m Reverted to revision 176709703 by Beaker342; Talk pages are for improving the article, not blsting editors or general wiki-criticism.. using TW |
69.244.181.184 (talk) |
||
Line 258: | Line 258: | ||
The information about the settlement, as others have pointed out, is sourced to the Washington Post and supported by the consensus reached on this talk page. Within the Post article, the information is attributed, anonymously, to a source close to O'Reilly. There's no reason whatsoever not to include it. [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
The information about the settlement, as others have pointed out, is sourced to the Washington Post and supported by the consensus reached on this talk page. Within the Post article, the information is attributed, anonymously, to a source close to O'Reilly. There's no reason whatsoever not to include it. [[User:Croctotheface|Croctotheface]] ([[User talk:Croctotheface|talk]]) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
=For User Rynort and Anyone Else Curious about how Wik REALLY works= |
|||
- |
|||
- I first became acquainted with Wikipedia several years ago when I read the O'Reilly article. I was instantly OUTRAGED at how perniciously biased, slanted and outright poisonous Wikipedia's version of reality was. My involvement led me to a long journey into the dark underbelly of this LEFT WING CONTROLLED supposedly NPOV organization. |
|||
- |
|||
- Having said that, I'm shocked at how much fairer this article is than the one I stumbled upon that fateful day. |
|||
- |
|||
- However, I still get totally creeped out when I read the utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos. |
|||
- |
|||
- He posts nonsense like: "considering your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sicko&diff=prev&oldid=153110030 very first edit] was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia." or "your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point." |
|||
- |
|||
- Let me tell you what's REALLY going on. |
|||
- |
|||
- A liberal cabal (or what Blaxthos calls 'other editors') HAS ABSOLUTE control over the content in Wikipedia. |
|||
- |
|||
- What typically happens is a conservative will read an article, become JUSTIFIABLY outraged and change it to reflect less bias. |
|||
- |
|||
- That's when the liberal cabal comes in and games the system. |
|||
- |
|||
- It is transparently obvious and predictable. |
|||
- |
|||
- First they accuse YOU of pushing a pov. That's hilarious. |
|||
- Then of course you're not assuming good faith. It's always thrown in there for good measure. |
|||
- If you still won't back down, they'll privately email each other and take turns reverting your legit edits and, if you counter edit, write you up for violating the 3r's rule. |
|||
- |
|||
- All the while they are shamelessly accusing the conservative of pushing a political agenda or vandalizing an article. |
|||
- |
|||
- It has happened to me and COUNTLESS OTHER CONSERVATIVE editors. |
|||
- Most just give up. |
|||
- Many are tried by wikidpedia in their trumped up DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Kangaroo court where a conservative has as much a chance of a fair shot as a black man accused of molesting a white woman in alababma in 1922 does. lol! |
|||
- |
|||
- Blaxthos is just following in the long Wikipedia tradition of SHUTTING DOWN dissent from their liberal ideology by GAMING the system. That's how they roll here. |
|||
- |
|||
- Too bad everybody can see it for what it is, huh? |
|||
- |
|||
It's actually an interesting microcosm for how liberals wield their influence. They can't control the truth, (and wouldn't recognize truth if it french kissed them with a pierced tongue) but they sure as heck try to re-frame it. BTW, this is the EXACT way that newsrooms at 95% of newspapers and TV networks (Fox obviously excluded) 'manage' their news departments as well. At least with Wikipedia you get to see what's under the rock. During this CHRISTmas season, we can be at least a little bit grateful for that. |
|||
At least for now...[[Special:Contributions/69.244.181.184|69.244.181.184]] ([[User talk:69.244.181.184|talk]]) 10:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:00, 22 December 2007
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
What is wrong with the You-Tube videos?
The You-Tube videos of himself are somewhat sped-up to about two percent try to make O'Reilly sound more like a puppy dog in those videos, which confuses some of their viewers.
--4.160.216.121 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is Bill's salary prominently displayed in his bio-box? Quick looks at other, especially liberal, jounalist's pages reveal that they don't have the same. Is this supposed to be insulting? Inflammatory? What?209.115.232.65 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Which ones? I watch him on Youtube all the time and have never noticed. Jcrav2k6 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please see WP:TALK. This page is to discuss changes and improvements to the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive
I think it is time for this page to be archived. If there is some current ongoing discussion, please advise. Otherwise I will archive the page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Shocking Omission
The word Peabody doesn't show up on the page. O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed to have won "two Peabody awards - the most prestigious award in journalism" for his work on Inside Edition. He's repeated this claim for several years on every venue he spoke in front of. This glaring omission causes me to doubt everything I read on Wikipedia.
How do you guys choose which facts to ignore? Do you practice censorship, do certain people "own" pages and publish whatever they feel like under the guise of a public encyclopedia, or what?
- You may want to check his controversies article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I made some edits that don't really chnange the meaning per se but changes the tone a bit? But to be fair, why call one person's claim "a lawsuit" but call O'Rielly's claim as a "preemptive lawsuit?" -- the tone of the 1st para of that section suggests the harassment was true, and it wasn't extortion, it was just O'Reilly saying it was ... one is depicted as the truth teller and the other is the liar ... and we don't know any of that. In addition, some of the ocmments are illogical. I removed where it said the disputes were settled "in her favor" -- because it was not a court settlement, there is no "favor" one way or another. Also it's confidential. Both of them say it was settled in "their favor." Oh, also at one point, one of them "contends" something, and the other "claims" something. Adjusted that so they are the same. SecretaryNotSure 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
For what is O'Reilly best known?
Is he best known as a (political) "commentator" or as a "TV presenter" or something else? If you asked 1000 Americans what he BO'R does, what would most say (apart from "I don't know"!)? It would be convenient if it were something other than "commentator", as it would mean we could rename the article and therefore remove the disambiguation "hat" at the top of the page (the other Bill O'Reilly was a sports commentator, after he retired from playing). NB "(political commentator)" would also do the trick nicely. --Dweller 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- He is best known as the host of the O'Reilly Factor, and that is stated in the first sentence in the article. He is a political commentator so I don't think we need to change anything in the article lead. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- You misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting any amendment to the Lead - I'm referring to the article title. --Dweller 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see no point in removing the disambiguation hat. It's interesting to know that there's another famous Bill O'Reilly. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting opinion, thanks. Logically extending that, we'd make all pages for similarly named people into disambig pages. --Dweller 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing your point, but don't we already do that in most cases? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not where there's a prime usage. --Dweller 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Gotcha. There are four issues: (1) The hat dab—AFAIK, that's almost universal. (2) the dab page. Also almost universal. (3) What Bill O'Reilly redirects to: the dab page or this page. This is not at all universal. The question is whether this BOR is sufficiently more famous than the other for Bill O'Reilly to redirect here. (4) Given that Bill O'Reilly would be synonymous with the dab page, whether the dab page should redirect to it, or vice-versa. It seems that having Bill O'Reilly redirect to the dab page makes a lot more sense. I plan on suggesting this on Talk:Bill O'Reilly. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Bill O’Reilly Celebrates Black History Month
Reports now surfacing the web from employees of Fox News about Bill O'Reilly's celebration of Black History Month AhmaudAdoudie 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keeping in mind WP:BLP, that had better be backed up by a reliable source prior to inclusion. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion? Why should this be included? --Tom 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- If it becomes reliably sourced, properly presented, and verifiable (I haven't heard anything else about it) then the burden is on someone to show why it must be excluded. Remember that notability does not apply to content. Either way, it does not appear that this story "has legs" or has hopes of being reliably sourced (at least in the short term), so it's probably a moot point. /Blaxthos 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion? Why should this be included? --Tom 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the first sentence of this section due to BLP concerns. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- A wise move, I'd say. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Section title
The sexual harrassment/extortion section title has been altered many times both recently and in the past. Some want to just make it about the s.h., some want it to just say exortion, and others have wanted both. I think it would be better to include both terms to be more NPOV. There is disagreement on this so it would be good to find a consensus here. MrMurph101 23:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes... I noticed there seems to be some division of opinion there. Let me just say no one should be trying to "cover up" something that's something of signficance, on the other hand, no one should be trying to alter to wording to make it sound like "we know he did it" etc.
By the way, there's some minor misundertanding over terms. Lawsuits only have two outcomes, they go to court or the don't go to court. If they don't go to court, it means the parties involved have agreed on something. When they agree, they drop the lawsuit. So there's no justification for saying one party "settled out of court" and the other one "dropped his lawsuit" because that makes it sound like one was "kinda guilty." The fact is they both agreed on something, and they both dropped their lawsuits. That's how it ended.SecretaryNotSure 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I currently like it as is. I think Extortion/Harassment controversy sums it up clearly. Carbon Monoxide 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Both lawsuits were dropped. It doesn't matter if the guy from Washington Post phrased it that way -- there's no distinction.SecretaryNotSure 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Better yet, instead of arguing about it. Someone explain what the difference is, and why should we phrase it "oreilly was forced to drop his lawsuit, Oreilly was forced to settle, etc" Besides trying to make it sound like the extortion was made up and the sexual harrassment was true.(!) Which if you have some evidence for, that would be helpful SecretaryNotSure 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Arzel 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also agree. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 02:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree. It's very simple: an out-of-court settlement involves the exchange of money (usually without an admission of wrongdoing); a dropped lawsuit does not involve the exchange of money. Though the net result is the same (lawsuit goes away) the underlying concepts are both distinct and significant. Let's strive for factual accuracy regarding what happened instead of trying to make it sound like both instances were settled the same way (which is not the case). I don't think (I'll check edit histories) anyone has advocated the wording "oreilly[sic] was forced to drop his lawsuit" or Oreilly[sic] was forced to settle, so let's leave the strawmen in the fields. The wording I advocated (and still do) is simply stating the facts: O'Reilly settled the lawsuit against him, and he dropped the extortion suit. Regarding the title, I don't think it's a problem to mention both aspects in the section title if other editors feel strongly about including both. I support the current version, as edited by R. Baley. /Blaxthos 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- After a little reading, I agree that they do appear technically different, but I don't like the "without an appology" statement, as this implies BOR knew he did something wrong, and still wouldn't appologize. Regardless of whether he did do something wrong, he certainly doesn't feel he does, so it is hard to believe that he would appologize for something he didn't think he did. How about "Both parties settled the harrasment lawsuit out of court, and subsequently O'Reilly dropped his extortion lawsuit." Both parties have to agree for settlement, so it makes little sense to state that only BOR settled, but it doesn't take both sides for one to drop a lawsuit. Also, I don't think the "brutal ordeal" statement is needed either, but could go either way. Arzel 13:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do not agree. It's very simple: an out-of-court settlement involves the exchange of money (usually without an admission of wrongdoing); a dropped lawsuit does not involve the exchange of money. Though the net result is the same (lawsuit goes away) the underlying concepts are both distinct and significant. Let's strive for factual accuracy regarding what happened instead of trying to make it sound like both instances were settled the same way (which is not the case). I don't think (I'll check edit histories) anyone has advocated the wording "oreilly[sic] was forced to drop his lawsuit" or Oreilly[sic] was forced to settle, so let's leave the strawmen in the fields. The wording I advocated (and still do) is simply stating the facts: O'Reilly settled the lawsuit against him, and he dropped the extortion suit. Regarding the title, I don't think it's a problem to mention both aspects in the section title if other editors feel strongly about including both. I support the current version, as edited by R. Baley. /Blaxthos 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see the distinction you're making, and IANAL, but is it more accurate to say that "O'Reilly settled the lawsuit against him" or that "the lawsuit against O'Reilly was settled"? The former (to me) suggests more of an assumption against him than the latter. Of course, the grammar "experts" will have problems with the passive voice in the latter, but I don't care. :P Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Although it's true that both sides have to agree to a settlement, standard nomenclature and accepted practice is that the defendant in a lawsuit is the one who is said to have settled out of court. Wikipedia cannot make any assessment regarding whether BOR did something wrong (those sorts of judgements are reserved for our readers), however I would caution against all this excessive manuvering to try and shade this in any manner other than presenting the facts. Regarding "brutal ordeal", wasn't that BOR's own description of the incident? I would be willing to guess that both parties would agree that it was indeed a brutal ordeal (sure sounds like it). Regarding the "assumption against him" point... perhaps, but that's the risk you take when you settle a lawsuit instead of taking it to court. Kinda like that Senator who got caught in the men's room... if you were really innocent, wouldn't you want your day in court? If you choose to pay someone to make something go away instead of fighting it, you have to live with "how it looks to everyone else". We just have to make sure that WE do not imply anything beyond standard language describing the incident. /Blaxthos 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That's the implication. Where's the evidence that someone paid money? All the sources say no details of the "settlements" was disclosed.SecretaryNotSure 14:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say that Blaxthos misspoke when he said "an out-of-court settlement involves the exchange of money". It usually does, but could involve anything from a formal apology, to some other agreement. Of course, I say it usually does, but I believe it also is usually not disclosed whether or not it does. (Again, IANAL.) So, it's fair to say it was settled (vs. dropped), but unless there's evidence that someone paid money, we should not mention that anywhere. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies if I was unclear. We should not mention money in the article at all, and I didn't mean to imply that we should. I was only using it as an example, but I see how it could be interpreted differently -- my bad. /Blaxthos 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I am coming into this discussion late. I think the "settled...dropped" language is fine as it is taken directly from the Washington Post article. We cannot control the assumptions some future editor can make, but we can accurately describe what the reliable sources state. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It concerns me that somehow "Guy from Washington Post say it that way" = "correct phrase to use." I get the feeling the guy from the WP said it that way for exactly the same reason we're trying to avoid, to imply guilt.SecretaryNotSure 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Find a source that doesn't word it that way, then. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, great ideaSecretaryNotSure 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- We have no place re-tooling the language contained in a reliable source to try and change the meaning, regardless of the intent (path to hell and all that). /Blaxthos 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the first reference: from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34312-2004Oct15.html -- this one is already in the article as a reference. It says 4th paragraph:
"Guys like O'Reilly who like to espouse what right-wing Republicans espouse about family values shouldn't be doing stuff like this," he said, adding: "The man knows he did it. He finally got it through his thick skull that he did it, and he's not going to get away with it. . . . He's going down."
This establishes the link between "he's a republican" and the reason for the lawsuit and/or the reason why the lawyer thinks he's guilty. Notice it's not about "justice for my client" it's about "he's going down!"
Next, about the phrasiology. From USA today http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2004-10-28-oreilly-settles_x.htm :
Shortly before Factor aired Thursday, O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement saying the cases and claims had been withdrawn and all parties agreed there was no wrongdoing by O'Reilly, Mackris or Mackris' lawyer.
Note that it says "the cases" not "his case" or "her case" or "the case" ... the cases, both of them, had been withdrawn. That's all we know. We can't speculate that "well, I think (in my mind) that orielly had to pay money or "settle." Heck, for all we know -- think about this -- How do we know Mackris didn't pay O'Reilly for him to drop the extortion claim, and when he agreed, she dropped the harassment lawsuit??? Think about that one.
Here's another comment about the matter from the same article:
O'Reilly's lawyer, Ronald Green, issued a statement Thursday saying both sides "regret that this matter has caused tremendous pain, and they have agreed to settle. All cases and claims have been withdrawn, and all parties have agreed that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever by Mr. O'Reilly, Ms. Mackris, or Ms. Mackris' counsel, Benedict P. Morelli & Associates."
Notice this is a lot like the other statement, except here he uses the term "settle" for both parties. That's right, in this statement and the one above, he first uses the word "withdrawn" for both parties. The next statement uses the term "settle" for -- again -- both parties.
In other words, to be fair, we have to say both settled, or both of them dropped their lawsuits, or both of them withdrew their claims. What we can't say is that one of them "settled" and the other one "withdrew" or "dropped" the lawsuit.
I found a few other news articles recording the same statement so it's probably reliable but I think I said enough. ThanksSecretaryNotSure 23:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see your other comment. We don't want to go down that path to hell so we'll see what others think.SecretaryNotSure 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note that one says "cases" and the other says "both sides". Both sides could easily refer to both sides of one case. Also note that the "cases" statement says withdrawn, which could possibly mean (IANAL) dropped or settled. I'm not sure this disputes the other source (which admittedly has a bias), but it might. Any people with more knowledge of the law want to weigh in on withdrawn vs. settled or dropped? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Withdrawn" and "Dropped" are the same thing -- the petitioner removes his petition from the Court's consideration.
- A settlement involves a contract that may be reviewed by the court, which may be accepted or rejected.
- An out-of-court settlement involves a contractual agreement between two parties of which the terms of the agreement are kept private. If one party breaches the terms of the settlement, the other party may use the contract to pursue punative judicial action.
- The sexual harassment suit was settled out of court, the extortion lawsuit was withdrawn voluntarily. One cannot say that the withdrawal was a term of the settlment, as those terms are contractually private and unsourcable. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not saying this should go into the article (it should not), but based on my experience, any settlement agreement would have required the dismissal of the extortion suit. Settlements are primarily done through release agreements that require the waiver of all claims currently pending or intended to be filed based on the same transaction. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems mainly like an issue of semantics and/or legalese. It would be good to phrase it as concise as possible. Perhaps "...both parties agreed to settle and agreed that there was no wrongdoing and the details remain confidential." MrMurph101 00:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. We have no idea to what either party agreed. All we know is that BOR settled the sexual harassment suit and withdrew the extortion suit. Leave it as the source does. /Blaxthos 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not against that per se but a more concise version would still be the ideal to find a consensus. MrMurph101 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to "fix" the sentence by stating that both parties agreed to a settlement (which they did), and both lawsuits were dismissed (which they were). Even though a case is settled, the underlying lawsuit has to be dismissed by the party who filed it. In my sentence, I took out the common language of "dropped and withdrawn", and used the term of art that describes what happens when a lawsuit is terminated by the parties. That is, it was dismissed. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Arthropods articles with comments
Can anyone say why (or even how) this talk page is in Category:Arthropods articles with comments?!? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I figured out the how (and I suppose the why): Template:WikiProject intelligent design has this category included. I'll take the discussion over there. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this page even included in that wikiproject? Carbon Monoxide 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Presumably because the article itself is included in the category Category:Intelligent design advocates. That leads to another question, which I don't know the answer to, however. I would say that if he is included in that category, intelligent design should probably at least be mentioned in the article. I personally have no idea where BOR stands on intelligent design. (Oh, and the arthropod problem has now been fixed thanks to ConfuciusOrnis.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Googled it. Result: [1]. Although I don't think it's particularly notable. Carbon Monoxide 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. It may not be extremely notable (I notice it's ranked "low-importance" by the ID project people), but it seems sufficient to include him in the category, and possibly to add a short sentence somewhere appropriate to describe this viewpoint. To those interested in intelligent design (whether they like it or hate it), that Bill O'Reilly feels that way is notable. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Googled it. Result: [1]. Although I don't think it's particularly notable. Carbon Monoxide 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Presumably because the article itself is included in the category Category:Intelligent design advocates. That leads to another question, which I don't know the answer to, however. I would say that if he is included in that category, intelligent design should probably at least be mentioned in the article. I personally have no idea where BOR stands on intelligent design. (Oh, and the arthropod problem has now been fixed thanks to ConfuciusOrnis.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why is this page even included in that wikiproject? Carbon Monoxide 15:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- It might fit better in the Politics of Bill O'Reilly article. Carbon Monoxide 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Because he is a Arthropod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.156 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
He has low "ratings"
Doesn't O'Reilly have lower ratings than "Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Olbermann, along with some of the NBC News staff insists he has lower ratings than any cable news program, this would outrage O'Reilly, if he were being told.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.45.119 (talk)
- He does not have lower ratings than Olbermann, though the section detailing ratings generalizations, specifically:
is unnecessary and has been deleted. The ratings between the networks, and specifically Olbermann and O'Reilly, vary significantl night to night depending on a number of variables. Blanket statements like the above are pointless. Ademska 08:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)"The show generally has more viewers than the two other cable news shows on CNN and MSNBC that run against it combined. The O'Reilly Factor posts three times as many viewers as Countdown with Keith Olbermann. O'Reilly has averaged 2.2 million viewers a night this year versus Olbermann's 710,000 viewers.[1]"
100 most influential conservatives in America
Although very notable, I'm wondering how this fits in with WP:BLP concerns since Bill O'Reilly keeps adamantly claiming to be independent. It's easy to brush off this concern by pointing out that we're reporting how another group has labeled him, that same argument wouldn't work at all if we were talking about certain other labels. I'm not really that concerned, but I feel it deserves discussion. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- We should note that O'Reilly received the designation. We should also note that O'Reilly labels himself as an independant. Neither is slanderous/libellous and should be far outside WP:BLP concerns. /Blaxthos 23:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, but I question whether it should be in the lead. Is this list well known, like Time's most influential list, or the US News and World report's list on various colleges and universities? I suggest it be dropped down into the body Arzel 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on the placement, or knowledge of the significance of the list. /Blaxthos 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I moved it to the body after another mention of influential people list. Arzel 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Speculation? It's sourced, albeit anonymously
I have a problem with the current section on the Mackris lawsuit. Basically, as it stands, it essentially pushes the POV that Mackris was engaged in an extortion bid. In fact, there are no published reports that suggest that the settlement talks ended with anything but a large payment from O'Reilly to her. The Kurtz article attributes the statement about O'Reilly paying a settlement worth millions of dollars to an anonymous source close to O'Reilly. How much do you expect you can get? The Kurtz article was already cited before I made these changes--if we believe that he is engaging in speculation, why is it that we're willing to cite him at all? There is mounds of evidence suggesting that O'Reilly more or less did what he was accused of. He told Marvin Kitman that he had "a problem". Mackris moved to a swanky new apartment not long after the suit was settled. There is no reason to disbelieve what Kurtz said and every reason to believe it. We attribute the statement. It should go in, lest readers get the mistaken idea that this was just an extortion bid. Croctotheface 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to work on re-wording the section from a more neutral tone, that is fine, but to include speculation as to the settlement...I have to disagree. To include the speculated settlement reads like gossip. Arzel 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about "According to several published reports, as part of the settlement O'Reilly paid Mackris millions of dollars, however the terms of the agreement remain confidential. As a result of the settlement both the harassment and extortion lawsuits were dismissed..." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, as noted elsewhere, there is a difference between "settled", "dismissed", and "withdrawn" (however subtle the difference may appear to the layperson). Other than that portion, I support Ramsquire's version. /Blaxthos 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Arzel 23:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of how a layperson would use those terms, both cases were dismissed. On the court docket, both cases would have been listed as dismissed (possibly "dismissed pursuant to settlement"). After a settlement, all related actions are dismissed if not, the attorney should be sued for malpractice. This is what I do for a living, so this is how I am coming after it the topic. It defies logic that the extortion case would have been dismissed outside of the settlement agreement, and to use misleading terms gives that impression. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- FTR-- my only point is that I would prefer using the legal term of art "dismissed" as opposed to dropped, withdrawn, etc., which are simply characterizations of the dismissal. Also note that the sentence only states that the dismissal occurred as a result of the settlement, not as a term of the settlement. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there has been a miscommunication. A dismissal usually refers to a case that the court dismisses with cause (as unfounded, failing to make a prima facie case, procedural errors, etc.). From what I understand neither case was dismissed -- the harassment suit was settled and the extortion suit was withdrawn. In no case may we say that one was because of the other (unless properly sourced, which is not likely to be forthcoming due to the confidentiality agreement). If I recall correctly, the source cited actually uses that language, no? /Blaxthos 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up - to be honest, my expertise is in criminal law (where dismissed carries a certain connotation). It may be different nomenclature in civil law, however I suggest we strive to be as accurate and specific as possible. /Blaxthos 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe there has been a miscommunication. A dismissal usually refers to a case that the court dismisses with cause (as unfounded, failing to make a prima facie case, procedural errors, etc.). From what I understand neither case was dismissed -- the harassment suit was settled and the extortion suit was withdrawn. In no case may we say that one was because of the other (unless properly sourced, which is not likely to be forthcoming due to the confidentiality agreement). If I recall correctly, the source cited actually uses that language, no? /Blaxthos 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to be brief but in civil law, the term dismissal covers both, voluntary and involuntary dismissal. Usually when a court dismisses a case with prejudice (e.g. through summary judgment) it would still be called an adjudication -- meaning a judgment was rendered. The settlement doesn't effect the basic nature of a dismissal. Generally, almost all settlements in civil cases are in effect releases. The boilerplate language simply states in exchange for x amount of dollars the parties release each other for any claims now known or later discovered. Also, neither party admits any fault nor wrongdoing. Finaly, The agreeement is confidential, and other miscellaneous items are added. Sometime after the checks are cut, a request for dismissal is filed by the Plaintiff. There is no such thing in the lexicon as "withdrawal" of a case or "dropping" a case. You can dismiss a case on your own for whatever reason, or have it dismissed by the court for whatever reason. Based on what happened other people use withdrawal/dropping to describe the dismissal. Here, neither party would have dismissed their action without the settlement, and their is no evidence of court intervention, so to use two different lay terms for the same act (i.e. filing a request for dismissal) can be misleading and confusing. I hope this helps. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the version you posted above. So long as we acknowledge the reports that the terms of settlement/dismissal/adjournment/withdrawal involved O'Reilly paying Mackris, I'm disinclined to quibble about terminology or the rest of the section. Without including this information, which appeared in reliable, mainstream news outlets, the section strikes me as rather incomplete. Croctotheface 06:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the version as currently posted is skewed in favor of O'Reilly's view of events. Ramsquire's suggested change seems satisfactory to me. Only the section heading is misleading, since the widely reported controversy was solely based on the alleged "Sexual Harassment" aspect.-Hal Raglan 15:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I made the suggested change. It can be further tweaked by others if needed.-Hal Raglan 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Section Title Change
The "Extortion/Harassment Controversy" section has been renamed "Andrea Mackris lawsuit" based on the premise that her lawsuit was the driving force behind the story. I don't really have a preference over either title, but I wanted to point out that the extortion suit was filed first, so if there was a counter-suit, it would have been the sexual harassment case. Also, all the press seemed to indicate that the timeline is O'Reilly filed the case after negotiations broke down and that Mackris then filed the lawsuit, which had already been prepared (before the early negotiations) in response to O'reilly's suit. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I made that change because importance trumps chronology. While we don't know the terms of the settlement for sure, every indication is that the extortion suit was without merit and the harassment suit resulted in a settlement of millions of dollars paid to Mackris. To characterize this as an extortion controversy would ignore what we know from our sources. Croctotheface (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with Croctotheface... the extortion claim was a pre-emptive attempt to repudiate the root issue, which would be the lawsuit. Saying so in the article would probably violate WP:OR, but it can be used to logically name the section. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you guys are overlooking two important factors. One, O'Reilly's celebrity played a very important role in the coverage. If she never filed the harassment suit, no one would have paid attention to his suit against her. So the media coverage based on celebrity would greatly skew the importance of one case over the other. Two, if you believe the extortion suit was an attempt to repudiate or retaliate for the harassment case, that indicates a belief that the allegations in the sexual harassment complaint are true. I am not prepared to go there, based on my experience with Plaintiff work in civil cases. I am not saying that nothing happened, but please understand allegations are just that. Finally, Defendants will often settle a case even when they don't think they did anything wrong on the advice of their attorney. A perfect example of why is the Anuche Brown Sanders case versus the Knicks. Often times embarassing facts come out that have little relevance to the case in chief. In a public case, it is rarely ever worth it to go to trial regardless of fault. That being said, I'll repeat again that I don't have a problem with the title. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
moving the criticism section
what's the point of putting criticism about Bill O'Reilly on his page when there is an entire page devoted to criticism of him?!?!?! I think it should be an all or nothing section. Not a half here half there and put them together. I'm moving it if no body objects. RYNORT 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The section should be a summary of the main spinoff article. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Radio Factor
radio factor is big and there is only a paragraph under the early broadcasting career section... Can someone fix that RYNORT 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
major editing
I just went through and cleaned up the non necessary information and staying straight froward/ simplifying all of it. RYNORT 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- You probably need some sort of chart for including the affiliates he's been a part of. It looks kind of odd right now. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I took off the bold property... does it look any better to you RYNORT 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- It does, thanks. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
mackris
it says that media reported the settlement was millions. I don't think any unverifiable information like that should be presented in that form. It just doesn't belong. It seems to me more of a weasel format to try and paint a picture of the incident.RYNORT 20:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also don't think a rumor should be in any article, and am pretty sure it goes against some kind of policy.RYNORT 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- All statements are properly attributed to reliable sources and verifiable. The Washington Post clearly states things beyond what is in the article -- "Fox believed Mackris had tape recordings of the long, highly detailed conversations alleged in the suit" and "O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that the Fox commentator had used such language" -- and I believe that the version that exists now was reached by considerable efforts towards building an acceptable compromise. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Concerning allegations of a multi-million dollar settlement is not verified. that should be taken out for it is a rumor.RYNORT 20:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not how it works. It has been published in a reliable source, namely the Washington Post -- a rumor has no attribution; this information can be verfied by following the link. The included text clearly states that the terms are confidential, but that the figure was $2m USD before talks broke down. Also, this has already been subject to considerable review and is now a consensus version reached via discussion by many editors. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Follow up - considering your very first edit was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's not how it works. It has been published in a reliable source, namely the Washington Post -- a rumor has no attribution; this information can be verfied by following the link. The included text clearly states that the terms are confidential, but that the figure was $2m USD before talks broke down. Also, this has already been subject to considerable review and is now a consensus version reached via discussion by many editors. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well excuse me. This article has been considered for deletion multiple times. Now one can wonder why that is, or one could suppose that it's a right wing conspiracy as yourself. The truth is, this article had an extreme biased to it, including unreliable sources and sensational writing. So if you want to put a term on me pushing a conservative agenda, I'll have to say that it's people like yourself hurting wikipedia the most by claiming that articles such as these should be left alone and unchallenged. Thank you.RYNORT 22:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I doubt very much that there is a "right wing conspiracy", I just think it's the efforts of a misguided individual who is more concerned with pushing his particular point of view by removing critical content than he is concerned with following our established policies, guidelines, and precedents. Fortunately, it appears we have a large number of editors who strive to comply with the goals and methods of the project. Hope this clears things up. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately nothing. Why do you think wikipedia gets a bad rep? It's notorious for being biased, sensational, and unreliable. I suggested moving dead links about certain claims of O'Reilly that couldn't be verified without those articles being present and your "editors" disagreed and said the sources and content should stay. Also, this article fails to say what level of criticism it's using to post. Most of these things are just whether they got people excited or not. Also, certain criticisms are mostly opinions and nothing really major, so by that standard should be post every blogs criticism of O'Reilly? I don't think so. Yours Truly, Right winger RYNORT 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping for a while that wikipedia would prosper. But now seeing how this kind of "peer reviewed" editing works, my visions are becoming bleak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYNORT (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Disparaging the project because your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point. Instead of trying to use the project to further your agenda, I would suggest trying to learn what Wikipedia is all about, what it is not, and how our policies and guidelines work. I would suggest that your edits and your comments thus far have been less than helpful; I hope that in the future you will take our rules to heart, be more considerate of others' opinions, and respect consensus. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well blog info is not really allowed in these articles as blogs aren't considered reliable sources. If you see it, you should challenge it on the grounds of WP:RS rather than calling people biased for wanting it in. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The information about the settlement, as others have pointed out, is sourced to the Washington Post and supported by the consensus reached on this talk page. Within the Post article, the information is attributed, anonymously, to a source close to O'Reilly. There's no reason whatsoever not to include it. Croctotheface (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
For User Rynort and Anyone Else Curious about how Wik REALLY works
- - I first became acquainted with Wikipedia several years ago when I read the O'Reilly article. I was instantly OUTRAGED at how perniciously biased, slanted and outright poisonous Wikipedia's version of reality was. My involvement led me to a long journey into the dark underbelly of this LEFT WING CONTROLLED supposedly NPOV organization. - - Having said that, I'm shocked at how much fairer this article is than the one I stumbled upon that fateful day. - - However, I still get totally creeped out when I read the utter bullshit spewed by user Blaxthos. - - He posts nonsense like: "considering your very first edit was blatant vandalistic POV-pushing, and your subsequent edits have almost all attempted to push a conservative agenda, I'm having trouble continuing to assume good faith that your intentions are to improve Wikipedia." or "your personal opinions are trumped by our policies and the consensus of other editors does nothing to advance your standing or validate your point." - - Let me tell you what's REALLY going on. - - A liberal cabal (or what Blaxthos calls 'other editors') HAS ABSOLUTE control over the content in Wikipedia. - - What typically happens is a conservative will read an article, become JUSTIFIABLY outraged and change it to reflect less bias. - - That's when the liberal cabal comes in and games the system. - - It is transparently obvious and predictable. - - First they accuse YOU of pushing a pov. That's hilarious. - Then of course you're not assuming good faith. It's always thrown in there for good measure. - If you still won't back down, they'll privately email each other and take turns reverting your legit edits and, if you counter edit, write you up for violating the 3r's rule. - - All the while they are shamelessly accusing the conservative of pushing a political agenda or vandalizing an article. - - It has happened to me and COUNTLESS OTHER CONSERVATIVE editors. - Most just give up. - Many are tried by wikidpedia in their trumped up DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS Kangaroo court where a conservative has as much a chance of a fair shot as a black man accused of molesting a white woman in alababma in 1922 does. lol! - - Blaxthos is just following in the long Wikipedia tradition of SHUTTING DOWN dissent from their liberal ideology by GAMING the system. That's how they roll here. - - Too bad everybody can see it for what it is, huh? - It's actually an interesting microcosm for how liberals wield their influence. They can't control the truth, (and wouldn't recognize truth if it french kissed them with a pierced tongue) but they sure as heck try to re-frame it. BTW, this is the EXACT way that newsrooms at 95% of newspapers and TV networks (Fox obviously excluded) 'manage' their news departments as well. At least with Wikipedia you get to see what's under the rock. During this CHRISTmas season, we can be at least a little bit grateful for that.
At least for now...69.244.181.184 (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Bauder, David. "Bill O'Reilly: I'm Being Smeared", Associated Press, September 26, 2007.