Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:17, 7 April 2009

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This redirect is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This redirect is supported by the politics and government work group. Radio This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Template:JournProjectArticles

Template:Multidel

Manual archives of past discussions are available here and here.

Major flaws in sources

As I'm reading it, the following sources do not meet Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. Many of these sources have problems and should not be used in Misplaced Pages in general, much less near or on a biography of a living person. Some of these could be dodged by at least changing this into a criticism of his programs and not the man himself (i.e. avoiding the stricter BLP sourcing requirements), but some simply need better sources.

Many of the references, i.e. Air America (#10) are from people on the other side of the political spectrum. That they disagree with and like to throw barbs at their political opponents gives them a conflict of interest which makes them highly unreliable sources. Al Franken's book (#42) is not a reliable souce on this topic.

Many of the references, i.e. #21, are blogs and may not be used for BLPs unless they are written by the subject of the piece (even then the BLP policy has restrictions).

Several of the sources, i.e. #27, are primary sources and are being used in a fashion that can easily be described as WP:SYN or WP:OR.

My preference for these types of articles is that the relevant criticisms (in this case I can see at least one) be merged into the main article, covered in an article other than a dedicated criticism article (a "controversies" article might be appropriate, several of the current entries could be covered in such if better sources were found).

This article is constantly used in "other stuff exists" arguments, and though those arguments have no merit, that is no excuse for not fixing this article. SDY (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to make improvements as you see fit, but I caution you to be mindful of the difference between a "blog" and a self-published source. Full explanation here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." SDY (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not self-published sources. The policy specifically mentions this situation:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the footnote. At any rate, it says "may." I do not believe that these are reliable sources, as they are clearly partisan and are not the quasi-journalism such as this piece, which is my guess as to what the policy was intended to use. I simply do not believe that open attack pieces such as are reliable sources on anything but the writer's strongly-held opinion. This is a WP:BLP article, and there is a written demand for the highest quality sources, not ones that barely squeak by in a loophole in the policy. SDY (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask that you use a scalpel rather than an axe? Can you give specific reasons for specific deletions rather than deleting parts of numerous section of of a large article? The general objection to RS or Notability, w/o addressing a specific edit, is hard to respond to. Also, these edits have been vigorously and lengthily debated, so your wholesale deletions ignore the history of this page.Jimintheatl (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I am using a scalpel, though I would rather use a wood-chipper for this particular article. Let's talk specific reasons on source #109: the source is openly an op/ed attack piece with no journalistic value. It does not document or analyze the event, it simply gives one person's very undiplomatic opinion about it. If this criticism were notable, other sources would have remarked on the criticism and a better source could be provided.

I'm largely concerned that this article has NPOV issues, and that stems in part from the fact that it is three times as long as the article on the subject. It reads like a soapbox, since it is nothing but a catalogue of misdeeds. It makes heavy use of primary sources and direct quotes rather than analysis by neutral third parties.

Let me be clear, I am opposed to all dedicated criticism articles because I believe that Misplaced Pages's overall coverage of a topic should have appropriate WP:WEIGHT, and that sequestering negative coverage is contrary to the principle of a neutral point of view. I would also endorse an article that was "Criticism of Adolf... Bah, Godwin's law. SDY (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As a side point, I have reviewed the past logs, and the majority of them are other editors making the same points I have and being rebuffed by "soproveit." This is a WP:BLP, and the burden of evidence is much higher for inclusion than deletion. SDY (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We do need to be aware of harmful statements in any Misplaced Pages article, however I think you may be coming across as trying to make a point. I do respect your willingness to admit that you are campaigning against all criticism articles. All of that being said, we have no requirement to ensure that a source itself is neutral; we simply must ensure that statements are verifiable via reliable sources, and are neutrally presented (distinctly different than from a neutral source). While I absolutely agree that the article needs improvement, I must point out that O'Reilly makes his living by making controversial statements. This, of course, means that he's going to have a copious amount of criticism surrounding him. Now, I haven't gone through every paragraph of the article in a while, and I won't say that all of the sources are secondary and meet with WP:RS; however, I will contend that there are plenty of politically-oriented fans of BillO who challenge additions to the article. In most cases, the sourcing is improved or the content is excised. I encourage you to continue challenging material you believe is inappropriate (as long as it's not pointed by your dislike for all criticism articles), and please be mindful of "footnotes" (and/or all of the sentences in the paragraph you quote).  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to make a point, but that is the objective of any side in an argument, yes? My primary objective is to deal with what I perceive to be a loophole in Misplaced Pages's policies that allows soapboxing on topics that are worthy of more than a little abuse. The point, however, is that instead of addressing my concerns you have reduced this to an argument against me instead of an argument against the allegations that this article appears to violate WP:SOAP, WP:SYN, WP:BLP#Sources, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly other policies. Do I have a point? Yes. Does that mean that I'm wrong? No. It would be ludicrous to cover Bill O'Reilly without covering criticism of him, but this article is a shining example of how not to do it. Make an honest effort to convince me that I'm wrong, not that I have a point, and I'll back off.

Bill O'Reilly is essentially a shock jock. He makes his living making controversial statements that are bound to attract criticism, which is why this page is so ludicrous. These are not Don Imus incidents, these are minor blips that do not appear to have been covered by the mainstream media. If they are truly notable criticisms, then they will have been covered by reliable secondary sources and this article will not be reduced to quote-mining from primary sources. Media Matters for America is not explaining or documenting criticism of Bill O'Reilly (secondary), they are criticizing Bill O'Reilly (primary). This article is not summarizing and condensing explanations or documentation of criticism of Bill O'Reilly (tertiary, a typical role for an encyclopedia) it has become a collection of criticisms of Bill O'Reilly (secondary, not encyclopedic), and it veers very closely to being a criticism of Bill O'Reilly (primary, clearly banned by Misplaced Pages policies). SDY (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Blaxthos point about WP:POINT. Or was that your point? In any case, you continue to make broad generalizations and sweeping deletions. Can you identify a single instance where the article itself criticizes BO, rather than documenting criticism of him?Jimintheatl (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I'll bite. Let's take the "Boycott of French goods" section, which appears to be either irrelevant or direct criticism.

In March 2003, O'Reilly called for a boycott of French products and services sold in the United States, due to President Jacques Chirac's stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In April 27, 2004; O'Reilly said, “They’ve lost billions of dollars in France” as a direct result of his boycott, referring to "The Paris Business Review" as his source, a publication that does not exist. O'Reilly then said about two months later that the boycott caused France to lose $138 million in business compared to the previous year.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

The CBC and Media Matters for America have said that French exports to the US increased during the period of O'Reilly's boycott, citing U.S. Census Bureau figures.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

In May 2007 O'Reilly announced he was ending the boycott upon the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as French President.

(This is a description of O'Reilly's actions, not a summary of someone else's criticism of them)

1. Raphael (2005-10-27). "O'Reilly again trumpeted "annoying" French boycott". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2005-12-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. G.W. (2004-07-07). "O'Reilly defended old lies exposed by Jack Mathews and MMFA, told new ones". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2007-01-19. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. G.W. (2004-04-28). "FOX's O'Reilly fabricated evidence of success of purported boycott". Media Matters for America. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. "Sticks and Stones". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2005.
5. R.S.K. (2005-08-02). "O'Reilly boycotts truth to spin French boycott; falsely claimed it 'hurt France'". Media Matters for America. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. U.S. Census Bureau (2006). "U.S. Imports from France from 2001 to 2005". U.S. Census Bureau.
7. Pitney, Nico. "Think Progress » O'Reilly lifts boycott of France". Thinkprogress.org. Retrieved 2008-11-19.

That's the section. It isn't about criticism, it is something that some people would object to and therefore could be regarded as criticism. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. I'm not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, I'm just making a point and doing my best to deal with an article that has major problems. SDY (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my absence from the discussion(busy in real life). I appreciate your detailed response, and while I may disagree with your solution, I do see the problem you identified. You seem to prefer obliterating problems, I would rather repair them(but no time now...). I'd return to your earlier point that BOR is essentially a shock jock. If that is the case, then isn't provoking controversy and criticism what he does? Which goes a long way explaining the length of the article. I'll be back....Jimintheatl (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to take the wind out of your sails (or to take the easy way out), but it's hard to argue in good faith when you've admitted you're just trying to make a point (no offense!). All the sources you've listed (save one, the Census Bureau) all qualify as reliable secondary sources, though your inline commentary makes it sound like they're primary sources (ie clips of BillO). That you don't "like" the source, or that you don't agree with policy, doesn't make them any less valid. Likewise, that you believe the criticism unworthy of inclusion ("a blip") doesn't give justification to remove it. Nay, we've had dozens (hundreds?) of discussions all over Misplaced Pages concerning notability versus verifiability, and you'll find repeatedly that notability doesn't cover content and the governing policies are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Could this article be improved? Absolutely, and I have no doubt you'll help us with that.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing that this section of the article is a well-sourced criticism of Bill O'Reilly and is therefore appropriate for Misplaced Pages? SDY (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, it probably needs a little more diversity in sourcing -- I know Keith Olbermann has lampooned BillO's "boycott" and factual misstatements as well, including the fabricated "Paris Business Review" statements. At the moment, one might make an argument against due weight, though I don't know how convincing that would be (especially given better sourcing, which is an easy fix). What I'm arguing is that you first either misunderstood or misrepresented the policy about appropriate sources, you then admitted that you don't think there should be any articles covering criticism, and finally you dismiss a sourced section as "irrelevant." This page is about criticism of Bill O'Reilly, and the subject of this section is verifiable sourced criticism of Bill O'Reilly -- ergo it's necessarily relevant. Dislike it though you may, I haven't seen a thoroughly convincing reason why it should go. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are meant to inform, not persuade. Read the section again and my comments on it. The section is not about criticism, it is about something that O'Reilly has been criticized for and makes no mention of criticism. The section in question is either 1) a criticism of Bill O'Reilly in itself or 2) random details on a bit of O'Reilly's show (irrelevant to an article about criticism), neither of which are appropriate. I'm not even going to bother bringing up WP:WEIGHT when this article is three times as long as the main article on the person, but this is about what Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT. SDY (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Content Discussion

The problem with BOR is that generating criticism and controversy is just a list of "man bites dog" stories. Many of these incidents are par for the course for a person paid to have strong opinions, and detailed coverage implies that they are notable events when many are really just a day in the life of a talk show host. MMfA's criticism of O'Reilly is especially uneventful: "Organization created to criticize conservative media criticizes conservative media personality, story at 11." Notability may not cover content, but the thought process of notability is important for writing an article: why should the reader care? The reader should understand that BOR is a controversial person that has been criticized for many things, but the details really aren't that important and give this article the WP:UNDUE problem that it has. SDY (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At some point in the past year, an editor (Ramsquire?) reorganized the article into its current three parts (methods, notable rivals/critics, and notable controversies). This improved the article significantly. You seem to have the greatest problem with the notable controversies part. You say that its a chronicle of a day in the life. Not even close. There are currently 16 controversies listed. BOR has had a TV show for, what, ten years?, and a radio show for 4-5, to say nothing of his books and columns. So this article covers a miniscule portion of the mess he makes. There are sites dedicated to his daily or weekly "bloviations" of note. If this article tried to keep up with those incidents and missteps, it would be infinitely longer. "Notability may not cover content" you say, but I suspect you misspoke. It's not enough and not notable to say "X, Y and Z criticized BOR" without including the subject and context of their criticism. I agree that the Boycott of French goods was too focussed on the subject matter rather than on the criticism of BOR's treatment of the subject matter, but that controversy was notable for a number of reasons: BOR's self-promotion of it and frequent reference to it, critics challenging the accuracy of his claims. When the top-rated cable commentator claims to have crippled the French economy, threatens another country with similar devastation(Canada), invents sources to support his claims, and is called on it by, among others, the CBC and MSNBC, (international and national attention to the dispute implies notability, I'd say). So it's my intention to try to rewrite that section for reinclusion.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

But Jim wouldn't the same purpose be filled with a summary sentence, and the example linked to reliable source instead of re-telling these episodes in such detail? For example, "BOR has been criticized for overstating his importance, such as when he exaggerated the effects of his call for a boycott of France (link)." If the reader is interested he can go read the story on his own. There are many things that can go in the article, but the question is should it go in. To be honest a lot of the stuff is simple examples of the same criticism. MMfA and FAIR have BOR sections on their webpages if someone is interested in it, I'm not sure Misplaced Pages should be doing the same. Ramsquire 16:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no...I'll concede that some portions of the article which I've supported in the past (Boxer, Levin, Limbaugh) can be handled summarily as you suggest("BOR has insulted, been insulted by..." with refs) but can you name another significant media figure who has claimed to have devastated the economy of another country? I'm not aware of any in recent history. It's a singular accomplishment BOR promoted often, never mind that it was a figment of his imagination. That, to a large extent, is why I think it's Notable and deserves at least a little exposition. And along the same lines you suggest, the recent "stalking" brouhaha could possibly be incorporated into a condensed Moyers/Free Press section with other ambushes of note. But then doesn't OR become an issue?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see your concern, but I don't think we need to highlight every instance of the criticism. Maybe it's because we see it differently, I see the criticism or controversy regarding the French boycott for example as being about his ego, not the specific claims he makes to inflate himself. So if we mention that he is an egomaniac, with one notable example, why would we need to highlight every other instance where his overstating things got him into controversy (i.e. the War on Christmas, which he won btw ;)). If we say he's been criticized for being "insensitive to racial issues" we don't need to list every example where he may have come across as a bigot. There are plenty of other websites dedicated to that sort of detailed retelling of incidents, and they could remain in the critics and rivals section. Ramsquire 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern is primarily that this reads like a list of grievances and important controversies when it's simply the times that BOR's normal behavior has taken a step over "the line." It should be clear from the article that within the bell curve of BOR's behavior, these are not particularly unexpected events. The message that BOR is anything but politically correct is the same, but without the tired and petty gnashing of teeth and detailed quotes chosen for their incendiary language. SDY (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SDY: I'm not sure I follow: are you saying that the main BOR article should describe him, as you have, as essentially a shock jock," who regularly offends, misstates facts and is a tireless self-promoter? Although I think "some would say" that's accurate, I foresee a few problems....When you say it is a list of "important controversies" aren't you acknowledging Notability? I'm not trying to be cute, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting.Jimintheatl (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ramsquire: I've NEVER advocated highlighting every instance of criticism or controversy. Just, as SDY says, the "important controversies." And I judge them by how much the rest of the media responds, and by BOR's own reaction/trumpeting. At one point, I proposed an edit along the lines you suggest as "insensitive to racial issues" on the topic of "insensitive to gays and lesbians" noting various comments he'd made. That proposal was rejected, I think on OR grounds, and a couple of the discrete incidents were included instead. If, as I think you are suggesting, we now condense/compile those separate events into broader themes, won't we encounter similar resistance?Jimintheatl (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll confess that the "every instance" is a bit of hyperbole on my part. I didn't mean it literally. Sorry if it was taken that way. If I remember correctly the reason the homophobic summary was rejected was due to lack of reliable sourcing in that it was two activist groups pushing a campaign and that viewpoint had not gotten mainstream coverage. That being said, if the article was to say "BOR is insensitive to racial issues" that would be an OR issue. However, to highlight that he "has been criticized by rivals for allegedly being insensitive to racial issues such as when he..." with proper sourcing and possibly a notable example would overcome the OR problem in my eyes. Ramsquire 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. So, are you suggesting that we condense the article, for example, with something like "Critics claim BOR has exaggerated/misstated his own importance on a number of issues/campaigns" and cite French boycott, War on Christmas, Peabody Awards, Jessica's law, John Kerry's defeat, failures of numerous movies and TV shows, somebody stop me.....It would certainly shorten the article, and, without giving it a lot of thought, and seeing OR stumbling blocks ahead, I guess I'm OK with that approach. Jimintheatl (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

More like "Critics claim BOR has exaggerated/misstated his own importance on a number of issues/campaigns such as when he grossly exaggerated the effect of his French boycott or his claims to have won what he termed the War on Christmas" followed by reliable sources. Or whatever consensus deems to be notable/important examples of this trait. But only one or two major examples. I understand that this approach may come very close to original research, depending on the sources used and how they are applied, but considering the problems with the current artilce, a thoughtful application of IAR may be appropriate to get a better article provided there is consensus for such. Also, such an approach may makes this article unnecessary as a stand alone. Ramsquire 18:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shall we give it a go? I'm persuaded, I think, when I consider the frequency with which BOR seems to step in it (or stamp on it) so in theory I can see this article expanding geometrically..... Is there a need to round up (or notify) the usual suspects? As I seem to be more radioactive than you, perhaps you'd take the lead on this?(Back to the NCAA....)Jimintheatl (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose moving a section

The thing about the Red Cross and the United Way isn't really a criticism. It might be controversial, and it might involve a couple nattering nabobs, but it isn't really a criticism. Where to move it to isn't so clear, though, since it might be moved to one of the 9/11 articles or the Red Cross instead of the O'R article proper. SDY (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. This is listed in the controversy section of the article. Considering it is one of the few controversies in this article that actually received mainstream attention as well as favorable coverage to the host, I think it would be counterproductive to remove it (making the article even more POV). Part of the problem of this article is that somehow it has evolved into a controversy and analysis article which partially explains why it is so bloated. Ramsquire 16:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was, at some point, about controversies that included the subject and not intentionally about criticism. Would it be possible to rework it as a controversies article, which might be fairly negative when justified instead of an indiscriminate collection of things the subject has said or done that happened to make someone angry? SDY (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I thought that this started out as an analysis article but when the controversies became too large for the O'Reilly and Factor articles, it was moved here. I could be wrong though, I don't really remember. To be honest, I'd prefer that this article be blown up and the good parts, i.e. the analysis paragraph (sans teen pregnancy), and the Glick, Harlem restaurants, Ludacris, and Red Cross sections be merged into appropriate articles. The other "contoversies" could easily be summed up in a general sentence "BOR has been criticised by some for spinning facts/being hostile to certain victims/boorish/etc..." without going into tedious detail or creating an indiscriminate list of juvenile crap. My two cents. Ramsquire 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That sums up what I'd like to see as well. SDY (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins

Actually, this article is the result of adjudication at WP:AFD, specifically a merge of Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly controversies, hence the blended content. The articles were forked due to size guidelines of the parent article and later merged to simplify organization. To now argue that controversy isn't germane here simply because the title doesn't include the word is Wikilawyering, plain and simple, and ignores the history of its development. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Papillon's Art Palace as a source

This reference gives credit to this art palace place, which is really an online gallery from an artist that appears to give hosting space to her husband.

The original piece, according to the page, is from pagesix.com, which is part of the New York Post. The NYP is a gossip and rumor publication which is rarely going to be a useful source for wikipedia (though it obviously has its place in the real world). Strangely enough, the NYP's archives indicate that the story exists, but the free abstract at this page doesn't resemble the art palace piece.

I am deleting the source. It cannot be verified to its original publisher and the original publisher is not a reliable source. It would be a valid source if Richard Johnson's opinions of O'Reilly were important, but it is not being used in that fashion and is therefore inappropriate. SDY (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll concur with WP:RS and WP:V concerns, but sources aren't judged as "valid" or not based on if an editor deems the content "important". A source is valid or it's not -- we approach a slippery slope when subjective editorial judgment replaces policy. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not "valid" or "invalid," it's the use of a source which is valid or invalid, and this is not a valid use of the source in question. This article makes heavy use of primary sources that have not been interpreted by a reliable secondary source, which is clearly banned by policy. There may be a case for WP:IAR since many of these things are only covered by secondary sources such as MMfA that have a vocal opinion and bias on a controversial subject (i.e. are unreliable). SDY (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources are either reliable ("valid" -- meeting with WP:RS), or they're not ("invalid" -- fails WP:RS). I don't know how I can state that any more clearly. Regarding their use, any controversy or criticism of O'Reilly that has a diversity of reliable sources meets the inclusion criteria. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

-(from WP:RS, emphasis in original) "Reliable sources... ...are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In other words, reliability is dependent on context. MMfA, for example, is a reliable source on their own opinion of BOR, but is not a reliable source on interpretations of other people's criticism.

-Can you explain to me what you think WP:WEIGHT means in this context? My take on it is that people who subscribe to these critical views are a small minority, and this article currently gives these marginal viewpoints inappropriate weight. SDY (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're trying to lawyer the policy (albeit unintentionally). The intent of that part of WP:RS is to ensure that sources are germane to the context in which they are used (for example, the reliable source Journal of the American Medical Association can't be used in an article about architecture). In this particular case, Media Matters is generally considered a reliable source in its stated area of expertise (mass media). Regarding your question of due weight... while we certainly don't want to open the article to every crackpot with an axe to grind, I think it's generally sufficient evidence of BillO controversy/criticism when such controversy/criticism has appeared in multiple reliable sources (note my reference to "diversity of sourcing" in several previous responses). As far as I know, that's almost verbatim from policy.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we have very different views of MMfA, because from what I see of them they do appear to be crackpots with an axe to grind and not a reliable source. "Generally seen as reliable and authoritative" does not include sources with an obvious bias or agenda as far as I'm concerned. Xinhua's reporting on the Dalai Lama is not a "reliable source" and MMfA is unreliable on BOR for the same reason: they have a stated agenda and bias. Perhaps a third opinion or RFC on the sourcing on this article would be appropriate, because we have substantially different ideas on whether these sources are reliable. SDY (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Media Matters is in use all over Misplaced Pages as a source, and this isn't the first time the concern has been raised. Directly on point, please see the reliable source noticeboard, specifically Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/archive8#Media Matters for America (though there are probably other discussions in those archives as well). Can you cite any language in WP:RS that you believe disqualifies Media Matters? The consensus has repeatedly been that reliable and neutral aren't mutually exclusive statuses, and we can cite hundreds (possibly thousands) of examples of appropriate citations of Media Matters on Misplaced Pages. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I don't see that consensus in the noticeboard. I see one editor claiming a consensus on another article that MMfA was used inappropriately and a lot of talk back and forth. They are reliable sources for their own opinions, but as primary sources they need a secondary source to give context and interpretation when they make claims that are likely to be challenged.

As for your demand that I provide sources, policy is pretty clear that advocating keeping a dubious section requires sourcing, where advocating removal of dubious information does not. For context, though, MMfA considers NPR to have a conservative bias or overly sympathetic to the conservative media, and I think that speaks volumes about how partisan they are.

The MMfA cites are fine so long as they are clearly attributed to MMfA as an openly partisan source and as long as they are given appropriate WP:WEIGHT.

Neither is true currently, and I don't see how we could meet WP:WEIGHT without turning this article into a partisan battleground, so I'm advocating massive reductions. SDY (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible approaches

I have a problem with dedicated criticism articles. I'm not really unique there, but I acknowledge that it's not a consensus opinion. There do appear to be some other folks that have issues with this article, so here's a brainstormed list of possible solutions:

1. Merge-Severely curtail the content and merge this page with the main BOR page. Some NPOV issues might arise on that article, and balancing them would require work.

2. Controversies-Re-purpose and re-title this page to a controversies page, and work the criticism information in as context for the controversies rather than a topic unto itself or simply delete it if not relevant. Some of the noted "feuds" could be worked into the main BOR page, though we would have to be careful not to make mountains out of molehills if a feud isn't particularly notable.

3. Cleanup-Address the existing article's flaws, in particular the incendiary quote-mining, a closer look at the expectations for controversial articles, looking for better sources (e.g. the "from the horse's mouth" primary sourcing on YouTube replaced by or interpreted by a reliable secondary source per WP:PSTS), and other issues.

4. Nuke and pave-Delete the current contents. A lot of the recent AfDs have been closed due to accusations of bad faith rather than honest evaluation of whether the article is appropriate for Misplaced Pages.

5. Something else-I don't have all the answers, and I'm open to suggestions. SDY (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1. 4 is a non-starter with me(unless #1 is agreed upon, and good luck with that....) An article on BOR's controversies/criticism deals with the essence of what he does. I'm not sure whether you've followed the discussion I have been having with Ramsquire above, but it seems to be in line with #2(tho I'm not sure why labeling something Controversies rather than Criticism addresses your content issues....) I think we agree on who/what BOR is/does, so I would be OK with merge, but, if, as you said, BOR is essentially a shock jock, if that is his MO, then the "shocking" stuff will figure prominently(too prominently? big NPOV issues). #3? Cleaning up? The man thrives on making a mess. So it's going to be messy...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the second option is the most likely to find consensus. Partially I'd like to verify that these controversies are real controversies and not teapot tempests that wouldn't be interesting to anyone who wasn't a big fan of BOR or... those who are less happy with him. Looking at the conversation above, some of those could be condensed into the generic tussle with the people he likes to trade barbs with. How would we structure the article? The current structure isn't totally inappropriate, though it'd probably help to categorize the controversies (i.e. inappropriate remarks, factual errors, etc...) rather than have a laundry list. SDY (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as Media Matters is continued to be used as a primary source it will be impossible to make any improvement. Most of what you see here is directly related to a beef MMfA or KO has with BOR. You then have a group of BOR haters which consistantly monitor MMfA in order to add new stupid crap to this article. The idiotic MMfA grip against BOR regarding the supposed War on Christmas is a good example of comments taken out of context and manufactured criticism. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that you're both opposed to Criticism articles generally, and refuse to recognize the community consensus that they are appropriate, and that you have a history of trying to remove all negative information about BillO in the past, I don't know that we should give much weight to your attempts to cull this article (sorry!). Before you go saying "criticism should go" or "controversy should go", please re-read this (where this article was specifically created as a merge of Criticism and Controversy, properly decided by community-wide AFD). Arguments based in semantics are pretty pointy... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the argument is based in principles (i.e. NPOV) and particularly in this case that the contents of this article are more or less WP:TRIVIA, some that borders on WP:FANCRUFT. If we can't find a "real" source (i.e. not a partisan attack dog like MMFA) to demonstrate why this matters, I don't see much reason we should keep it. Notability may not directly address content, but common sense and WP:WEIGHT do. See also WP:CCC. SDY (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're lawyering to make a point -- this article has been nominated for deletion countless times, and each time the community has firmly stated that it should remain. If your assertions that the article is nothing but trivia and fancruft then it certainly wouldn't have survived seven AFD nominations. Sorry to abandon the faith, but both of you have made it very clear that your intent is to remove as much negative information about O'Reilly as you can. You've made no demonstration that consensus has changed, especially given the massive indication that the community approves of Criticism of articles generally, and this article specifically. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Redirect-Class biography pages
• Redirect-Class biography (arts and entertainment) pages
• NA-importance biography (arts and entertainment) pages
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Redirect-Class biography (politics and government) pages
• NA-importance biography (politics and government) pages
• Politics and government work group articles
• NA-Class Radio pages
• NA-importance Radio pages
• WikiProject Radio articles