Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

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)

Removal of previously stable and properly sourced content

Regarding Bytebear's edit summary, there is absolutely no BLP question here -- the content is diversely sourced, there is no libelous statement, and it's roundly and neutrally presented. Furthermore, it's been in the article for at least two years. ByteBear knows that, and he also never misses an opportunity to try and cull negative information about O'Reilly. Don't be a BLP charlatan, it's so 2006... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is clearly a discussion about whether the content should be included, and if so, how that inclusion should be done. BLP does have specific rules about content, and your personal attacks toward me are against wikipedia policy. Basically, you reverted other editors judgment, so I am not alone in this decision. I am just concurring with other editors. If the personal attacks persist, I will report you. Bytebear (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Blax, I think you mean that the material in question (for good reason) was in the now defunct O'Reilly Controversies article for two years. It wasn't in the regular bio. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors don't like it, but there are no issues with sourcing or defamation, so Blaxthos is completely right that citing BLP as if it mandates removing the content is way off base. He's also right that a lot of the editors who seem to believe that it must be deleted tend to be ones who "never miss an opportunity to cull negative information about O'Reilly." If there's anyone whose actions are out of line here, it's those who just started deleting the content because they couldn't achieve a consensus that agreed with them. Croctotheface (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

More personal attacks. I could say the same about another band of editors. I will also remind you and Blax that consensus can change. Bytebear (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The (incredibly foolish) material on O'Reilly growing up in Westbury rather than in Levittown (even though where he lived was part of Levittown until 1963 when O'Reilly turned fourteen) lacks a "live" source, so what is the basis at this point for keeping it? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources don't "die" with hyperlinks, Badmintonhist. Regardless, the process is not to delete years-old content in the middle of a discussion when consensus is not clear. Consensus should be achieved before a contentious change. If this were new content things might be a little different, but this is years old stable content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I just mentioned above the material was in the O'Reilly Controversies article, not the regular bio so I don't see why it should "grandfathered" in on that basis. No editor has yet addressed the substance of my complaint which I have already made quite clear. IT'S CRAP!! Badmintonhist (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider yelling IT'S CRAP substance? It's not. O'Reilly's home/upbringing is clearly relevant, in large part because of his own focus on it---e.g., Bold Fresh Piece, Culture Warrior....His "regular Joe" persona is at the core of his appeal, and the questions about that persona are a significant starting point for his critics. The sourcing is varied and valid.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that the criticism article was largely a WP:FORK and there is no reason that every aspect of that fork to be included into the main bio. Simply weighing down the main bio with a bunch of juvenile antics about whether or not BOR was born in Levittown (he was) doesn't do us or WP any service. Just because some on the left take issue with his upbringing in a never ending attempt to paint BOR as a hypocrite doesn't mean that we should now turn his main bio into an attack page. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist history alert! One, this content was always present in the parent article, and you've not once objected in the last three years. Two, the criticism article was written due to WP:SIZE -- it had absolutely nothing to do with a POV fork. I'd call this a willful misrepresentation, given your long history here Arzel. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, no addressing of the substance of the argument against inclusion. I only yelled "IT'S CRAP" after explaining what was wrong with it and getting no response. O'Reilly lived in a Levitt built house, in what was then Levittown, for about twelve years. Introducing doubt about that fact in a section on his "early life" isn't all that much different than bringing up the idiotic "birther" theory in a section on Barack Obama's early life. There may be a place for such info in some context somewhere in Wikipedia but not in those places. In the "early life" section the simple factual statement (minus any hint of accusation) that the area of Levittown where O'Reilly grew up became part of Westbury in 1963 might be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that this meets with core policies WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and that it does not violate WP:BLP, can you please point us to the policy that justifies removal based on "I disagree with the critics"? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gee, that's a tough one Blax. Let's see. How's this? One could insert into the "Early life" section of the Obama bio neutrally stated WP:NPOVand reliably sourced WP:RSinformation about birther claims; not material that "bought into" those theories, but just "neutrally" presented them. However, one should not do this because material on the subjects early life should be well documented information about said subject's early life, not unfounded speculation by said subject's enemies however "neutrally" presented. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask for a policy, and I get a hypothetical comparison to an unrelated article. Quod erat demonstrandum. //Blaxthos ( t / c )

Forgive me. But I'm confused. Is there any other evidence that O'Reilly grew up in Westbury beyond the Washington Post article? If not, than it seems like this is a simple misquotation as O'Reilly claimed. If it is a simple misquotation, then I don't think it should be included. Do wiki entries really need to mention contraversies arrising from misquotes? In my mind that doesn't seem to add to the value of the article. It's a tempest in a tea cup.NickCT (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it pretty hard to believe that Westbury would just pop up in someone's head as a "misquote." Westbury is probably more accurate in a technical sense, and O'Reilly said that he grew up in the "Westbury section of Levittown," with the point basically being that it was a Levitt house even if it ended up being considered a different town. It's basically misleading to say Levittown with no mention of Westbury, and especially considering that this is all in service of the narrative that O'Reilly is looking to push, it goes to his credibility and so forth and therefore deserves coverage in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it deserves coverage (in a section on Early life?) if one is a POV pusher who doesn't like O'Reilly. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to place names there can be all sorts of confusion for perfectly innocent reasons: sections of one town extend into another town; different levels of local government with various place names overlap; county, town, and township lines get redrawn. People living in some localities in Rhode Island for example (and we're probably less complicated geographically than New York) could easily give two or even three different names when asked for the town that they live in. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You illustrate the problem brilliantly, Badmintonhist! As you note, one could draw all sorts of conclusions given the facts. So let's present the facts and leave the conclusions (or the assumption of conclusion) out of it. No whitewashing or omitting facts based on assumed conclusions, and no conclusions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No dice, Blax. The same could be said for everyone growing up in area with a complex political geogaphy. The only reason this is included here is to cast aspersions on O'Reilly's account of his home neighborhood. However I'm willing to meet you well... if not half way then about a third of the way. Omit the silly stuff about Franken and the challenges to O'Reilly's account. Simply state what we know to be true, that he grew up in... say eastern Long Island in a development built by William Levitt now part of Westbury (if indeed it is part of Westbury...better get the present official name of the town right). Badmintonhist (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason for this is to imply (or explicitly state) the perceived hypocrisy of O'Reilly. This is blatant POV. Bytebear (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The only reason you're arguing against it is to try and keep O'Reilly from looking bad. I'm not advocating any sort of statement of conclusion, but given that it's part of a larger theme in O'Reilly's self-given narrative (and criticism thereof), I'm not willing to let you guys excise sourced, verifiable facts that have long been unchallenged and accepted. The text goes out of its way to explain the circumstances and both sides neutrally, and I don't think there is anything more here than an effort to make sure to portray him in the best light possible. Present verifiable facts, explain both sides, and let the reader decide. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This has less to do with the narrative that O'Reilly has created for himself than it does the narrative that folks like Blaxthos are trying to create for him (and on Wikipedia, at least, have largely succeeded in doing). The issue is not whether Wikipedia neutrally presents the material questioning O'Reilly's description of his childhood neighborhood, the issue is whether it should be presented at all, and particularly in the "early life" section of the article. O'Reilly asserts that he grew up in a section of Levittown. He has presented some evidence to indicate that. The fact that the house was built by Levitt's company is uncontested. Levittown is listed as its location on the mortgage. Where's any real evidence to the contrary? His mother using a different place name in describing their home's location? As I suggested above, there are any number of plausible explanations for that. At present, Blaxthos and company are simply basing inclusion of the O'Reilly-doubting material on the fact that its existence is WP:Verifiable. The existence of the anti-Obama "birther" movement claims are also WP:Verifiable, but that doesn't mean that we should present those absurd claims in the "Early life" section of Barack Obama's Wikipedia bio. To do so would give them undue weight WP:UNDUE, and the same problem exists here. Mere speculation is being given undeserved status. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you have now thrice persisted to make an argument using a false analogy to a hypothetical change on an unrelated article as "justification", I'll finally put that cow to pasture... The (obvious) difference is that there are zero reliable sources that give credibility to the WP:FRINGE assertion about Obama's birth certificate. In this case, there are reliable sources that have: (1) quoted O'Reilly, (2) quoted critics, and (3) explained the circumstance from both perspectives. Now, how about some policy instead of some hypothetical, irrelevant comparisons? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, ...again. There are any number of reliable sources WP:RS who tell us that the birthers exist and have presented their basic argument and perhaps even quoted birther spokesmen. That, of course, is much different than asserting that the birthers themselves are reliable sources WP:RS. Do I think that the O'Reilly-doubters on this issue are as wacko as the birthers? No, but I don't find them particularly credible, either. The mere fact that an O'Reilly-doubter may have been quoted or given a forum by some WP:RS doesn't mean that their view carry sufficient weight WP:Due to be included in a half-way decent encyclopedia biography. When it comes to their views about O'Reilly's childhood neighborhood I see nothing here except sheer speculation. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Badmintonhist, the difference here is that the birther thing is verifiably false by any metric -- there is no question that the assertion is prima facie false (as adjudicated by every court and government agency with jurisdiction); this O'Reilly incident is verifiably true and factually correct -- only the interpretation is in question, which is why it should be left up to the reader given it's part of a larger pattern and narrative. Big big difference. The policy WP:UNDUE is the closest to your target, however I assert that given the larger scope of Bill O'Reilly's "I am Bill Everyman you don't come from any poorer than me" self-narrative, I think this has sufficient weight within that context for mention. That will likely just be a point on which you and I disagree, but I think that given there are a good number of editors who seem to agree I just don't see any consensus for excluding previously stable content based mostly due to the "It makes Bill look bad" logic. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any impressive number of editors taking your side on this one Blax. In fact, in this particular discussion my contention seems to have the numbers edge. As to your last point, it has not been my practice to protect O'Reilly in this and other Wikipedia articles when his words and/or deeds have earned him grief. Clearly, in the Andrea Makris affair O'Reilly cooked his own goose. Even in the case of his exaggerated "you can't come any lower..." statement , which his Wiki biography could just as easily ignore as not very important (economically successful people commonly puff their "humble origins"), one can make the case that he said something publicly about himself which was a clearly in error and that his Wiki bio should call him to account. In the issue at hand, however, there is simply no real evidence that O'Reilly is either prevaricating or even exaggerating when he says that he grew up in Levittown. The "case" against him here is basically half-assed conjecture, which is why it shouldn't be included in the article.

By the way the curious thing concerning this "debate" about whether O'Reilly grew up in Levittown, is that assuming it to be true actually undermines, rather than supports, the notion that O'Reilly grew up impoverished. The fact of the matter is that Levittown and developments like it in the early post-war years were not built for the lowest echelons of American society, and represented a big step "up", not "down", for most of the adults who inhabited them. They were built for a growing middle class or, at least, a growing lower-middle class, generally consisting of skilled blue collar workers and lower and middle echelon white collar types such as O'Reilly's father. O'Reilly grew up "poor" only in the sense that, like most of us, he did not grow up rich. If you want to harp on O'Reilly's tendency to exaggerating his humble beginnings, accepting the fact that he grew up Levittown actually helps your case. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That you take two paragraphs to explain your conclusions is, I think, exactly why we should leave this up to the reader. In the end, I'm completely unconcerned with whether this helps this viewpoint or that; I am concerned that editors (such as yourself) are reading the facts, drawing their own conclusions, and then using their conclusions as justification to remove the content (giving no consideration to the possibility that others could draw a different conclusion). That's not how Wikipedia works (or should work). Since you clearly grasp the larger issue of O'Reilly spinning facts to tell the narrative he wants to sell, I have to insist that this _could_ be part of that larger issue (or not, as you point out), and so (again) we should present the facts neutrally and clearly, and leave the conclusions to the reader. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. What you're presenting is only the "fact" that some people have conjectured that O'Reilly didn't live in Levittown. Other than O'Reilly's mother once giving a different place name for her neighborhood in an interview (very thin gruel) you don't present any facts impeaching O'Reilly's assertion. You do present a couple of facts that seem to support O'Reilly, but the point is that there just isn't enough here to raise the question in the first place. If there had been a really big headline grabbing story a few years back calling O'Reilly's "Levittown" bona fides into question, then putting such material into O'Reilly's Wikipedia bio might be justified, even if the evidence against O'Reilly turned out to be nothing of substance. However, in the case here, it was never a big story except for overwrought O'Reillyphobes and O'Reillyphiles. I also find it quite relevant that you have all but admitted to trying to develop an essentially anti-O'Reilly theme in this bio, presenting a narrative that you want readers to grasp. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the "fact" is that his mother did give the answer reported by The Washington Post. That you don't believe it, or that O'Reilly says she must have been mistaken/misquoted, isn't justification for exclusion. Given that it directly ties into the larger selling of his "you don't come from any poorer than me", that it's verifiable, all sides are presented, and it's reliably sourced, there is no good reason grounded in policy to exclude it. In the end, it's exactly what ByteBear said earlier... the concern here seems to be for keeping his reputation in a certain light (rather than presenting the facts and letting the reader decide). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that his mother once gave a different place name in describing her neighborhood counts for essentially nothing. Levittown, as built in the early post-war years, extended into a number of localities that go by various place names besides Levittown. It's like claiming that Billy Joel didn't live in Levittown because his home is in what is now known as Hicksville. As you well know, place names overlap. I've already explained this quite nicely and am not going to do it again. The plain reason for including this ephemera is to develop an anti-O'Reilly theme in the bio. Again, I have no objections when substantial facts tend to cast O'Reilly in a bad light. But trying to cast doubt on whether a person grew up in the Ozarks because his mother said that they lived in Missouri is bogus. Moreover, I think that you actually know that it's bogus. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, that's all based on your conclusion (not policy). The circle is complete; no need to rinse and repeat. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what others say. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it under public perception, seems more appropriate. --Tom (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

YAY

I'm glad we're taking so many steps forward to being transparent by deleting controversy articles over highly controversial people! Na, billo's too perfect. <tommy> (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What's in a place name?

Should O'Reilly's mother's statement that their family lived in Westbury be placed into the article as the sole basis for questioning O'Reilly's assertion that he grew up in Levittown? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I say no. It seems like a minor minor contraversy with limited circumstantial evidence. At best it should be on the "contraversies" page.NickCT (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I also say no. This was not a headlines grabber a wasn't a notable story to anyone other than the O'Reilly-haters and left-wing blogs. Badmintonhist has made many good points for removal in the above section. Happyme22 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The question as framed here completely misstates the issue. First of all, he DID grow up in Westbury. Second, the issue is about whether O'Reilly's dubious statements about his past should have this issue as part of the supporting evidence. Croctotheface (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject here, I think that you've missed the point, Croc. My point was not that O'Reilly's mother was in error when she said that the family home was in Westbury. My point was that living in Westbury doesn't contradict living in Levittown, much like living in the Missouri doesn't contradict living in the Ozarks. Identical locations can have a variety of place name. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Loaded question much? I question the validity of this RFC, as it quite obviously is stated to pander to a certain viewpoint. I have no good faith that any effort was made to neutrally present this issue, and I refuse to participate in such a shamelessly transparent attempt to secure an outcome that meets with Badmintonhist's POV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, we won't miss you, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I've yanked the {{RFCbio}} template, as the request clearly made no attempt to comply with WP:RFC. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. Unlike the talk page subtitle: Removal of previously stable and properly sourced content. The capacity of a certain editor for blatant hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between a talk page and an official wikipedia process (which is governed by policy). Also, please note my objection was a procedural one -- you don't go yanking out years-included content slap in the middle of a heated talkpage discussion about that content. If you need examples of how to properly construct an RFC check my contributions for RFC's I've submitted over the years. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the material about what AL Franken says what about what O'Reilly said and what his mother said added to this article a month or so ago? The sub articles usually are ceespools and best avoided. --Tom (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Name

Is there ANOTHER Bill O'Reilly article on Wikipedia? If so, we need a disambig. If not, then we need to move all the content on this page Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) to plain old Bill O'Reilly. 69.181.220.209 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is another Bill O'Reilly. Look at Bill O'Reilly (that you linked). "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." (disambig). the "(disambiguation)" tag that you sometimes see in the title is only used when there is a primary topic for the term. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision was false and said that Bill O'Reilly was a professional liar which is his opinion and does not belong in the article.

Template:Professional liar Factsnotlies (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question was vandalism. Thank you for calling attention to it, but feel free to be bold in the future. Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

The article on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) should state that "on 10/10/2009 Bill O'Reilly was awarded the Tex McCreery Award for Excellence in Journalism. The award is given out by the Medal of Honor Society, which is comprised by many living recipients of the nation's highest wartime honor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1257 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than the transcript from O'Reilly's show, I can't find any mention of this in any reliable source -- self-serving press releases (and one Texas Republican's webpage) aside, are there any sources that can be used to attest to the significance of this "award"? I've never heard of the "Tex McCreery Award for Excellent in Journalism", and it seems like before O'Reilly started trumpeting this "award" no one else had either... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Content from public image article

As I've said before, I support including basically all of that content, the stuff that was just batted in and out of the article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I believe I've added a sufficient number or citations to the apology section. Sysrpl (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added to more citations, one from the Seatle PI (Associated Press) and one from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Do you need more? Sysrpl (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

FAIR, Common Dreams, and The American Prospect are not good sources for WP:DUE. The blurb in the AP would warrant a sentence or two probably, but not its own section. Soxwon (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The text that you removed was four sentences long; is there really that much of a difference? Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I objected to it getting its own subsection (not nearly weighty enough) and really I could summarize pretty well in one actually. Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let us handle these disputes separately and in order. Are you denying these quotes and events are fact? If so I believe the four citations I provided should be sufficient: Associate Press, FAIR, The American Prospect, Flak Magazine. Let us resolve the citation issues first before bringing in other disputes with the content. Sysrpl (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm debating is its importance, FAIR, Prospect, and Flak do not give it that. A blurb in AP makes for a sentence maybe two, not its own section. Soxwon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole section is a NPOV problem. The premise of the section is that BOR is a hypocrite and the sources are being used to prove this to be true. Now maybe he is but to use mostly biased sources which present the premise to be true you have a NPOV problem. On top of this it is very much undue weight to be given it's own section as it currently is. Arzel (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to reword and merge it into an existing section. As far as the sources go, I believe if you leave just the facts (such as the quotes) there isn't much POV to it. That is unless you are contending the quotes are fabricated. Sysrpl (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not making that contention so please stop bringing that red herring into this discussion. I simply contended that there weren't many credible sourcing establishing the importance of this incident to the man's life that it warranted its own section. I have trimmed it and re-added in an appropriate section, though it could go in the section below (about his politics) if needed. Soxwon (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed a tense issue (please vs pleased) and some weird quote ... quote ... wordage. Sysrpl (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Where he grew up

I have rmved the section that seemed to be deemed irrelevant by consensus save for the usual Blaxthos/Croctotheface cabal. Soxwon (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)