. How about. Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] he has views which depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. Arzel (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk about much ado about very little! I suggest we just leave this part of the lead as is. One problem with the "Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative" wording is that previous discussions resulted in an informal agreement (championed by Blaxthos among others) that we would not actually call someone a conservative, or a liberal, or a whatever unless that person actually called himself a conservative or a liberal or a whatever (as you might have guessed, that specific discussion involved whether or not we would label Keith Olbermann as a liberal). The wording "O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative" comes awfully close to Wikipedia directly calling him a conservative, a label that for whatever reasons O'Reilly rejects. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Arzel - Good counter point; however, I'm a little worried about the "He has views which". This seems to suggest that all or many of his views depart, and goes back to the original issue over his conservative position seeming like a matter of contention. I suggest we stick with his views have been known or switch to Though O'Reilly is considered to be a conservative,[6][7] some of the views he has expressed depart from mainstream conservative ideology[8][9]. (of course, this reintroduces a weasel word) Badmintonhist - I've never liked the "self labelling" arguement. Oswald says he didn't kill Kennedy, yet we call him JFK's killer due to a perponderance of evidence. David Karesh labelled himself Christ. His wikipedia page shouldn't agree with him. I think what we have to do is agree on definitions for the words we are applying (i.e. a conservative is a person whose majority of expressed opinions are in-line with accepted conservative ideology), then see if that definition fits our subject (i.e. Bill O'Reilly). If it does, then I see no problem calling the subject by the definition regardless if he calls himself a liberal, conservative, or a fairy.70.106.3.58 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should stick with the version that the consensus hammered out and agreed to, though ever so weakly, so as to not open up this can of worms again. This very issue was just discussed about two months ago. Happyme22 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In my view there are a lot of things far worse about this article than the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick raised a good point about the wording. It would be nice to remove the weasel words from the lead, but I do realize that this is a difficult proposition. It is clear that people do view him to be conservative. It is also clear that his views do not always follow conservative ideology. The question remains, is it possible to phrase this section in such a way to not use weasel words, but at the same time not make it appear that wikipedia is making a factual claim to his ideology, as Badmintonihist has stated. I thought my first suggestion would be a good middle ground, but as Nick pointed out there are tense issues. It may be best to leave the lead as stands, but leave suggestions open to improvements in wording. My 2 cents. Arzel (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. Difficult to remove weasel words here. However, I would be more comfortable if we switched to "Though generally considered a conservative commentator, O'Reilly's views have been known to.......". This in my mind seems less weaselly. Saying "generally" suggests general consensus. Saying "many" suggests majority or significant minority opinion. It seems to me as though the former would be a more accurrate presentation of sentiment. This is really only a minor wording change and frankly I'm not overly concerned. I just think it would be a slight improvement over the current wording. Anyone object to me having my druthers? NickCT (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "Though O'Reilly is generally considered a conservative commentator, some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy"? Croctotheface (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

can we say "Although" instead of "Though"? Bytebear (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, can we say "O'Reilly is generally considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge frmo conservative orthodoxy"? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Make that from conservative conservative orthodoxy and I think we have a winner. Soxwon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Orthodoxy? Is it a theology now? Who is the conservative pope? Bytebear (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, how about we drop one of the "conservative"s in your proposal?  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"O'Reilly is generally considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy" gets my thumbs up. Without further objection, I am going to make it so in the next few hours.NickCT (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)