Jump to content

Talk:Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

O'Reilly claims he doesn't make personal attacks "here"

Media Matters is a partisan outlet...references from there should be carefully observed. Rarely is the democrat attacked by Media Matters.

O'Reilly saying "i don't do personal attacks here" might not be an accurate statement on his part but it was a sound bite with Mike Farell on the program...it is not a controversy.

Anonymous, Media Matters for America is indeed partisan. As clearly noted on their website, they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Since they do this with carefully reproduced transcripts and direct links to unedited video, I'm not sure why you believe references from them should be "carefully observed." Their facts and sources are reliable and accurate. That said, I agree with you completely that the "personal attacks" addition was ludicrous as written and had no place here.Hal Raglan 21:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
He always says he doesnt do personal attacks on the radio. Insofar as that means he doesnt dig dirt on peoples personal lives, that is generally true (although he has threatened to dig up personal issues on some reporters who were reprting on OReilly's personal life). Insofar as calling someone a pinhead or stupid is a personal attack he does do personal attacks at least several times per show. Mrdthree 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

IQ controversy

I'm not sure why Bill O'Reilly's alleged iq is a controversy. A controversy is a statement or action that involves a back and forth debate...this IQ statement is not a controversy but if erased, it will be back tommorow... so whatever floats your boat I guess.--Bairdso66 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that User:132.33.132.19 has reinstated the "IQ controversy" section, this time adding the detail that O'Reilly called Mr. Parfrey a "stupid dummy". The citation/link that is provided goes nowhere. I just performed a quick search thru Google with negative results for this alleged controversy. I have requested User:132.33.132.19 provide another citation that links to a source that can verify the details. If someone else can provide such a citation, please do so. Hal Raglan 21:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
User:132.33.132.19 has once again added this without providing a link that actually leads somewhere. Without any proof that this actually happened, one must assume it is simply a hoax.Hal Raglan 04:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

American Red Cross

I've added a request for citations for this section. To be clear, what I want are sources showing that 1) O'Reilly "constantly pressured" the American Red Cross and 2) this pressure led to the Congressional hearings. The American Red Cross article, which was used as a source for this controversy, doesn't even mention O'Reilly's name. If O'Reilly has made a claim to being responsible, partially or otherwise, for the hearings, a quote indicating that should be included here.Hal Raglan 19:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Hal Raglan, I changed "constant pressuring" to a more objective description of what O'Reilly did and provided some sources. I think this should satisfy your first source request but let me know if you feel it needs to be further changed. Regarding your second request, when I wrote that section, I didn't mean to imply that O'Reilly's actions directly led to the congressional hearings. A subsequent congressional investigation on the issue O'Reilly trumpeted, though, did occur, so how would you suggest it be written about? Lawyer2b 14:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've rewritten the section and provided adequate sources, I have a question for you. Can this really be considered a controversy re: O'Reilly? Certainly it was a controversial issue for the Red Cross. The rest of the article deals with quotes or actions by O'Reilly that people found offensive or controversial in some way. If this section is indeed accurate, I would say O'Reilly's involvement here was undeniably a good thing, definitely putting him in a favorable light, especially the info about O'Reilly's subsequent assistance in writing Red Cross policy. As such, shouldn't this be removed from here and placed somewhere in the O'Reilly main article? It seems really out of place here among all the negative stuff. (I had originally requested that this be moved from the O'Reilly article, but now that you've written it in a much clearer way -- without the previous POV trumpeting about O'Reilly's "victory" -- I think it should be moved back.)Hal Raglan 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the positive feedback. :-) I'm fine with moving it back to his main entry; what should its subsection title be? Lawyer2b 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Possibly a new subsection under "Broadcasting career" devoted to "Noted accomplishments"?Hal Raglan 16:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or encyclosmearia

I know this is an article about "controversies", but quite frankly this is a series of O'Reilly-bashing rants and second-hand versions of Al Franken (haha didn't leftwing talk radio really take off!) O'Reilly bashings.

I'm not a fan of O'Reilly. But I am a fan of Wikipedia because, by and large, we fiddle around and ultimately end up with something that is, to coin a phrase, fair and balanced.

This article is not fair or balanced, and frankly it's unsalvagable.

However, I would imagine that those who create, "expose", write on Wikipedia about, and ultimately read about on Wikipedia, O'Reilly "controversies" are the same small number of interested ideologues. I don't wish to deny them either the privilege of serving themselves the red meat of O'Reilly "controversy" or the pleasure and humour that they understandably derive from it.

I'm a pretty big O'Reilly fan but I haven't seen anything glaring this page that is not factually accurate, unsupported, and/or written in a non-WP:POV. If you can point it out, I'll be happy to help fix it. Lawyer2b 18:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
For example, "This deliberate misrepresentation by selectively editing Sen. Biden's responses and in turn representing them as his own shows O'Reilly's lack of credibility and journalistic integrity.[24]". Of course, it is referenced, but presenting second-hand polemic or smear doesn't stop it from being polemic or smear. As it reads, the reference is presented as proving the self-evident conclusion that O'Reilly lacks credibility and journalistic integrity. I actually find him rather pious and arrogant, but I do believe he has integrity and credibility and I COULD write a Wikipedia article outlining how his coverage of specific stories proves this fact. However, MY assertions (whether attributed to someone else by way of footnote or not) wouldn't make it so, and neither does this one. I understand that this page is supposed to lay out "controversies" as viewed by his critics, but often this article doesn't even do that. For example, "All the while O'Reilly remained silent over Pepsi's endorsement of the Osbourne family, which made people cry racism". People? Which people? Not even an Al Franken or hard-left smear-blog reference for that one. But as I said, I think this page is pretty much by/for the same small group of people. But it is regrettable that, for example, there is no Al Franken controversies page -- not that I think either that OR a Bill O'Reilly one is valid Wikipedia material, but it does add a certain weight of credibility to the critique of O'Reilly that is not given to any pro-O'Reilly statements on the main article on him. I haven't edited anything because I don't begrudge the rights of his critics to get it off their chest in this way and I don't have the arrogance to come to massacre someone's hardwork whether it is, in my opinion, skewed or not.
I think you are dead-right with your two examples and I'm embarassed that I didn't catch them, especially since I try to keep an eye out for liberal POV on Wikipedia. I will edit those entries, though and encourage you to do the same because not just people who enjoy reading O'Reilly smeared will read that article. People whose opinions are open to influence will as well and I think they (and those who enjoy smearing O'Reilly as well) deserve to read as much an unbiased presentation as possible. In addition, I'm a believer in what wikpedia is trying to do and a biased POV in any article detracts from its overall goal. You obviously have a excellent critical eye and hope you will edit in the future or at least continue to point out ways to remove bias and/or improve articles in the future. Lawyer2b 12:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That whole Sen Biden stuff should be snipped. Its so poorly written that its almost incomprehensible, and what little does make sense reads like a POV editorial. Most importantly, the section is devoted to the ongoing Franken/O'Reilly "feud", and this barely relates to that.Hal Raglan 16:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't had a chance to check out the sources for this yet (one is a video that I can't access right now). I agree that the Biden paragraph is poorly written and has a fair amount of POV, the last sentance being particularly bad. My impression at the moment is that this paragraph is not strong enough to deserve it's own section and the article may indeed be just as well off without it. I might change my mind after consulting the sources though. -MrFizyx 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've reorganized the Franken section a bit and toned down the POV. It's very possible that you'll still be unhappy with it, but hopefully you'll agree that it's better than it was. Oh, by the way, I fond a link to the fox news version of the story with Biden. I don't think Franken was particularly unfair here. Regards, -MrFizyx 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

However, no such proof exists

I believe the claim stated above in the section about the boycott of french goods is wrong. this is the website stated for reference: Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. a orginzation like that has no credit. period.

please post whatever concerns you have on my talk page tiplickhahaha

I'll post my concerns right here thank you very much, and you should log in so that we know that your signature is not a forgery! An organization like what? A 501(c) (3)? I don't think their facts are incorrect. The boycott has had considerable coverage on The Factor (here are just a few examples):
I'll grant you that the Fox's partial transcript online for April 27, 2004[1] does not include the interview with Heather Mallick, but O'Reilly does make reference to it the next day [2] and the points have also been covered in Heather Mallick’s own column in The Globe and Mail[3] and in numerous blogs. "The Paris Business Review" has become a widespread topic of internet humor as a result of this incident.[4][5][6] So regardless of what you believe please check your facts before removing content. Thanks. MrFizyx 00:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Great name, BTW. All I was saying that the source used, an organization committed to spreading their beliefs about whatever things in life, checking the media for opposite "things" of their beliefs, is bound to have “bend" the truth. Just fact checking here... -tiplickhahaha

  • Actually its Fizyx, with an x. It can be pronounced "Mr. Physics." When I wrote the above note, I went overboard a bit, for some reason I was thinking that you had deleted the whole section. When I realized the small editing that you had done, I felt like a bit of an ass. You also deleted the wrong citation I think (though they had been out of order to begin with). Ah well, this is such a silly article anyway. My time would be better spent editing a more useful page. Thanks for the reply. -MrFizyx 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Glick interview

Regarding this section:

O'Reilly has since maintained that Glick remarked during the interview that George W. Bush orchestrated or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. While available transcripts do not support O'Reilly's claim...

According to a partial transcript here, Glick's words were:

GLICK: The people in Afghanistan --
O'REILLY: Who killed your father!
GLICK: -- didn't kill my father.
O'REILLY: Sure they did! The al Qaeda people were trained there!
GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghani people?
O'REILLY: See! I'm more angry about it than you are!
GLICK: So, what about George Bush?
O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had NOTHING to do with it!
GLICK: The Director -- senior -- as Director of the CIA.
O'REILLY: He had NOTHING to DO with it!
GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were...

I think it doesn't take much analysis or guesswork to realize whom Glick was referring to. "The Director - senior - as Director of the CIA." George W. Bush, Junior, was never Director of the CIA. George H. W. Bush, Senior, was. Glick seems to have been referring to Bush, senior.

Are there any objections to correcting the information in the article? Kasreyn 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

About the rollinstone.com political blog/article, leading to the article quote "Glick admitted to having baited O'Reilly with insults about his show before O'Reilly's alleged outburst." this is on the edge of source credibility. Mostly because this writer isn't actually interviewing or quoting Glick. The source is probably an okay source as a whole, but an entertainment news source doesn't exactly have peer-reviewed journals. This in particular is a little far away from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I am asking for opinions to keep the source or remove it. Sysrpl 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be using everything from Rolling Stone to livejournal (!!) as sources at the moment... The writer of the Rolling Stone piece seems to claim Glick had been interviewed and had made such an admission, but isn't very clear about when or how that happened. I don't object to its inclusion. Frankly, if I had been on O'Reilly's show and been treated so offensively and shabbily, there would have definitely been some insults coming out of my mouth during the commercial break. So I don't find it hard to believe. Kasreyn 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Our role is not to source pick, but to report what sources have reported. Rolling stone, is, at the very least, a credible source. It will be included in the article. user:Stanley011.

How about addressing my points? Was this in print, or is this just a blog? Rolling Stone is an entertainment rag and as such not peer reviewed. This observation wasn't from a Glick interview, it wasn't a quote, and quite far from the horse's mouth. This is the only place I can find mention of this information. And yes our role is to challenge sources: WP:V

Sources of dubious reliability In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it.

Sysrpl 23:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was in print. See the source that I provided. stanley011

Where are you getting this information? I did a Lexis search for some of the web page's words in the Rolling Stone magazine and turned up zero hits. If it's in print care to tell me the volume and issue number? Sysrpl 15:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken mention and chart in Ludacris section

Can someone explain why Al Franken's mention and chart comparing Ludicris' album and O'Reilly's book was added? Lawyer2b 17:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

it's a page about controversy...this chart displays why people are upset about o'reilly's comments towards ludacris. o'reilly telling his viewers that an album is morally backwards is nothing out of the ordinary - the controversy stems from the fact that a o'reilly's own creative work has the same features that he was criticizing ludacris for. the chart clearly depicts that. Strawberryfire 01:02, 07 June 2006

Brokeback Mountain

He said the movie wouldn't sell well. It did. He made it a topic on his show about 1/2 dozen times, despite not seeing it. He said the awards it won was because of the alleged liberal biases in hollywood. Would this count as a controversy?

I'd say it's only controversial if someone publically called him out on his failed prediction. Did anyone besides you point this out? Kasreyn 01:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It's controversial because he also said Hollywood doesn't make good Westerns anymore and then saw 'Broken Trail' a couple weeks ago.--Red Titan 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Brokeback Mountain didn't really sell all that well, but Bill O'Reilly ought to know that by mentioning a controversial topic on numerous occasions he is dirrectly responsible for supporting something that he is opposed to.

Organization

This article needs to be organized better. It just seems like a laundry list of random issues at different levels of notability. Perhaps different sections devoted to people, events, and personal issues. Something like that. MrMurph101 02:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Malmedy

Has anything further come of this incident? As the caregiver of a WW2 veteran, I was quite outraged to hear about this random act of idiocy from Bill. Rockhound 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I originally started the Malmedy section in the main Bill O'Reilly article and it along with the sexual harassment section were moved here. I notice the main Bill article controversies section keeps getting smaller, and then noticed the Malmedy section was reworded to say Bill made "factual errors" rather than my original wording of "false claims". When or how does repeating the same mistakes, failing to correct them, and then having the transcripts altered to deflect unwanted attention become "factual errors"? Bill repeated these claims twice, and on the second occasion, when a reader pointed it out to him, Bill dismissed it and continued to profess he was correct. At this point I believe it moves from "factual errors" to "false claims". If anyone rewords it again to "factual errors" please provide your reasoning here, and be willing to vote for it. Sysrpl 23:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "false claims" is appropriate especially for the second event, the first one was where it could (or was) considered a "factual error". Whoever changed my ameliorate to extenuate thanks for that amelioration, I will blame my illiterate ignorance on re-editing my sentence mid-thought and not reconsidering the verb, I think I was going more with O'Reilly was trying to ameliorate the US military's culpability. In a way O'Reilly's defense assumes the Iraqi account but assigns the marines a light-weight form of guilt, by saying it's business as usual, to be expected at times, or as an adolescent might say 'but everyone else does it'. Whidbey 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph added which referenced the billoreilly.com article [7] where Bill correctly described the Nazi SS Troops as the ones who massacred the surrendering US Army soldiers. The reason for the removal is that the article was made long before Bill made the following statemnt on his primetime TV program, "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre and the 82nd airborne who did it." This is a demonstrably false. The controversy is that Bill made this statement on air and has not yet issued a retraction. It does not include a web page article written before he made the false claim, unless you want to use it as evidence that Bill knew his facts and then misused them when it came time to dress down a retired four star General on air. If that is the point, then re-add it and note it as such. Sysrpl 02:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I readded the article because O'Reilly did provide even within the Olbermann segment his intended meaning which was that he was trying to use the revenge killings of the US Military. The quoted column does support that O'Reilly has used that approach before. However, I provided a list of reasons why this statement is still controversial, it is both is inability to admit a mistake and his illogical approach and comparisons, while for all intents in purposes maligning the US military as having these injustices as part of their normative operations. Whidbey 06:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Malmedy article has notes about how diatrics should not be used in spelling Malmedy, so unless one convinces the editors of that article to accept 'Malmédy', please leave the spelling of Malmedy alone, in other words, no accents for the e. Whidbey 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

When making large edits to the Malmedy section, please add to this talk section first. Also, do not to describe personal accounts or descriptions of the massacre. Use the actual massacre article for that information. Sysrpl 18:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrmiscellanious, please use this talk section. As Stanley pointed out we cannot guess as to what Bill O'Reilly was referring to. Also, please don't format quotes using bold in places for your emphasis. Finally, the replacing of the word Malmedy with Normandy is known and well docuemnted. If the referenced link has changed or gone bad, don't just delete the sentence, as it is relavent to the controversy. Find another link that suits the reference or come here and ask for help finding the reference. Sysrpl 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite clear what he was speaking of. Unless you have another example, that is an obvious reference to Chenogne, which happened a little more than two weeks after Malmedy. I'm not sure what you're accomplishing by removing this, as Chenogne is the exact case O'Reilly is speaking of. Look at the Chenogne massacre article before removing this once again. There are plenty of sources there that show O'Reilly's claims are undisputably pointing to that incident, and I have also already included sources to which you have dismissed unilaterally, without discussion, and without reasoning. In addition, while I have found this section, please review the transcript link. I only see it once referring to "Normandy", and that was by Clark, not O'Reilly. This is unverified, and should not be in this article. Please list your reasonings of not mentioning Chenogne (as it is exactly the case O'Reilly is referring to) and reverting the transcript text which is, undisputably, false as of June 21, 2006. --Mrmiscellanious 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I am aware of the Chenogne massacre article. If you check its history you will see I am its original creator. There were many American units active in the Malmedy region at the time after the massacre. Its been suggested that order were sent out to various units, but the Chenogne massacre involved only one of the rumored actions against German soldiers. Taking that into consideration, we cannot assume to say exactly what named actions Bill had in mind. Sysrpl 19:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Lacking it makes this section seem like it is here just to throw fud at O'Reilly. Would you agree to his claims being similar to those of Chenogne, and having that noted in the article (such as "... O'Reilly's claims are similar of those made concerning the Chenogne massacre, in which case 60 German POW's were reportedly killed ...")? It seems to me this is very likely and undoubtedly the incident O'Reilly was pointing to - and to throw that out on a technicality is just ridiculous, so I hope you can agree to this. In second, what are your comments on the transcript? It still stands that Clark is the only one who says "Normandy", and that whatever may have been edited cannot be proven at this time. --Mrmiscellanious 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I would agree that Bill's response to his viewer mail fits the descrption of the Chenogne massacre, but to stretch the connection from his mail response, to an article he wrote a year earlier, then to Chenogne massacre is a bit much. Also speculating on what someone is thinking is a big no-no. When you combine the two, the answer a definite no. About the Malmedy/Normandy transcript doctoring, did you try google.com? [8] [9]
"Even worse, Fox News - a joke if there ever was one in the annals of journalism - compounded the lie by rewriting the transcript of O'Reilly's show to make it look like he said 'Normandy,' not 'Malmedy.'" Sysrpl 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The first cite only noted the error, not alledging that Fox *changed* the transcript (for all we know, it was a simple mistake, and as the mediamatters link notes, it has been fixed.) the capitalhillblue page doesn't provide support for the allegation that the transcript was "rewrote" nor that it was an intentional lie. i deleted the comment about Fox News changing the transcript because of insufficient evidence, and again for all we know this was a simple mistake. errors in transcripts happen from time to time, why is this controversial beyond some left leaning websites?
Additionally 82nd airborne does not correspond with Chenogne massacre. Mrmiscellanious, please provide more talk here before editing again. Sysrpl 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now, see - there's an issue with me. You just took a quote from a group that is critical of the transcript, and now you are quoting it, but not sourcing it in the article. They claim the transcript was edited. The actual transcript on the FOXNews.com website shows only Clark said "Normandy". This is including fud in articles - neither one of them proved that Fox in any way edited the transcripts. How can you claim such and not cite any evidence? Since it isn't cited, I am once again removing that section. In addition, I am once again including the Chenogne link, because it is a similar incident and this section is in dire need of balance in order to conform to the WP:NPOV policy. The similarities of O'Reilly's claim honor a mention of Chenogne - it is not alleging that he was thinking of it, it is stating a fact that his claims mirror those of other individuals. It's either that, or the section can be deleted entirely. --Mrmiscellanious 01:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is over dispute of accuracy and proof of the words Malmedy misplaced and then redacted is here [10]. Also, you may wish to claim O'Reilly's statments that American troops were responsible for the Malmedy massarce was actually reference towards a very specific unmentioned incident, but that is entirely your own personal speculation and against the wikipedia rules WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you have a direct quote from Bill O'Reilly correcting himself to say Chenogne, then go ahead an put it in and reference it, otherwise you are violating rules. By the way, npov has nothing to do with balance. Sysrpl 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Made false claims" is unnecessary--let the reader read the paragraph and come to that conclusion independently. I am therefore reverting it. Stanley011 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, check my comments at the top of this section regarding the useage of "false claims", as agreed upon by another Wikipedian. It was left in the article with that wording for quite some time. Now, if you contest the wording, take into accout the previous discussion and that the Malmedy section appears in the disputes of accuracy section. The lead in sentence to first paragraph should state the controversy. So was the quote "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it" a mistatement or a false claim. Please provide your substantive argument here. Sysrpl 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"Made false claims" is poorly worded, and does not give any indication as to what the paragraph is about. The first sentence should read: "In an interview with Wesley Clark, O'Reilly incorrectly asserted" or something along those lines. It is more accurate and professional Stanley011 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC).
You have confused me. You say "made false claims" in the first sentence doesn't give any indication as to what the paragraph is about, yet turn around and provide an example of a first sentence saying the same thing with "incorrectly asserted" in its place. How does replacing "made false claims" with "incorrectly asserted" make a sentence with a lack of any indication turn into a sentence with proper indication? For that matter, precisely how is "made false claims" poor wording? Fact: Bill said that US troops commited the massacre. Do you reject this fact? If so refer, back to your conceeded discussion in the "82nd airborne quote" section below. I'll even go so far as to say there is no assertion. I challenge you to find the assertion in "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd Airborne who did it". Find the assertion please. About the profesional part, are you claiming that stating what is true versus what is false makes for unprofessional editing? If I said, "American President John F Kennedy died in 1999" would you say that's an incorrect assertion or a false claim? Sysrpl 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems this is just an issue of semantics. MrMurph101 20:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the first sentence to better indicate what the paragraph is about. Stanley011 21:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

I beleive the changing of the Malamedy FOX transcript is known, part of this controversy, and fairly well documented given the two cited references. Also I believe we resolved the issue of speculating on what other unmentioned World War II might has sounded better u have bearing on the controversy. What does everyone think? Sysrpl 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

as i noted above, that there was an error in the transcript is known and documented. that's about it. it's not pertinent to the contraversy as far as i can tell, beyond speculations from left leaning websites of course.

The 82nd airborne quote

Regarding Bill's October 28 Malmedy statements, I reviewed the video and Bill most definitely said "General, you need to look at the Malmedy massacre in World War Two, and the 82nd airborne who did it" [11]. There was no break in his Bill's breath, all of his words were clearly audible, and when he finishes saying them his mouth was closed. Regardless of wether Bill might wanted to say more or not, those are the exact words that came out of his mouth. Please, leave his quote complete and let's not continue parse words. Sysrpl 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, what video clip are you listening [12] to? If it's the one on the site you linked to, listen closesly again, because that is exactly what Bill said. There is no alleging, in the video again you can clearly hear Bill say all those words. If you are saying you can't hear those words, in all seriousness I am sorry for you and maybe you should get your hearing tested. A simple google search will give you the complete quote [13]. As far as other different issues go (your other edits and lack of talk page usage), if needs be I will address them in due time. Sysrpl 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I listened to the same clip to which you referred and it appears to me that you are PROBABLY correct, though it is not as clear as you make it seem because as I stated, Clark cuts him off in mid sentence--also explain to me why the accompanying Media Matters transcript does not have O'Reilly saying "that did it." Stanley011 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm now convinced that Sysrpl is correct about the quote, but I can certainly see why there is confusion. I downloaded both the windows media and the quick-time file. The quick-time file is a much larger download but the sound and video are both more clear. Throughout the segment the video runs just ahead of the audio. This makes it appear that O'Reilly's mouth stops moving before the sentance is complete, meanwhile Clark's mouth begins to move before you can actually hear him begin to speak--thus the ambiguity. It appears to me that you both have been editing in good faith and are trying to get the facts right. This is good! -MrFizyx 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[comment below repositioned 16:34, 15 June 2006, by Sysrpl]

Someone tell me why Media Matters, that infallible organization that comprises over 50% of the citations in this article, does not have O'Reilly saying "who did it" at the end of the "General, you have to look at... quote." I listened to the tape and certainly acknowledge that O'Reilly did say something after the "82nd airborne" that sounded remotely similar to "who did it" or "that did it" but he was cut off in mid-sentence by Wesley Clark. Don't you think that should at all be noted in the article, especially in light of the fact that the God-sent organization Media Matters doesn't even have O'Reilly saying anything after "82nd airborn?" Stanley011 23:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Stanley011, please keep you comments grouped together when pertaining to the same subject. There is no need to start a new section at the end of this page rehashing the discussions we've been having above. Sysrpl 16:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, for the sake of all Wikipedia users, please check your hyperboles at the door. No one is or has ever claimed to be infallible, and no one is proclaiming God sent us Media Matters. Your dramatic statements lessen the chances of you being taken seriously. Sysrpl 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Lighten up and take a joke. Stanley011 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Good, thanks for telling everyone your comments are a joke. We can now safely ignore them. Sysrpl 22:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, lets all do our best to keep the tone civil here. -MrFizyx 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sysrpl, I would greatly appreciate if you would avoid comments such as "we can now safely ignore them" (referring to my comments, 100% of which have been constructive). I refer you to wikipedia's policy on civility if you would like to learn more about contributing constructively to our encyclopedia. Stanley011 00:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You posted a new section at the bottom of this page on the same subject. I was polite in pointing out where they should go, and asked you to please to check your hyperboles as they reduce the credibility of what you have to say. It was all good until you replied that it was a joke and made it personal by telling me to lighten up. Are you upset that agreed I with your statement about making joke comments, or that people should ignore your jokes? Either way I offer you my apology. I am sorry I said we should ignore your jokes. Now let's please drop the subject and all move on. Sysrpl 03:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be very interested to learn in what way you consider "Lighten up and take a joke" to be constructive. I don't feel you have, in this case, any superior moral position from which to lecture to Sysrpl in such a way, or to take a condescending tone towards him. The "our" in "our encyclopedia" includes him. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think they both could tone down the rhetoric, but why don't we move the civility discussion to Sysrpl's talk page since it has already continued there and doesn't help this article anyway. -MrFizyx 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry--in writing, it is difficult to decipher tone and when you said "we can now safely ignore them" I originally thought you were referring to my comments in general, not the comments immediately preceding your response. I was wrong--I hope you can forgive me. Stanley011 05:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Biased much?

I think the Malmedy section is kind of ridiculous, especially considering that is it true that American forces did kill German POW's, not by one source but by two. O'Reilly used an "authortarian" tone? That's how he always talks.

"First, O'Reilly incorrectly recounted the Malmedy incident to a decorated, four star general using a scolding, authorative tone and wording; no apology from O'Reilly, a professional commentator, has been given to Clark or the viewers for allowing what he considered to be a heated exchange to cloud his ability to relay important facts correctly."

Who cares that Clark was a "decorated, four star-general?" The author here is clearly trying to make the point that O'Reilly was harassing a man above his credentials about something he wasn't qualified to talk about. This has no place in an unbiased article. And I still argue that O'Reilly wasn't wrong about the incident, just inadvertantly misleading. And what place does the author of this article have to say that O'Reilly owes ANYBODY an apology?

I think this particular article should be marked as disputed neutrality since the original author of the section obviously has much against Bill O' Reilly. He really didn't say anything false. American troops did kill German POWs. I don't think he should issue a retraction or apologize the statement, what he should have said is "immediately following the events at Malmedy, American forces killed German POWS." To be honest with you, I think he was somewhat set up, as there is no name for the event considering the killing of the Germans, so the nearest event to it would be Malmedy. Either edit the section, mark it as disputed neutrality or get rid of it altogether. -C

I will review the article and remove language that might seem biased that doesn't take away from important facts to allow others to form opinions (e.g. I'll remove decorated, although not four star general, even though both are true facts). However, a controversy implies a public dispute with opposing sides; Olbermann is the lead for making this a "public" dispute. There are four reasons given for listing it as a controversy, it would be good to tackle that reasoning. Because a controversy is a controversy, whether O'Reilly is right or wrong, being unfairly judged or not... the issue is that we are trying to record a public dispute. In fact, in this article there is an attempt to help explain how there might be a misunderstanding, but the fact is that it is still a controversy. Whidbey 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A blog, not an article

This one has really gotten out of control and is unencyclopedic, lengthy crap. It is 64 KB; in contrast the article on Edward R. Murrow (not just "Edward R. Murrow controversies") is 32 KB. Few of the controversies here seem significant enough to mention. Suggest reducing this to a list with links to controversies that are notable enough to deserve their own article. The following controversies should have their own article:

  • Sexual Harrassment Case--cause celebre widely covered
  • War on Christmas--commonly used term among conservative commentators
  • Arguments with Al Franken (including Peabody Awards) (borderline)--generated lawsuit, widely covered
  • Jeremy Glick--Should be covered in article on Glick
  • Controversy about boyhood home--Seems trivial, but has received attention in press and mentioned by Franken in related controversy
  • Ludacris--barely notable, but did (arguably) contribute to cancellation of Pepsi endorsement deal

The following items have not received much attention outside of O'Reilly's own show, where he uses them to create a sense of outrage among his viewers that seems to drive his ratings. They are either not controversies, should be mentioned in other articles to which they relate or are not important enough to be worthy of discussion:

  • Malmedy massacre--Exhibit A in the case that this article is blog-like. It is an overextended, speculative essay rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • Hubcaps incident--Appears to have been mentioned once in "Reliable Sources."
  • Alleged liberal bias in the media--which conservative doesn't believe this exists?
  • Citizen boycott of French goods--More something for him to talk about on his show than anything real
  • Opposing the ACLU--He and a lot of other people criticize this organization; why is his opposition especially noteworthy?
  • Penalties on child sex offenders--Details fight with editor of Dayton Daily News, which who does not even have an article here.
  • Weapons of mass destruction--Like lots of other people, he thought Iraq had WMDs. The fact that he felt he had to apologize for this shows that he has a high opinion of his own importance but is not notable.
  • Jane Fonda--repeated common, but mistaken, belief about Jane Fonda and then admitted he was wrong
  • Military recruitment in San Francisco schools--Criticized San Francisco for not allowing military recruiters in the schools, to which a San Francisco supervisor (city council member) responded.
  • Cindy Sheehan--Like other conservatives he has criticized this woman.
  • Brown University SexPowerGod party--Criticized party at university. That's about it.
  • David Letterman--One appearance on late-night show. What's next, a separate article about Drew Barrymore flashing Letterman?
  • Shut-up--Not really a controversy, belongs in his article because it describes his interview style.
  • Neal Gabler--He and someone else at FOX exchanged criticism.
  • Keith Olbermann--Nonnotable feud with other "news personality;" seems mostly designed to prop up each other's ratings
  • American Red Cross--Like many others, criticized Red Cross
  • Stephen Rogers--O'Reilly gave contact info for a nonnotable reporter who was dead; how does this even remotely qualify as a controversy?

This article's history shows it is the subject of repeated edit wars; it is an invitation to POV-pushing by the subject's supporters and detractors. Since it contains little truly notable information and no notable information that could not be incorporated elsewhere, it should be turned into a list. --JChap 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and the suggestion for turning the article into a list to eliminate POV-pushing on both sides.Dcflyer 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No arguement here. This article is silly and is too long to be worth reading by anyone. Even a list, however, is going to require some monitoring as it seems to usually be annons who insert new content here (and Oreilly's detractors seem to always find new content). -MrFizyx 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. I'm on board with it. Lawyer2b 03:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. This article could be considered a POV fork. The article is valid but it needs some serious cleaning up. What is considered a controversy here should be something that received notable mainstream media attention. If the issue just stays within O'Reilly's shows or only addressed by his critics, it is not really a controversy unless both sides continue to address it. If something is talked about at the time and forgotten about, it becomes trivial. MrMurph101 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning on waiting a few weeks, turning a few of the sections into separate articles, and then submitting the article to AfD with the suggestion that it be turned into a list wikilinking to individual articles. Any disagreement with that? --JChap 00:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I just think its hilarious that people take this website seriously when the references produced are popular and not scholarly publications and when anyone who has a computer can simply press edit and remove or add anything they want to. I'm actually feeling shame because I am writing something on this webpage, but there you are, they've sucked me in too.

Critics of O'Reilly

I propose a new article called "Critics of Bill O'Reilly." Some of the entries here could be moved there since this article has become bloated. I think it will help manage NPOV. It is not controversial, in essence, to be critical of someone. This way we can identify those who criticize O'Reilly and state their accusations and people can decide for themselves what to believe. MrMurph101 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Neal Gabler" section

I am removing the following text from the article.

Known for his heated interviews and clashes with other media personalities, O'Reilly has entered into a feud with a fellow Fox News personality Neal Gabler, a member commentator on Fox News Watch. In December of 2005, during the War on Christmas commentary by the network, Gabler attacked O'Reilly as well as John Gibson and Sean Hannity for what he perceived as their overzealous demagoguery. O'Reilly initially ignored Gabler with a few simple remarks, but has since called for Gabler to be fired and referred to him as a "smear merchant" and a "rabid dog".[14][15]

I do not believe this incident constitutes a controversy and part of the reason can be found in the first sentence. O'Reilly is known for clashes with other media personalities and therefore the other personality needs to be more of a celebrity to generate controversy (e.g. Al Franken, or Keith Olbermann) There has been virtually no discussion of this incident in the media at all and even the media matters supporting links are neutral, simply confining themselves to detailing what Gabler said that upset O'Reilly and what O'Reilly said in his response. Lawyer2b 22:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

After the AfD

(or, How not to change an article you don't like...) It looks like the result of the AfD will be that the article will be kept on a permanent basis, at least based on the consensus of opinion expressed there. I still don't think this topic lends itself to a single, well-written encyclopedia article that hangs together well, but will support MrMurph101 if he wants to rewrite this (as he says above). I don't feel comfortable editing this article because any edit I would make would involve deleting major chunks of text. As I support deleting the article (eventually), it would probably be inappropriate for me to delete large parts of it after a Keep. --JChap 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The baseline version to be edited could be Dcflyer's last edit at 00:18 (UTC) on 13 June 2006. In my opinion (as I discuss in more detail above), the major problems with this version are that the article is overly long, contains a lot of trivial information and has some anti-O'Reilly POV (esp. the Malmedy section). --JChap 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The strong keep emerging from the AfD may indeed make your plan more difficult, but most of the voices there still recognize that something needs to be done here. If you want to again revert to the "baseline version" you mention, I'll support you (or even do the edit if you wish). I hate to admit it, but I agree with some of the cuts that Stanley011 has made, but unfortunately he has inserted a new POV slant into a few places and in general gone about business in a very negative way. -MrFizyx 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Then why don't you cite specific examples of where I inserted right wing POV--and remove those rather than starting from a "baseline version" that might as well be found on DailyKos. Stanley011 11:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Mainly because I'd like to show respect for people who first discuss their edits on talk pages and try to build consensus. Its not clear to me that the current version is a better or worse place to start editing out biased statements. I really don't plan to spend a lot of time on this article myself, so if a majority of editors wish to start from your version I could live with that too. -MrFizyx 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I started restructuring the article and created a "critics and rivals" section. I believe that this should be ultimately moved to the main article. MrMurph101 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yo! Much props to Mr. Murph. I think the new structure is awesome. Much improved. Very impressive. Wish I had thought of it. Lawyer2b 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :-). This was bugging me for a while and I decided to be bold. It seems that most are happy or at least not objecting. MrMurph101
The article is much better organized. Nice job. --JChap 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Franken book controversy

I just watched the video of the ABA event discussed in this section. The section has several problems. To wit:

  1. Franken did not speak first, Ivins did. O'Reilly spoke second and Franken spoke last.
  2. Franken and O'Reilly argued after Franken talked about O'Reilly's Peabodys; Franken did not interrupt O'Reilly's talk.
  3. The fact that Franken exceeded the time limit is mentioned twice in section: Franken spoke for 20 minutes. O'Reilly claims the time limit was fifteen minutes but there is no other indication that this is the time limit.

I am going to make changes to the section accordingly.

The Peabody Awards controversy seems to have been largely instigated by Franken (who called the Washington Post about it) and this could be integrated here. --JChap 04:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentences from the Franken Book controversy section:

Franken spoke first and discussed the Peabody issue at length, exceeding the alloted time limit. Franken then interupted O'Reilly's speech and was told by O'Reilly to "shut up" twice. O'Reilly then noted that while Franken interrupted O'Reilly's speech, O'Reilly did not interrupt Franken's speech even though Franken exceeded the designated time limit for each speaker.

Reason, factually incorrect premise. Franken did not speak first. Ivins first spoke, O'Reilly speach followed, and Franken's speach was last. In addition, Franken did not interrupt O'Reillys speach. See also, the unresolved comments at the top of this section. Sysrpl 02:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I had changed it so it was correct, but someone changed it back. This is getting annoying. I will revert this section to my last edit. JChap 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I added some MUCH needed quotes to this section--I hope you like the new and improved version. Stanley011 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Stanley011, I apologize for my earlier statements in the Malmedy section. Having said that, I hope we can be respectful and analytical. In case of your latest edit, I am going to have to disagree. I don't believe we need a play by play psuedo-transcript of the incident. The complete video is linked as a reference and does more far justice than an interpretation. I understand it's diffcult to write a even description of the exchange. For example, you wrote the Bill tried to defend himself and Franken interrupted him, whereas I could point out that Franken was still standing at the podium wrapping up his speach when Bill began his verbal attack on Franken. Those type of point of view arguments could go on endlessly. For these reasons and I am reverting the section. Sysrpl 07:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's perfectly ok with me--however, I think we need to have the link to the video, in full, in a prominent place in the description itself, (something like: a link to the full video can be seen here) rather than just a footnote that links to the video. I also think we should avoid pov terminology like "potshots" which I think we can do if we work together on improving the description. Stanley011 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm not sure that a blow by blow description is such a bad idea after all--for the benefit of wikipedia's deaf users. I tried to locate a transcript of the full exchange (not just the "eruption") but am unable to. If we do manage to, then we can linke to that in the article, but if not, I think we should have a complete description, as I have provided. Stanley011 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem, as I pointed out, is that this, and most any play by play, is it's gratutious point of view. I contend Franken was still speaking at the podium when Bill began to verbally assault Franken, while you say O'Reilly attempted to make statements defending himself and Franken kept interrupting. You give O'Reilly the last word, and I want to give Franken the last word. See how that works? It doesn't capture the spirit of the debate, it ignores the mounds of relevant dialog before and after whatever segment you describe, and it's all point of view. As I said before, the full two plus hour video is already linked to as source. If someone wants to watch it to form their own opinions, without an encyclopida entry guiding them along the way, they can. The video is a free resource, and extremely entertaining to watch. As far as accomidating deaf Wikipedia's users goes, I empathize with their condition, but we can't use them as an excuse to violate Wikipedia's non-point of view principles. Sysrpl 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not using deaf people as an excuse and please do not imply that I am. Stanley011 14:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I was not trying to imply that you were. Sysrpl 14:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Pot shot is POV terminology and if you continue to use it, I will continue to revert. Stanley011 14:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, just removing the sentence (as you have done) is actually a good edit. I can accept the section as written. JChap 14:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was JChap who wrote the part about potshots, and also who has been for reverting your edits. Though I did the most recent revert. Reason, Franken "told a story" is more desciptive and accurate than "discussed". Franken's speach was a monologue, not a discussion, and he presented himself saying he had a story to tell about an incident with O'Reilly. With regards to the potshot sentence, I believe is accurate and adds to the article without violating point of view. Google's word dictionary answers.com defines potshot as a "A random or easy criticism" and gives the example "reporters taking potshots at the mayor". Since Bill is a reporter, and was criticising Franken without him present before the conference, I believe it's a fair non-point of view descriptive statement. Also, since I haven't been reverting you, and you have been busy reverting this section. I'd like to direct your attention to the WP:3RR rule. Sysrpl 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the article, the term "potshot" describes statements in O'Reilly's speech behind the lectern: "I'm not calling anybody a 'Liar.' ... Not doing that... Don't call people 'big fat.' Not doing any of that. ... I don't get [talking points e-mailed to me]. I'm sure Al does. ..." Potshot seems the best description for them. "Criticism" implies a sustained logical argument. That being said, O'Reilly's potshots were actually not all that important unless they caused Franken to tell the Peabody story and there's no indication that they did. JChap 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Potshot is pov terminology--best to avoid terminology like that when writing an encyclopedic article Stanley011 15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

You will be more effective if you provide actual arguments using evidence and reasoning, rather than just making conclusory statements. JChap 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice. Stanley011 15:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Is the word "criticize" pov? How about "criticize without him around"? What about being concise and just saying "potshot"? Sysrpl 15:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "criticize without him around?" He was right next to him--didn't you even watch the video? Stanley011 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did, but apparently you have not. Watch again it again. O'Reilly does his one-on-one interview section first and criticizes Franken. Also, please read my comments. I already said "criticising Franken without him present before the conference" Sysrpl 15:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
OK--you say "potshot," I say "criticize." I think JChap's argument best expresses why that sentence does not belong in the article: "That being said, O'Reilly's potshots were actually not all that important unless they caused Franken to tell the Peabody story and there's no indication that they did."-JChap Stanley011 15:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Also Sysrpl, I remind you not to mark your edits as "minor" when you are inserting, or re-inserting, entire sentences. That box should only be marked for minor changes (correcting grammar on a small scale, and the like). Stanley011 15:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's be fair here, Franken's story was about O'Reilly denying erronious statements, not the other way around.

Guy says about me, couple weeks ago, "O’Reilly said he won a Peabody Award." Never said it. You can’t find a transcript where I said it. You-there is no one on earth you could bring in that would say I said it. Robert Reno in Newsday, a columnist, writes in his column, calls me a liar, all right? And it’s totally fabricated. That’s attack journalism. It’s dishonest, it’s disgusting, and it hurts reputations.

Sysrpl 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olberman

Regarding Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" (WPW) television segment, I removed the following wording from the article:

"In this segment, Olbermann designates an individual, mostly public personalities (usually a conservative), who, some time in the week prior to that night's segment of Countdown, engaged in conduct or speech with which Olbermann disagrees, as the "worst person the world."

Reason, these statements are not factual. It is true Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter often make the list because they are public personalities that grab attention by making controversial statements, but the majority of the people highlighted in WPW though are random newsmakers (e.g. the woman who left her kid at Chuck E Cheese). All of this is handled with a humorous zeal as evidenced by the Keith's dramatic reading of the WPW title and the upside-down yellow smiley faces garbed in jailhouse uniforms that permeate the segment. This suggests that WPW are canidates are selected for their humorous effect and not because Keith disagrees with them. Either way, Keith's motivations for whom is picked is speculative, not factual, and as a consequence it doesn't belong in the article. Sysrpl 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stanley011 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A lso, the time frame from when an event occurs to when it makes to WPW is arbitrarily based on when the news breaks. In the case of the many felons highlighted in WPW, that is when the media picks up the story which is sometimes months after the incident occured, and not necessarily "sometime in the week prior". If anyone wants to describe the WPW segment they should, get the facts straight, add it to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article, and wiki-fy it here. Sysrpl 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced O'Reilly image

Unless a source is provided, this image should be deleted ASAP. Stanley011 15:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The source of the image is that it is the very first result when using Google's Image Search for "o'reilly". The originating website appears to be www.courttv.com. Please feel free to add this information yourself to the image's wiki page, and please stop vandalizing my user talk page with continued requests/demands that I add this information myself. The source information is easily available, and I just told you exactly where to get it. For more information, please contact the web team of the CourtTV website and ask where they got the image, not me. --Ilyag 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies

The result of this AfD discussion was keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  08:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Letterman

The addition of O'Reilly's comments about Letterman being a tough interview have nothing to do with him calling him a "card carrying memeber of the secular progressive movement" One addresses his religious leaning "or lack there of" and the other lauds his journalistic ablity. The article is set up now, to look as though O'Reilly "flipped-flopped" so to speak--Bairdso66 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Please keep these allegations balanced, people. Mrmiscellanious 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that too. The section states that O'Reilly had a change of opinion on Letterman. There is no real example or even an implication of this. MrMurph101 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I was bold and changed this. I retained a mention of him praising Letterman for doing tough interviews, since it was interesting in the light of Letterman doing a tough interview of O'Reilly himself. However, I deleted the rest of the quote of him praising Letterman. This extended discussion of a rather minor incident could perhaps be edited down more. JChap 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Glick's claim of post-show abusive language.

Stanley, please stop inserting the note that no other source has confirmed Glick's claim. It is not necessary (we already make it clear that Glick alone claims this) and it is unseemly editorial bias. The note that a particular claim has not been supported by others could be added to hundreds of different claims made by public figures cited on Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to go around adding this claim to every one of them? If O'Reilly, or anyone else who was present, has denied what Glick claims, then add the denial. Otherwise, leave it alone. It is clearly marked as something Glick alone claims. There is no need for unsupported notes about it. Kasreyn 14:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

An allegation as strong as the one Glick alleges deserves a qualifying note Stanley011 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Hmm. You think that it's strong. Isn't that a POV? The qualification is unneccessary. If you're worried a reader will somehow mistakenly assume someone beyond Glick has claimed it, that's not our fault and not our worry. The article says exactly what it needs to say: "person x claimed y." There is no basis for providing unsupportable notations such as that. Its only purpose is to attempt to get the reader to disbelieve Glick.
Claiming the remark is "strong" is POV. There are a lot of "strong" remarks in other articles which could have such a notation added, but they don't, because it's extraneous.
I wish you would stop thinking I'm the enemy, Stanley. I may not agree with you politically but I do want these articles to be NPOV. Kasreyn 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You ought to stick to editing articles because your mind-reading capabilities suck. I do not think that you're the enemy and please do not level those sorts of accusations against me. Stanley011 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
...excuse me, then. I was not attempting to accuse you of anything, and if it seemed that way, then I apologize. I was just trying to say that I wanted to work together with you rather than at cross-purposes. Kasreyn 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I accept your appology. I also want to note that I have seen the good work that you have been doing--while I do not agree with all of your edits, I do agree that all of your edits have been good-faith attempts to improve the articles. I look forward to continuing to work with you. Stanley011 15:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Trivial references

I read the reference to O'Reilly's retraction of the Plano, Texas school not allowing red and green clothes. It was really "plates and cupcakes." I put the example in the article but it was, admittedly, awkardly added to the sentence. This seems pretty trivial to me. Even some of those sympathetic to MM on the comments to their article thought it was not really worth mentioning. Does this need to be included in the article? MrMurph101 04:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It is pretty trivial, but it is an example of one of O'Reilly's "false or inaccurate" claims (admittedly very minor and, in fact, one that puts O'Reilly in a somewhat favorable light, as he did publicly correct his error). I don't think the section would be compromised in any great way if this one example would be removed, if others agree with you that it is too trivial to include.Hal Raglan 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I like how it is, and don't regard it as trivial. +1 for leaving it. Airumel 21:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Larry Flint picket

A few years back a group of protesters organized by Larry Flint called for the death of O'Reilly outside a news station. I'll get some information on the event and post it.--Red Titan 23:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic and Superfluous Injections

Sysrpl, please do not take out these relevant facts. Ïf you doubt that jones is a conspiracy theorist, why don´t you check out his article on wikipedia, which categorizes him as such. If you can find one other source that has questioned the legality of oreilly´s threat, why not provide it? stanley011.

you changed: political commentator Al Franken performed a search on Nexis
to: comedian and political commentator Al Franken claims that he performed a search on Nexis
superfluous: Are attempting to imply that Al Franken is a liar? Are you attempting to imply that Al Franken was pulling a joke?
you changed: the legality of O'Reilly's threat is disputed.
to: Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist who writes and edits articles for the site www.prisonplanet.com, has questioned the legality of O'Reilly's threat.
superfluous and off-topic: I have never heard of Alex Jones before this. Why are you bringing him into this? Why are you associating people that question the legality with labels like conspiracy theorist and why are you linking to blog websites?
you added: Glick did not elaborate on what he meant by this
superfluous: Why are you suggesting that Glick had the opportunity to fully explain himself? The environment was hostile and Bill kept interrupting Glick even going so far as to end the interview early. This has no place.
you removed: Others argue French imports actually rose during the period of the boycott.
other: If you believe this is incorrect add the cite template rather than just removing the line.
Sysrpl 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will address these point by point. First: I am not attempting to imply Franken is a liar. He IS a comedian--that is primarily what he is known for and is therefore not superfluous. Also, how do you know that he performed a Nexis search? Were you there when he did it? Even if you were, you couldn´t phrase the sentence like that because then it would be original research. The only way the public was made aware of Franken´s alleged Nexis search was that he claimed it. Second: re Alex Jones. Please look at the source. His site was the only source provided for questioning the legality of oreillys claims--just look at the footnotes on the bottom of the page. And according to his wiki entry, he is a conspiracy theorist. A google search does not turn up a single source, other than his, that has questioned the legality of oreillys threats. If you can find one, please feel free to cite it in the article. Also, stating the source that is provided, such as "Jones has disputed" etc. is stylistically superior to using the passive voice, as in "is disputed" etc. Consult any style guide. Third: What on earth was Glick talking about when he said Bush´s father was responsible for situating geopolitically and training the parties involved in the alleged assassination of my father, etc. etc. What does that even mean? Bush´s father had NOTHING to do with the Afghan Soviet War in which the CIA allegedly trained the mujihadeen--that was during the Carter administration and Bush Sr. was CIA director in the Ford administration. Shouldn´t a disclaimer be provided to the reader that Glick was very mistaken, so that the reader is not under the faulty impression that what Glick said was true (assuming he was even talking about Búsh´s father as CIA Director)? Perhaps we can work on the wording. Fourth: Condeded. I will add the cite tag and leave the line in. Stanley011.

In the context of doing research of diligent fact checking I see the placement denoting Franken the comedian as an attempt to undercut his credibility. If not, why do you object so much to it being removed? Also, you state that you are not attempting to imply Franken lied, but to what other conclusions are you leading the reader? Either he performed a Nexus search, or he didn't and lied about it. Those are the only two conclusions, therefore I find your whole reasoning to be quite disingenuous.
About the FOX security changes, I dispute the legality of O'Reilly's usage of FOX security to apprehend callers he disagrees with, as do many others including Keith Olbermann. Style doesn't come into play here if you insist on using conspiracy theorists and web blogs to contravene O'Reilly's practices. A dicta need not be cited to be valid. Injecting such material seeks to inflame the discussion with far stretching opposition.
About your myopic comprehension of Glick's statements, it is not the position of wikipedia to translate arguments into unnecessary more simplified speak. If you cannot understand what Glick is talking about, or the ramifications of his statements, I'm not really sure I can help you. Perhaps you should try reading more about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from 1980 to 1989. This was during a point when Bush Sr. was the Vice President and later President. Specifically read up on the funding and training the U.S. provided the Mujahideen, then read up on how the Mujahideen became al-Qaeda.
I don't have the time to play Sherlock Holmes with all your edits. So many of them are clearly superfluous and off-topic as evidenced above. I want to remind the people that this controversy section was removed from the main Bill O'Reilly article. That you personally took the lead trying to have this article deleted, the result of which was a strong vote for keep. After a brief 3RR account suspension you are back making these hyper fast edits, and accuse people that revert your changes of sending you threats and vandalism. You were notified of this by an administrator. It's for that record and the examples cited above that I greet your edits with alarmism, skepticism, and potential irresponsibility. Sysrpl 18:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Franken is a comedian, Sysrpl--an encyclopedia seeks to present facts, not disguise the truth. Just referring to Franken as a political commentator is EXTREMELY misleading, because it ignores what he is most, or at least equally known for...a comedian. Second, he claimed that he performed a Nexis search--should we just assume it is true because he said it? That´s a logical fallacy--just because someone says something is true, doesn´t mean it is. To get around that problem, we word sentences like "Franken claimed," etc. which you seem to have no trouble doing for OReilly. Third, the CIA allegedly trained the mujihadeen, not the Vice President--Bush Sr was Vice President during the war--not CIA Director. Therefore, what Glick said was misleading and a disclaimer should be offered, as Media Matters has done, the wording of which I would be more than happy to work on with you, so the reader does not assume that Bush Sr was CIA director during the Afghan Soviet War, which Glick´s words imply. Fourth, you write,"I dispute the legality of O'Reilly's usage of FOX security to apprehend callers he disagrees with, as do many others including Keith Olbermann"--however, an encyclopeida is not the place for personal biases--you are an editor, your opinion should not make its way into the article. The source cited for disputing the legality of Oreilly´s threat is Alex Jones´s website, www.prisonplanet.com--just see the footnote. So I simply noted that in the sentence, much as you suggested that I do, and in fact I did, for the Rolling Stone source. Stanley011.

As another user recently pointed out; you unsuccessfully nominated this article for deletion, your account was briefly suspended for edits on this page, and now you are attempting to poison the well. This goes hand in hand with the points I made which you haven't redressed. You say you aren't injecting wording to imply people are liars, but I directly showed that you were. You say you aren't trying to uncut people's credibility, but I again showed that is what you are doing. You changed your argument from Carter was the President to Bush Sr. was the Vice President. This was after I pointed out you were wrong. You even put in the wrong template as per my suggestion. I am talking this over with a few wikipedia administrators to consider the seriousness of the situation, in the meantime I suggest you stop this activity immediately. Sysrpl 17:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm rather intrigued by something you said, Stanley. Allow me to quote you:
"Shouldn´t a disclaimer be provided to the reader that Glick was very mistaken, so that the reader is not under the faulty impression that what Glick said was true ... ?"
By this reasoning, you would I'm sure also be willing to include a disclaimer to the reader after every O'Reilly quote in which he was very mistaken? The only trouble with such a laudable plan of action is that I think the sheer number of such disclaimers would rapidly increase the article's size to unmanageable levels. We shouldn't be picking and choosing whose comments we specifically call out as mistaken, and whose we let slide. Kasreyn 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sysrpl, your refusal to respond to my arguments means you have conceded the points. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this article. Stanley011.

For the record, I did NOT introduce the prison planet site--Sysrpl seems to be under the impression that I did--just check the page history. I simply noted that that was the source used for the footnote--my own google and nexis searches do not reveal any source, other than blogs and conspiracy sites like prisonplanet.com, which was introduced in this article by another editor, that has disputed the legality of Oreillys threat. I therefore think that line should be removed--what do others think? Stanley011.

I have been reverting some of the vandalism by Stanley011 (yes, that is what it is). Specifically - the section where he first attempted to discredit a source with the weasel term 'conspiracy theorist' and when this failed removing the section at all, claiming it had no citation when it clearly does, and Stanley knows it does because he deleted that as well. Damburger 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It is you who has failed to respond. I first posed questions to you and received responses all of which were false or disingenuous. This is why I started off my prior comments noting I had points you refuse to redress. You are poisoning the well as four other users have commented on and I am not going to allow you to evade the issues by changing the conversation anytime you feel boxed in. Sysrpl 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sysrpl, our dialogue is clearly visible to anyone visiting this page, and in fact I encourage all editors to go back and take a look at who is evading the issues. I am perfectly satisfied with that. What I would like to note here, mainly for the benefit of the larger wikipedia community but also (I hope) for your benefit, is something that you stated earlier in one of our previous exchanges. In the aforementioned exchange, I stated that we should note that prisonplanet.com was the source introduced (though not by me) in the footnote to back up the sentence noting that the legality of O´Reilly´s threat was disputed. I therefore submitted to you that the sentence should not be worded so generally so as to suggest there are others who have disputed the legality of his threat, for the simple reason that no other sources were supplied. I wrote ``A google search does not turn up a single source, other than his, that has questioned the legality of oreillys threats. If you can find one, please feel free to cite it in the article.`` Your response, which I would like to draw all wikipedians to, was the following ``About the FOX security changes, I dispute the legality of O'Reilly's usage of FOX security to apprehend callers he disagrees with, as do many others including Keith Olbermann.´´ By stating this, you attempted to justify wording the sentence in such a way that would suggest there is a group of others, besides Jones, who dispute O´Reilly´s threat. I am afraid, sir, that you committed an enormous error by including yourself in that group: you admitted in that one sentence, by writing ´´I dispute the legality of O'Reilly's usage of FOX security to apprehend callers he disagrees with´´, to the wikipedia community, that you intend to inject your personal biases into the article. I addressed your infraction in my next response. I wrote ´´you write, ´I dispute the legality of O'Reilly's usage of FOX security to apprehend callers he disagrees with, as do many others including Keith Olbermann´--however, an encyclopeida is not the place for personal biases--you are an editor, your opinion should not make its way into the article.´´ You could have appologized, you could have admitted your error and stated that you will change your outlook or that you didn´t mean that, but instead, you failed to respond, which means that you have every intention of continuing to inject your personal biases into the article. This is a far more serious situation than occasional POV lapses: you admitted that you have no intention of adhering to the cardinal wikipedia policy of maintaining an objective point of view. Therefore, my fellow wikipedians, when noting a change by Sysrpl, please keep that one sentence of his in mind. And Sysrpl, please understand that I harbor no ill-will towards you. I believe you will soon come to grasp wikipedia´s policies, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this article Stanley011.

Its become clear than Stanley011 is pushing an agenda here, attempting to discredit sources that contradict his political leanings by Poisoning the Well:

·Referring to Al Franken as a 'comedian' when that information is easily apparant from his bio article, is an attempt to suggest his stements should not be taken seriously

·The claim beginning 'Glick admits...' is factually inaccurate, and another attempt to discredit people who do not agree with Stanley011

·Referring to a cited person as a 'conspiracy theory' is so laughably POV I shouldn't have to mention it. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone Stanley?

Adding smug, sanctimonious statements to the talk page does not make you any less of a vandal. It doesn't make you look smart, or like you are taking the high road against partisan users (its actually the other way round). I've not been involved with this article very long but already its become apparant to me what your agenda here is. Damburger 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Just an update. Stanley011 is reverting to his previous edits, which appear to have been shot down by the community, claiming there has been no discussion on the Talk page. I, and others, have been explaining patiently why his edits are unacceptable, yet he continues to claim there has been no discussion. Damburger 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Two logical fallacies that you and Sysrpl seem to have adopted--just because you say something is true, doesn´t mean it is true. For example, just because you say I am trying to poison the well, does not mean that I am. In fact, I am simply trying to point out to readers that Franken is a comedian, in addition to a political commentator. Another example--just because Franken says he performed a Nexis search, does not mean that he actually did--he might have, but we, as editors, cannot assume that what somebody says, without written, documented evidence that is clearly provided is true. Therefore, we write: ´´he claims he performed a Nexis search´´ and we provide documentation for that attribution. Both you and Sysrpl have not yet responded to this argument. You and Sysrpl have instead offered angry, personal attacks in place of reasoned responses to my arguments. Therefore, you still have not discussed your changes but the anger of your responses, and the absence of logic contained therein, have not remained unnoticed. Cheers! Stanley011.

You say that it is nessecary to qualify Frankens statement about performing a search, but you do not think sucha qualification is nessecary for the Rolling Stone article regarding Glick. This double standard alone should make your agenda clear. I have responded to this argument, as has sysrpl I believe, but you have simply ignored the fact that we have refuted you and carried on pushing your POV on the article.
You've claimed that changes are 'undiscussed' as a justification for reverting things done by anybody who opposed your agenda, yet you yourself make changes without any discussion on the talk page.
You've claimed you are ignoring opposing opinions because they have an 'absence of logic' but you have not shown this at all. You are simply putting your head in the sand and refusing to recognise that other people have a point.
Now I would ask you to stop forcing your revisions on the article until more people have a chance to to weigh in on this. Damburger 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I will change the wording of the Franken sentence to better fit consensus. Stanley011.

I would prefer it also if you would not add new information to the article whilst the information you are already trying to force into it is disputed on the talk page. It seems like spam to me. Damburger 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not even know to what you are referring. Stanley011.

Why is this neccessary? You can't prove either way if someone performed a search on their own computer. Such things don't have this kind of qualification elsewhere. The only purpose would seem to be to poison the well for Frankens statements. Furthermore, nobody contests that he performed this search. It isn't a contraversial issue. Damburger 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the article every statement has this qualification: OReilly claimed, according to Rolling Stone magazine, according to Media Matters, etc. Why does Franken deserve preferential treatment? Stanley011.

Incorrect example. The things you've mentioned are contentious - that Franken used his computer is not. Thats why its poisoning the well. Damburger 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that these issues are contentious has nothing to do with their wording--we use wording such as ´´he claimed´´ ´´she claimed´´ ´´media matters claimed´´ etc etc, or ´´according to´´ not because an issue is contentious, but because that is the fact of the situation. The only verifiable fact is that Franken claimed he performed a Nexis search--that is absolutely indisputalte--Franken claimed (or stated, or asserted) that he performed a Nexis search. You cannot possible deny the truth of that sentence. That is why we word things that way--if you find the word ´´claimed´´ to be distasteful, I´ll change it to ´´stated.´´ I, just as you do, want to find consensus at every point possible and as such, would appreciate if you would refrain from assertions such as I am ´´poisoning the well.´´ It´s really quite silly and does nothing to advance your argument. Stanley011.

Stanley011 Suspension Regarding reversions made on July 10 2006

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Stifle (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanley, please do not channel your masochism rising from your failed initiative to have this this article deleted [16] into what some see as vandalism. Your actions show that you have not taken the advice of many people particpating on the page, and as a result your account has been suspended for 24 hours. Further suzerainty activtity of making the same revisions over and over again for points you refuse to redress will result in a request for adminstrative intervention to have you account suspended on a more permanent basis.

I highly suggest that in your "time-out" period you read back through our comments considering what we have said. Please take this time research the link we keep referring you to; poisoning the well. If you sit and stew for a bit you may see your pretzel logic are theatrics are being used to undercut dissenters with poison like:

Before you listen to Al Franken, may I remind you he is a jokester by trade
The opposition, whom I remind you is a conspiracy theorist, has questioned the legality of the matter.

Also, you are indeed evading the issues when you viscerally declare "your refusal to respond to my arguments means you have conceded the points" and make the disingenuous stroppy comment "thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to continuing to work with you on this article" whilst proceeding on your next edits to make seven reversions in under 24 hours, violating WP:3RR a showing lack of good will. This is especially dubious in light of the fact that this is your second suspension for violating this same rule on this very article.

You attempted to weasle about the fact that you did indeed introduce "a conspiracy theorist who edits articles on the site www.prisonplanet.com" [17], while at the same time removing the msnbc reference. This leads me to doubts your claims to having access to the pay news publication lexis nexis [18] search services.

After all of this you still haven't redress many of our points. You are now blindly making unvarying reversions without regard to anyone's arguments, whether they be from Damburger, Kasreyn, Pheoinixflame, or Myself. Sysrpl 14:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Sysrpl, care to explain the following sentences you just wrote: 1) Stanley, please do not channel your masochism rising from your failed initiative to have this this article deleted [16] into what some see as vandalism. 2)Further suzerainty activtity of making the same revisions over and over again for points you refuse to redress will result in a request for adminstrative intervention to have you account suspended on a more permanent basis. They sure confused me. Stanley011.

Yes. It means stop your endless unwavering cycle of reverts in violation of wikipedia's rules without redressing our questions, and that your continued insistence to do so will lead to an adminstrative intervention request being filed. Sysrpl 16:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This Article need Expansion

This page isn't very helpful on documenting all the major controversies O'Reilly has been in, I'm trying to expand it and it seems that alot the information here doesn't really mean anything: Boyhood controversy, Malmedy Massacre, and the Red Cross & United Way section is on TWO diffrent pages. I understand that the Malmedy Massacre was probably O'Reilly confused between to events and the boyhood home was rezoned and was used just make something out of nothing, but the Red Cross Section is not a real controversy reguarding O'Reilly. I moved it the Bill O'Reilly article a while ago, if anyone wants to read it they can get there by the link at the bottom of the page. Anyway, I think that this article fails to mention O'Reilly's use of unrelated events to create stories and controversies (War On Christmas) or his down right false claims (Paris Business Review, False Ratings Information, & University of Oregon Newspaper Controversy). Why is there all this reluctance to mention this information and expand this page?

Some of the incidents you mention have been in the article, but Stanley011 keeps removing the sections. I'm afraid you've stepping into a bit of an edit war Damburger 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters reports do not constitute controversies in and of themselves. We must find other sources that have mentioned these incidents as controversies. Otherwise, this page will become a mirror site for Media Matters, rather than an independent entity. Stanley011.

Stanly 011, I don't mind if you change the language to be more neutral, but removing important sections is not going to make the article better. Besides the reguarding the newspaper- The Insurgent which O'Reilly cited as university run is according to a quote in this article http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCampus.asp?Page=/Campus/archive/200605/CAM20060526a.html is run by the students. User: Pheoinixflame

Fair enough--the language will have to be changed dramatically, but the source you have provided convinces me that it is a controversy. This sentiment may not be shared by other editors, however. I would like more people to join in this discussion. Stanley011.

What about the other source? It seems fine to me. Here is the quote from that article: University President Dave Frohnmayer released a statement, indicating to Students of Faith that he shared their concern "about the offensive nature of the content contained within the publication."

"I understand why it may seem as if the University should have prevented publication or should take some action against those responsible for the publication. The Student Insurgent is not owned controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. Therefore, the University cannot exercise editorial control over its content," Frohnmayer stated. Two Sources confirm it and Media Matters is a video of O'Reilly claiming that the newspaper was university run, that in my opinion is not a real controversy.

I have not found another source about the profanity yet. User: Pheoinixflame

That´s fine--feel free to re-add the sections to the article and we´ll work together, along with the other editors, on the wording Stanley011.

I went back to the Media Matters article, there I found a link to the discplinary code: http://docs.nycenet.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-101/Discipline%20Code%20%28English%29.pdf. I am going to add those sections again since everything seems well supported, Ok? User: Pheoinixflame

I had resolved to ignore this article as a waste of time, but I find myself being sucked back in.....
<rant> EXPANSION?!?! WTF?!?! O'Reilly generates these tempest-in-a-teapot "controversies" (which are the obvious result of his provocative on-air comments) to bump up his ratings. Media Matters knows a good promotional tool when it sees one ("We need money to buy a sword to fight Grendel.") The whole thing's just a dog and pony show. Olbermann is using the old morning radio trick of going after your highest rated competitor. Few of these "controversies" deserve mention on Wikipedia. </rant>
As I discussed in more detail previously, a few of these sections should be turned into articles, most discarded and "Bill O'Reilly controversies should be a list linking to those controversies that are significant enough to have their own articles. JChap (Talk) 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The boyhood home article is needed because it is a source of controversy. About once per month someone tries to alter the birthplace of Bill O'Reilly on the main Bill O'Reilly article owing to the Washington post article which confusingly states his family has a Leavitt-built home in Westbury. Mrdthree 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see the need for the section but does it really needs to be that long? Couldn't someone just write something like:

O'Reilly often cites his Levittown boyhood home as part of his working-class roots. However some critics have doubted this, and the Washington Post claimed his boyhood home was actually in Westbury- an more affluent neighborhood. This is true but at the time O'Reilly lived in his home it was part of Levittown and it was rezoned later on.

I believe this would be better and shorter than what is currently posted. User: Pheoinixflame

A Suggestion

I see that over the last couple of days this article has become rather busy. If I might make a suggestion: instead of immediately changing the article, let's commit to resolving the editorial differences here first. You will find that it will actually save you all a lot of time and effort. But a couple of pointers: (a) this is a content dispute so far, there is no vandalism (on the part of the registered users thus far participating) taking place. Differences of style and opinion do not constitute vandalism; (b) Please be mindful of the Three-revert rule; (c) While it is not appropriate to change a section of an article that is currently being discussed on the talk page, not every edit to the given section needs to be immediately reverted as "undiscussed". It is possible that a change might have been made for reasons other than circumventing the discussions. Hopefully, this will help to get this situation resolved quickly and without incident. Regards, Redux 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I really must ask everyone to calm down a little here. We have had users accusing each other of vandalism [19] [20] and two users blocked for three-revert rule violations. I urge everyone to take their fingers off their mouse button and resolve the issues here before continuing to edit the article. In doing that, please take a look at the following Wikipedia pages:
If this situation continues to deteriorate into a revert war, I will be forced to suspend all editing of the article until a resolution can be found. Since this is something nobody wants to see happen, myself included, I reiterate the importance of reaching consensus before continuing to edit the article. Thank you, Redux 12:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Redux, I suppose you already looked back at the edit history and comments detailing the conflict. I, as well as at least three others, believe this single user's remarks to be snarkey and sometimes plain false. He insists on presenting sources to the audience prefaced with negative information, the intention of which is to discredit or ridicule what that source is about to say. When pressed to stop this activity and discuss it further his arguments go in circles and he endlesly reverts leaving comments that are quite disingenuous. For example, he says he isn't attempting to imply a source is lying, but if a source works with a research group to prepare his case, what does saying the source "claims" to have researched the subject do other than imply he is lying? He says he didn't create statements for the audience which labeled sources as "conspiracy theorists" and linking to blog website, but an examination of the edit history clearly shows he did. I find this all quite disingenuous.

Finally, I wanted to remind you that this user initiated a campaign to have the article deleted, [21] the result of which was his initiative's massive defeat. Sysrpl 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and this user, freshly back from his suspension, is doing the exact same reverts again without regard to what was said. He didn't attempt to discuss this further than leaving "rv to last version by JChap due to pov insertions " in the edit history line. :( Sysrpl 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that Stanley is a problemmed editor. He ultimately works against his own goals. A little history: I first happened on this article and analyzed it on the talk page above. My concern was that the article had grown to be way too long and contained a lot of cruft. It also had some history of POV-pushing and in its state at that time had some anti-O'Reilly POV. I had been getting some positive feedback on this and I think the article was well on its way to being improved (my preference was to make some of the sections into articles, 86 the rest, and turn "Bill O'Reilly controversies" into a list) when Stanley nominated it for an AfD, which went down in flames. When it became clear that the AfD would fail, Stanley became way too personally invested in this article, spending a lot of time edit warring. The concerns that I expressed about this page have only, in my opinion, become worse
I would ask that other editors on this project not allow Stanley's behavior to cause them to lose sight of the big picture: producing a tight, well-written article about the subject with an nPOV.
I myself have not often edited this article after the AfD because, as I was a proponent of deletion, it would have been inappropriate for me to try to advocate for removal of large chunks of it after a keep and I did not want to spend time on material that, in my opinion, was too trivial for inclusion at Wikipedia. JChap (Talk) 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stanley, I made an edit since it now seems the most likely way to get your attention. Please read all of the above. Sysrpl 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the discussions that took place here recently, and this is what I can say: it seems that Sysrpl and Stanley started out in a legitimate discussion over content and how it should be presented properly. As the discussion progresses, I observed that both sides did not compromise to a meaningful extent, and as a result, frustration grew, leading both sides to lose patience with one another.
  • Stanley: I do believe you are trying to make a legitimate point, but you are not going about it the right way: engaging in revert wars will not convince those disagreeing with you, if anything it will make them more resistent to your arguments. However, I'd like to make it clear that the fact that Stanley nominated the article for deletion and that he was blocked for a 3RR violation here do not make him a vandal or a bad-faith editor per se.
  • Sysrpl:I can see that you are making valid points as well, and that you are educated on the topic at hand. But even if Stanley was not acting ideally, engaging him in a revert war will not help you in convincing him to either agree with you or move on. This is completely inappropriate. It is called "gaming the system" and it alone could earn you a block.
  • Damburger: Obviously, you agree with Sysrpl on this particular topic. However, raining personal attacks on Stanley is not helping. Whatever mistakes Stanley might have made here, he is not a vandal.
You see, this is one of those situations where, from the point of view of behavior and procedure (I'm not talking about the issue per se), no one is completely right, and no one is completely wrong. The best way I see to resolve this, at this point, is to go back to the root of the problem, and that is that Stanley and Sysrpl have reached a deadlock on a few issues. JChap has already made a few comments on the issue, but - correct me if I'm wrong - none was in unrestricted support of all the points being made by either party.
So here's how this can be solved: bring more people in. What we do is we start a new thread here, with both sides exposing the issues (only) that have been brought to the table. We will post a request for other users to participate at Wikipedia:Third opinion and we will see how third parties with a fresh perspective interpret the situation.
While this is ongoing, I will request that you refrain from editing the contentious parts of the article. And finally, and most importantly, I need everyone to compromise in the sense that whatever consensus is reached from this, that is what will stand. Failure to respect the outcome of this discussion would be grounds for a block, although I'm certain it would not come to this. Is that acceptable? Redux 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Stanley011 Has just reverted sysrpl's edits with the explaination "undiscussed edits". Given that sysrpl supplied a length explaination of why he was doing this in the talk page and Stanley011 did not respond, the eexplaination is clearly nonsense. Stanley011, you can't call an edit undiscussed simply because you refuse to discuss it. That is the only reason I'm reverting your edit now. Damburger 09:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Redux´s proposal is definitely acceptable to me. I will note that in the section I just added to the bottom. Stanley011.

I've removed this contentious link (in the section regarding O'Reillys on air threats) in order to try and help resolve this particular conflict. The text has remained the same, saying the legality of the threat is disputed, because the MSNBC link that remains does contain a dispute of the legality of the threat. Damburger 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple majority vote

This seems the only way to handle the matter in dispute. From what I gleaned, there are three major issues at hand: 1) Whether the reader should be aware that Franken is a comedian, or if he should only be described as a ´´political commentator´´ when he is first mentioned. 2) Whether the sentence should be worded as ´´Franken performed a Nexis search´´ (or some derivation thereof) or ´´Franken claimed he performed a Nexis search´´ (or some derivation thereof) 3) Whether the Prison Planet link should remain at all, and whether the sentence should include the source of the disputed claim, or just be worded as ´´the legality of his threats are disputed.´´ I will yield to whatever the majority votes on for each of these issues.Stanley011.

The forum for this should be just as Redux has proposed in the section above. I will comply with all of his suggestions and, as I just stated, will stick to whatever consensus is reached. Stanley011.
There is already a clear consensus, so I doubt your sincerity when you claim you will submit to a vote, however I will play along for the time being.
  • The reader will be aware that Franken is a comedian when they click on the link and read his bio. What you have done in analogous to describing Albert Einstein as a patent clerk in an article about relativity. So I vote that blatant attempt to poison the well goes
  • The sentence should not be worded like that, because there is no controversy over whether or not he performed the sentence. Its a subtle attempt at POV
  • The prison planet link I'd be willing to see go, but the wording should remain as the legailty of his threats are disputed'
Damburger 11:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don´t you explain your last point? Also, isn´t the fact that he is a political commentator also apparent from his wikipedia bio? So why include that? Stanley011.

OK, here's my stab at your three points.
  1. Well, Franken is a tough case. He blurs the line; he mixes political commentary and humor, and it seems rather hard to decide which to call him if we can use only one. But "liberal pundit and comedian" is simply way too cumbersome. I suggest we leave him un-prefaced. If the reader is interested in what Al Franken does for a living, let them click on his name and read his article.
  2. I have no problem with "claimed he performed" etc. If all we have is Franken's word to go on, then it should definitely be noted that this is his claim. If we have a source from someone else affirming that Franken performed the search, maybe we wouldn't need it.
  3. Re: the prisonplanet link. My browser does not support the video plugin, so I'm unable to watch the Olbermann show excerpt which prisonplanet claims to take these allegations from. Can anyone else here watch it and report back on whether it shows what prisonplanet says it shows? Furthermore, I'm a little upset by prisonplanet's rhetorical excess. That and their website seems somewhat tawdry (but then, so do Rush's and Savage's... these pundits, none of 'em know how to write a readable web page!! :P) It might be better for us to link directly to the Olbermann video that prisonplanet is using as its source. Then we can state the case in an NPOV way and bypass prisonplanet's POV, while still maintaining whatever facts the video has to offer. That is to say, let's bypass the secondary source and go straight to the primary source: the video. How does this sound?
Kasreyn 11:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with points one and two that you made. With three, I think we ought to just leave the MSNBC link, since that offers plenty of people who doubt the legality of O´Reilly´s claim. Stanley011.

My two cents
1. It looks better that now that their are no labels. There is a section here about Franken and he has his own article. There is no need to add any labels.
2. I think the best wording could be: "Franken stated he performed a LexisNexis search..." I see Stanley's point about verifiability of Franken's claim but also see the others' points.
3. My own belief is that a biased secondary source should be labeled as such if it is going to be cited. It is always better to have a primary source if possible but if a secondary, even biased source is used it can be ok. MrMurph101 19:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements of "claimed" research are completely bogus.
Fact: Everything Franken said appears in his book.
Fact: Franken didn't research these so-called "claims" alone. He had a team of Harvard college students at his disposal for a class whose only job was to reasearch the accuracy of the facts in his book. [22]
Fact: Pulitzer Prize winning author and Harvard Kennedy School of Government fellow Alex Jones states, "I would not have allowed a book that I consider frivolous. What Al Franken had in mind was a serious book. It has a skin of humor, but it is a thoroughly researched book." [23]
Fact: To suggest that it's only Franken's "claim" to have researched this matter is a lie.

Sysrpl 19:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my number 2 suggestion to say "Franken stated he had a team of researchers..." with the proper citation. MrMurph101 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not Franken's statement, it's a fact as supported by Harvard fellow Alex Jones. Franken had a team of researchers. Sysrpl 19:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I use the word "stated" as a compromise. I don't think that word implies Franken could be making this up and still does not reduce it from being a fact. This seems to be reducing to an issue of semantics that seems to be at the core of this dispute. MrMurph101 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with MrMurph... "Franken stated he had a team of researchers" is definitely being fair to Franken. It would be overkill and unjustified to add Alex Jones' statement; we'd wind up spending more time on the lead-up than on the substance of what Franken had to say. Kasreyn 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The statment of claimed, or stated, research is not bogus--it is fact and I am therefore putting it back into the article. Saying Franken performed a search, without an independent source verifying this claim (and no, Alex Jones has not verified this claim), may be sufficient to convince certain people of its truth, but is not suitable for wikipedia because wikipedia requires third party sources to verify claims, which have not yet been provided. Kasreyn and MrMurph have already implied that they agree with this change. Stanley011.

OK, I made the change--tell me what you think. From what I´ve read, it seems to capture the greatest degree of consensus expressed in this section Stanley011.

Citizen boycott of French goods

I don't think years prior to 2003 were impacted either way by O'Reilly's 2003 French boycott. Also I think the unpublished poltiical blog appearing on an entertainment oriented website is more hearsay and a bit too far removed from the controversy to count as a reliable source. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 12:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Its impossible to verify the reliability of the provided Caterer and Hotelkeeper source, as it not available online. Although the source supposedly claims that "43% of U.S. citizens reported they were "less likely" to buy French products because of France's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq", the headline reads "New Yorkers Shun French Restaurants", which seems to be a completely different thing altogether. And the political blog is clearly a biased source. However, the Census information is obviously a reliable source and it notes that during 2004 and 2005 the amount of dollars spent on French imports to the U.S. went up. O'Reilly's boycott was well under way during those years.--Hal Raglan 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should note that Hotel and Caterer directs the reader to the result of the Weber Shandwick poll, which is EASILY verifiable. As far as the ´´political blog´´ is concerned, I do not know what you are discussing. To what blog are you referring?

Also, regarding your interpretation of the US Census--what relevance does the trend in dollars spent on TOTAL imports have to the section? Notice the row right above total--(50040) Other (movies, misc imports, and spec transactions) actually declined during the period of O´Reilly´s boycott, then bounced up shortly from 2004-2005. That should also be noted in the article. Stanley011 11:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the Weber Shandwick poll you mention available online? I've done a Google search but couldn't find anything. Like I said, I find it strange that the poll says "43% of U.S. citizens reported they were "less likely" to buy French products because of France's opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq" when the headline of the referenced article reads "New Yorkers Shun French Restaurants". It would be nice to read the actual poll and see exactly what questions were actually asked.
Also, I don't understand how you can't see the relevance of noting US Census figures indicating total French imports went up during O'Reilly's boycott. How can this NOT be relevant? As far as my referring to a political blog...I must have originally speed-read the paragraph in question because looking at it again I don't see a political blog sourced. Sorry for the confusion.--Hal Raglan 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The total French import figure is absolutely irrelevant. The boycott was implemented against French products and goods sold in the United States--the products most likely to be affected by said boycott would be French movies, food, entertainment, restaurants, etc. The total column includes items that are used for heavy industry and the like, items of the sort that would not likely be affected by a ´´citizen boycott.´´ Also, I refer you to Kasreyn´s comments: we are not here to play economists (even if we are economists). Wikipedia is not the place for original research--if you conduct a study that shows that O´Reilly´s boycott had a positive effect on French imports, and then publish it, you may cite it here. Otherwise, you are including original research, and that is absolutely forbidden.Stanley011 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the online-only political opinion piece on an entertainment oriented website is not a sourced interview, is hearsay, and a bit too far from the horses mouth (so to speak) to count as a reliable source. Also, the US French imports document shows that French import actually went up during the time of the boycott. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 00:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When you say "online-only political opinion piece", are you referring to the referenced "Caterer and Hotelkeeper"? If this is in fact available online, I would like to read it for myself. Stanley011 says it directs the reader to the result of a poll, and I'd to take a look at that, too.--Hal Raglan 02:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about the political opinion article not in print, but posted online to the entertaiment oriented website The Rolling Stone. It is hearsay, and a bit too far from the horses mouth (so to speak) to count as a reliable source. I think it's about one step above the sourcing the National Enquirer 'Online Edition'. What do you guys think about using it? Sysrpl 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have no problem using rotten.com as a source. Clearly that is no better than National Enquirer is it? Stanley011 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, Rolling Stone.com is a credible source--however if readers have a negative opinion of it, for whatever reason, they will know that the claim is coming from that particular source because it is clearly referenced in the sentence, unlike all of the rotton.com sources that have been used. Stanley011 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone magazine is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, such as here. -- Dcflyer 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone web article was a polictical opinion piece for entertainment value. As such the claims the author makes about rumours (I don't believe he was interviewing anyone there) are hearsay and a bit far from the horses mouth to pass the test as a reliable source. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 13:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is usually considered a reliable source. Glick has claimed that O'Reilly threatened him with physical violence and the RS article mentions the claim as well as Glick's acknowledgment that he goaded O'Reilly into (allegedly) exploding. I see nothing wrong with linking to this article. --Hal Raglan 14:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Rolling Stone magazine in many cases can be a reliable source, but believe you have to look at the context of the whatever quote you want to reference against the type of Wikipedia article you are editing. I think a blanket rule of saying a source is reliable if it appears on the Rolling Stone website, without regard to its context, is wrong. In this particular case the source is a web based entertainment political opinion article that editorializes without the same journalism standards of other referenced articles. The author neither interviewed Glick, nor sourced where he heard his rumors. Editorials like this in general need not be researched, factual, or even correct. The piece is opinion for enterainment purposes only. I think confusing it as a reliable source is wrong. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think we should note to the audience that the source of the claim was a Rolling Stone opinion piece, and from there let them form their own conclusions. But to exclude it is disingenuous, because Rolling Stone, even their online edition, does have credibility. Stanley011 09:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You know,

I'm not sure if it's exactly appropriate for us to be trying to either prove or disprove the effectiveness of O'Reilly's proposed boycott. Either way, we are essentially engaging in original synthesis. We should simply cite the fact that O'Reilly called for such a boycott, cite whatever facts we have on how many people joined him, cite any sourced responses / rebuttals from notable sources, and that's it. It's not appropriate for us to put on our "economist" hats and attempt to wring a boycott success or boycott failure by torturing various statistics. I've listened to some of the best economists alive admit their incomprehension about why the economy does what it does. Even they don't really know. So let's leave out our speculation over whether random econ statistic x proves the boycott worked or not. We're not qualified. Kasreyn 05:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, attempting to hint at the effect of the boycott on French imports constitutes original research, a violation of a cardinal wikipedia policy. Stanley011 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that Bill has made several claims, using phony statistics [24], touting the success of his French boycott when threatening others with the same. The US census document (as factual as you can get) disproves his claims. What do you think? Sysrpl 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the census data should be provided, but commentary accompanying it should be avoided because, as was noted before, any commentary would constitute original research. As we did for the link to the Franken-O´Reilly argument, we should do for the link to the census data:provide it, and allow the readers to form their own conclusions.Stanley011 12:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If commentary should be avoided, then this needs to be removed: "Although the effect of O'Reilly's call for a citizen boycott is not as clear or direct as he makes it seem, if it had any effect at all..."--Hal Raglan 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Stanley011 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree except for one thing, Stanley: if any notable source has specifically rebutted O'Reilly's claims of the effectiveness of his boycott, then we should include a description of the rebuttal. Kasreyn 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Stanley011 09:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly threatened the Aruba government with a boycott noting that "We hurt France, but it took, you know, millions of Americans to say, 'I'm not gonna buy French stuff.'" Also O'Reilly claimed boycott had cost France billions of dollars, citing the non-existent Paris Business Review. The data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau rebutts O'Reillys claims, as it shows the imports of French goods actually did increase during the fiscal year in which the boycott took place. That is pretty darn solid evidence the boycott didn't work the way O'Reilly claimed. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a small sentence text from the main Keith Olbermann article to the FOX News security section. I noted that it was because Olbermann contested the legality of O'Reillys stated threats that people latched onto the issue. What do you guys thin? Sysrpl 06:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how "The U.S. census reveals that the amount spent on total French imports to the United States increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott." is point of view? The topic of the section it appear's in is the controversy surrounding O'Reilly's boycott. The quoted statement is as fact driven as possible. Imports before the boycott are one value, during the fiscal year the boycott took place French imports increased. I don't see any point of view there. If anyone does could they please explain?

Also, the prior wording of "The U.S. census revealing the amount spent on total French imports to the United States from 2001-2005 can be accessed at the following footnote" doesn't make much sense. It talks about the census document revealing the amounts spent, but doesn't reference any information pertaining to the document. That's like writing an article about economics and saying "economics is defined as this entry (external link) in the American Heritage dictionary".

Finally, for the longest time that entry was "Others argue French imports actually rose during the period of the boycott" with the line first remove, then added back again with the cite tag added. When solid evidence of this claim was later cited (the census document), then it became edited to remove the original intent of the line. The "The U.S. census reveals that the amount spent on total French imports to the United States increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott" seems like a valid compromise. What do you guys think? Sysrpl 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The sentence "The U.S. census reveals that the amount spent on total French imports to the United States increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott" implies that O´Reilly´s call for a boycott had some effect on the value of French imports. We are not justified in making that implication unless there is an accessible third party source that supports that implication. Stanley011 12:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this third party source [25] repeatedly debunking O'Reilly's claims of success regarding a French boycott, and citing the census documents? Sysrpl 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to our agreement to contribute to dicussions when editing? You said "We are not justified in making that implication unless there is an accessible third party source that supports that implication." I found just that, a third party cource supporting that implication, then you went ahead and changed the article again without discussing. In addition you stated that the claim was made in the above supporting link, when what I gave was a new cited reference; i.e. a different document. You edited out the new link I posted, renegged on your prior statement, did not dicuss it, and in your edit you posted a broken link. Sysrpl 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with your edits. I accidentally took them out in my attempt to reformat. I appologize. Stanley011 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the line about Media Matters publishing the report, in the same style as we have been doing for the other sources we cited. Do you think that´s fair? Stanley011 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, there are others that have cited the census document as well. I just picked media matters as an example third party supporting per your suggestion. On January 26, 2005, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television newsmagazine the fifth estate, broadcast an investigative documentary show entitled, Sticks and Stones [26]. From the documentary "Two years after the start of O'Reilly's boycott, US-France trade had actually increased -- a statement supported by data released by the U.S. Census Bureau. The data shows that in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002." Sysrpl 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording to reflect the variety of sources that you diligently found and provided. How does it sound now? Stanley011 13:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording that the sources are using the Census Bureau figures as proof to support the notion that imports increased during the boycott period. Sysrpl 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you honestly think O´Reilly is so powerful as to have any effect on trade from one nation to another? Stanley011 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let's constrain the discussion to the facts on hand and not our personal opinions. Sysrpl 15:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

´´Proof´´ is POV because it gives a truth value to the sources provided. Our job here is not to decide that the sources are right or wrong, but to report what they said. Therefore, I changed it to ´´to support their claim.´´ What do you think? Stanley011 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you just editing the article with your opinion? That French imports did indeed rise is black and white. The census figures say the imports increased, and I have provided multiple reliable sources that agree with this. What's is left to dicuss? Are you saying the figures from the U.S. Census are questionable? You seem to be dismissing every fact and publication presented on the matter without providing one reliable source to the contrary.

You said you actually agree with my edits, then went ahead and changed it anyways. What's going on? Sysrpl 16:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No I am not questioning the truth of the census figures. I do question the relevancy of the VALUE of total French imports to the US to this whole discussion. The value of French imports can be affected by numerous factors: inflation being chief among them. I do agree with your edits in general--the sources you provided are good. However this does not mean that we still cannot work on the wording to come up with the best possible solution.Stanley011 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)/Archive_1&oldid=1144951546"