Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

I can't change this page but..

the opening paragraph should say "conservative commentator". the common consensus on all sides is that oreilly is a conservative commentator. it seems misleading to not identify him as such. even his website asks visitors "Do you disagree with Bill O'Reilly's conservative point of view?"

Paragraph Deletion

I deleted the paragraph before the United Way section. It was just a summary of the United Way section. Tomhormby 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section should just be a summary paragraph.

Since there is an entire article devoted to Bill O'Reilly controversies, I believe the controversy section in his main article shouldn't be any more than a summary paragraph and should refrain from listing details of any of the controversies. This is per wikipedia's recommendation on how to handle article spinouts. I had previously moved the sexual harassment and malmedy controversies to his controversy page where they are listed #1 and #2, respectively. If you disagree, please explain why. Lawyer2b 19:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had started the Malmedy massacre section of the controversies section, and noticed you moved it and the sexual harassment section shortly thereafter. I believe at the very least the controversies section section should be expanded to more than one paragraph. Bill is and has been cited many times for his controversional rhetoric, and in light of his high perched fair and balanced no-spin claims, the main article deserves a slightly more thorough overview of his controversies. Otherwise it may seem the to majority of casual readers as if the articles caretakers are bias in further widdling down points critical to it's subject. This caretaker bias seems more imbalanced when you view the full history of the article and see how the controveries section has become smaller and smaller over time. Sysrpl 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think the summary can be rewritten to give a more thorough overview of his controveries than it currently does, have at it. Keep it to an overview, not a list of them, though. The more that is listed, the more people are going to think "why isn't this other controversy listed in the summary? Hey, let me go add it," and that's how it starts growing again. I could care less whether something appears biased to casual readers as long as it really isn't. All we're doing is following wikipedia's good recommendation on how to handle article spinouts -- something that should have been done awhile ago. Lawyer2b

I understand and agree, though I know you understand I may not the actual person to add the expansion. Is there a way to sticky this information up top so that future editors don't delete a concise and on point expansion of the controversies? Or also so that the opposite doesn't happen where it grows beyond an overview into a litany of controversies? Sysrpl 02:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If the new summary is good it's less likely to get modified and if it does, it will be easy enough to revert. :-) Lawyer2b 02:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the cited policy, the summury must be npov and avoid be in favor of some viewpoints over others. The current summary has almost no content (just 1 argument is cited), so is hiding the O'Reilly criticts viewpoints. I think it should include some more of the most notables (i.e. making neocon propaganda). --Lau 16:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Scandal section in Personal background section.

I don't think it is appropriate to make a "sexual scandal section" in his personal background. That section is a a good personal bio/history and any great detail of recent events (good or bad) would be out of place there I think. There is a whole page devoted to his controversies where the scandal is already listed and somewhat fleshed out. Lawyer2b 02:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments.--Dcflyer 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

disagree--- Even Bill called it "a chapter of my life now behind me", so it is a chapter of his life. Why not put this part of his life in his personal bio (which is meant to introduce his life anyways) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.13.224 (talk • contribs)

This section was reinserted/reverted by 24.87.13.224. But now it is actually NPOV. -- Dcflyer 03:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war over it because I can partially see User:24.87.13.224's point (even though he doesn't SIGN HIS TALK PAGE EDITS ;-) but if that's where its going be, then we should take the entire section from the controversy page and put it there because it is a much more complete accounting. Lawyer2b 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, instead of having selective and/or POV coverage of the same issues in multiple articles.--Dcflyer 04:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

nice job guys --- the "editing war" guy

It is incorrect and in violation of Wikipedias policy to label O'Reillys taped remarks as lewd-- There is no context to O'Reilly's taped remarks, nor are his specific words quoted, so describing them to them as 'lewd' is without citation-- in violation of Wikipedia's policy on articles about living persons. Sean7phil 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

His specific words are quoted in the complaint, which is cited. The complaint also describes the contexts in which the remarks were made. These remarks clearly fit the definition of the word "lewd". Moreover, the complaint specifically uses the word "lewd" to describe his remarks. The statement as written is undeniably factual and verifiable. Lagringa 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there so little about the scandal? This could have been written by O'Reilly himself! It emphasizes the extortion suit (which appears to be baseless) and leaves out any of the detailed allegations in Mackris's suit. Why is there no mention of falafel? Lagringa 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The rules are pretty stringent on bios of living people. Adding details of the sexual discrimination suit such as "falafel" runs the risk of violating WP:NOV. In addition, there are problems with verifiability and sourcing of those claims. Granted the accusations were made, reprinted heavily, and was widely disseminated, there is still the issue for Wiki editors to come up with a reliable source discussing this stuff. Ramsquire 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive Again?

Can this talk page be archived again please, it is getting too long. Mike Beckham 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so since the other archives have far fewer discussions. MrMurph101 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Ilyag 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ann Coulter

I researched the O'Reilly criticism of Ann Coulter and found on his June 8 2006 talking points memo Bill said the following:

"On The Radio Factor today, some callers supported Ann. 'Talking Points' believes most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive. The question then becomes: Why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books, but she's already well off and famous. No doubt the widows have become liberal activists." [1]

This is hardly the categorization of Ann Coulter as a far-right extremist, as some have suggested. He goes on in a later segment saying "Miss Coulter has a good point about these women". Sysrpl 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the article you cited he definitely calls her a far right extremist. I think its a little disingeniuous to suppose the part of COulters statement he agrees with is that these women are harpies rather than the criticism of when political leaders (on either side) pick sympathetic characters to push politics. The wiki article already states Bill Oreilly claims Michael Moore, Al Franken, and the DIxie chicks are far left. the article you cited shows he thinks the same of Ann Coulter. paragraph 4: " O'Reilly likened Coulter to liberal Air America host Al Franken, stating that Coulter risked becoming "the right-wing Al Franken" because both "smear" others in their books." paragraph 5 "O'Reilly has also compared Coulter to Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines, stating that both women spout "rhetoric" that is "extreme." " Bill Oreilly once had michael moore on his show and they agreed on several points even though he considers moore far left. Mrdthree 16:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

People who are center left like Bill Clinton I am sure get a chuckle out of "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" but they dont condone it as a mode of discourse.Mrdthree 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By using correlation implies causation your arguments are logically flawed. eg. Bill hates Dixie Chicks. Bill compares Ann Coulter to Dixie Chicks. Therefore Bill must hate Ann Coulter. Additionally, risk does not correlate to effect. I may risk money on the stock market, that does not mean that I lost money. On the contraire, when I risk being labeled extreme, it does not mean I am labeled extreme. Sysrpl 23:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so getting down to brass tacks, where in the article did Bill state that he thinks Ann Coulter is on the far right? Here is what far left or right categorizations look like as a reference: "On the far right, the poster boys for hate are the Nazis" [2], "Just as Republicans are tainted by far-right militia groups" [3] "But the ACLU doesn't believe that. The organization has moved so far left, that now anything goes" [4], and "the big three far left senators, Kennedy, Schumer, and Boxer don't like Alito one bit" [5]. See the pattern? Good. With this in mind, chastising someone does not correspond to categorizating them as an extremist. Provide some reference to Bill calling Coulter a far right extremist and you can keep her on the list, until then it you have nothing other than an inductive argument. Sysrpl 23:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I know he has on a number of occasions mentioned her name as an example of some one on the far right. SOme one else cited thee 6/7/6 radio show but there is no transcript. It is not my inductive argument it is also left wing Media Matters' inductive argument [6]. Mrdthree 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Is not your argument for his support of teh amendment to ban gay marriage inductive? Can you produce a statement that says he supports the amendment? Isnt your claim that bill oreilly would not be against teh death penalty were it not for hard labor inductive? plus oreilly never used teh word risk.Mrdthree 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay great, if you know he has on a number of occasions mentioned her name as an example of someone on the far right, just site the source and put it in the article. Regarding the word risk, you used it in support of your argument, and I merely pointed out that it does not correlate to your conclusion. As far as media matters goes, it's fine to use them as a source if you use direct quotes ignoring their impositions.

An inductive argument is a logical fallicy.

Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.

Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.

Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.

As applied to your argument, if Bill believes the Dixie Chicks are extremists, and compares Ann Coulter to the Dixie Chicks, he must believes Ann Coulter is an extremist. This is a fallacy.

About the same-sex marriage amendment, Bill said on the subject that tradional marriage is between one man and one women, and then went on to add that traditionalists like himself believe the government should protect traditional marriage. That's a pretty straight forward statement of support, but it's neither here nor there because this is the Ann Coulter section. Sysrpl 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll bring the citations... heavy standard.Mrdthree 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Using your inductive fallacy argument: not all governments ae federal governments; Not all legislated protections are amendments;Mrdthree 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay Marriage amendment

In the reference you provided [7], the only thing he says is "the people have spoken" he doesnt say america "..needs a constituional amendment to do..." anything. Bill cites only 58% of people are for a man-woman definition of marriage. THis is clearly less than 75% that are needed for ratification, and the gallup poll he cited didnt ask about amendments. THe "people have spoken" is a correlation without causation. Mrdthree 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill said on the subject the gay marriage amendment that "heterosexual marriage is a stabilizing force is a strong one", then lots gay marriage in with polygamy, as if polygamy were a human condition. He said he believes America is strong because of traditional marriage (i.e. same-sex marriage), and redirects the attack to whom he sees as the real issue "a bunch of liberal judges". At the end of his piece, Bill said the case of gay marriage has already been decided after having quoted a majority opinion 58% against allowing gays to marry. So after all of this arguing in Bill's piece, does it sound he like supports gay marriage or is against it? Finally, please have the courtesy to refrain from attacking me with your newly found concept of logical fallicies before I have spoken, or were you attempting to criticise Bill O'Reilly? Sysrpl 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Bill O'Reilly doesnt like gay marriage but that doesnt mean he wont tolerate a law allowing gay marriage. People tolerate Pat Robertson, etc. and support Free speech (although pornography laws, hate speech legislation, etc.). I think in this case the overarching principle is equality under law or discrimination.Mrdthree 15:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not the best internet surfer but I cant find anyone else on the web saying Bill O'Reilly is for a gay marriage amendment. Why is that? Mrdthree 16:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly is actually apathetic to gay marriage in principle. He'll sarcastically say something like not caring if "Lenny marries Squiggy."

He usually uses the slippery slope argument against the idea of gay marriage. He supports gay adoption but qualifies that by usually asking a proponent of it to say that a stable, hetero couple is the optimum choice. In other words, gay adoption is ok if there is no stable hetero couple available. That is my understanding. MrMurph101 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So you would agree that Bill O'REilly supports the gay marriage amendment? Mrdthree 00:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrdthree, in your last edit you said:

"I think this is open to interpretation. You must have a quote that says he is for or against the amendment."

I will use a little example here to prove the above statement wrong. One need not say explicitly, "I support democracy" in order to be labeled a supporter of democracy. All that is required is a record (perhaps long) of loudly publicly touting only the positive benefits of democracy, and at the same time negatively attacking other forms of government. This person might also for example positively mischaracterize the popular aspects of democracy and negatively do the same for the other side in their speaches. By doing these things they have added their credence to the cause of democracy, furthering it's acceptance. Now even though this person may not have said explicitly the magic phrase "I support democracy", it's still certainly fair to state that this person is a supporter of democracy.

With this in mind, in the case of the gay marriage amendment argument, Bill has followed this kind of support. When recently talking [8] on the subject of gay marriage amendment Bill said America has been made strong by same-sex marriage, the rights of the 58 percent of Americans who want gay marriage banned is paramount, there is no question what the people want, and the decision against gay marriage has already been made and should be respected. He also said activist liberal judges (i.e. an amendment protects us from activist liberal judges) might impose gay marriage on Americans, the people don't like that, and lots gay people that want to marry in with polygamists.

For this reason it's fair to say Bill supports the gay marriage amendment. Do you disagree? State your case here before reverting. Sysrpl 07:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your point is that you cant find any secondary sources, blogs, quotes or news sources that supports your interpretation of his column? Mrdthree 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How did you reach that conclusion? Please provide a more substantial debate other than speculating on my intent. Above I had provided a clear example refuting your "magic phrase" logic. Address that issue if you want to have a discussion, rather than responding with short blanket statements devoid of helpfulness. Sysrpl 15:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose he were against the legalization of gay marriage there are many state and federal mechanisms for this beyond a federal constitutional amendment. Second, this is a flip flop from his stated positions on the issue in the past (see our earlier discussion on conservative, moderate, liberal) and that should be newsworthy among bloggers but only you have interpretted this column that way, third in order to make your generalization you broke your own rules of evidence (in the section on Coulter) you can criticize but you are also inventing and discarding rules so you can post your opinion about what Bill O'Reilly's opinion on an issue is.Mrdthree 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic of the Bill's most recent statements was a constitutional amendment protecting same-sex marriage aptly opening with:

"The proposed constitutional amendment supporting traditional marriage: that's the subject of this evening's 'Talking Points'Memo."

So to suppose his statements were directed at other "federal mechanisms" is wrong.

With regards to flip-flops, I see no changing of position here other than Bill's timely reminder that the people have spoken, decision time is over, and it's results should now be respected.

"The folks decide that by voting and, in the case of gay marriage, the folks have decided. And that decision should be respected."

Further, evidence of a change of position (which I don't see, and you haven't presented) does not negate Bill's most recent statements. Either way, people can change sides. What is important is his record now.

Finally, I don't understand what rules you say I am inventing. The concept of supporting a position by speaking out publicly in favor of it, while decrying the opposition is nothing new. Many case studies and laws have been passed to this effect through the world. In China you can and will be found guilty for speaking against the government and using speach to support democracy. In America you can be arrested for decrying the US and speaking and passing out books in support of terrorism. Also, here in America you can be found guilty of speaking out against an organization and speaking in support of violence against that organization. Although I disagree with all of these laws, they share a common thread that links to a single fact. A person's support of any concept is not dependant on a single "magic phrase", rather we factually say you support it when you loudly speak postively about it, and speak negatively about the opposite side. I didn't make the rule, logic did long ago.

Oh, and before you accuse me of using opinion, I present these facts on the topic of the gay marriage amendment again: [9]

On Tuesday, June 06, 2006 Bill O'Reilly said America has been made strong by same-sex marriage, the rights of the 58 percent of Americans who want gay marriage banned is paramount, there is no question what the people want, and the decision against gay marriage has already been made and should be respected. He also said activist liberal judges (i.e. an amendment protects us from activist liberal judges) might impose gay marriage on Americans, the people don't like that, and lots gay people that want to marry in with polygamists.

I look forward to your reply. Sysrpl 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are asking to make an inductive argument to explain Bill O'Reilly's position on gay marriage if I quote:

"One need not say explicitly, "I support democracy" in order to be labeled a supporter of democracy. All that is required is a record (perhaps long) of loudly publicly touting only the positive benefits of democracy,... it's ...fair to state that this person is a supporter of democracy."

But then you ignore contrary statements such as:

"Look, I couldn't care less, to tell you the truth," he says eventually of same­sex marriage. "You want to get married? Knock yourself out. Go to Vegas; have a good time." Really? He wouldn't oppose gay marriage if it were legal? "If you can get that changed, I'm not going to jump up and down and say I think it's wrong, because I don't,"[10]

or "Fifty percent -- that's all -- support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain came out saying he's against it. Bush is against it because Laura Bush doesn't want it. There's no chance. There's no chance to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in this country."[11]

He states the people decide by voting, but the amendment cant pass the senate.

do not exceptions break the generalization? IN the article you cite he seems awfully apologetic the bush is pursuing the issue, not exactly fervant; so I will paraphrase an earlier argument... getting down to brass tacks, where in the article did Bill state that he thinks congress should enact the amendment to ban gay marriage? Here is what a position on a political issue should look like as a reference: "Therefore, no race-based preferences should be permitted in the USA" [12], "I'm against the death penalty for two reasons: No. 1, I don't think the state should be executing anybody; and No. 2, I don't think ... it deters." [13] "Global warming is here. All these idiots that run around and say it isn't here. That's ridiculous." [14], and "the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both reject intelligent design and don't want it mentioned in science classes. That, in my opinion, is fascism. There is no reason the students cannot be told that more than a few people, including some scientists, believe the creation of the world, no matter how it occurred, involved a higher power. "[15] See the pattern? Good. With this in mind, chastising liberal judges does not correspond to a statement in support of a constitutional amendment Provide some reference to Bill saying he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and you can keep it on the list, until then it you have nothing other than an inductive argument. Mrdthree 07:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for copying and pasting my comments to you back to me. It goes to show how deeply you considered what I have said. The truth is there is a considerable difference between the burden of proof in showing what someone has done versus what someone thinks. There is universal consensus in that regard. To say that someone thinks something is true, you cannot simply use their comparison of two things and draw a conclusion from that. In your example you said Bill believes the Dixie Chick were far-left extremists, he compared Ann Coulter to the Dixie Chicks, therefore he must think Ann Coulter is an extremist. That kind of logic doesn't fly when proving what someone thinks. You must have a statement close or near to a synonym of "Ann Coulter is an extremist" to prove that point, so to just throw that same logic at me doesn't make sense.

Now since I have factually explained with several clean examples the fallacy the "magic phrase" argument, which you have yet to respond to, I will instead take on your Bill O'Reilly alledged contrary statements.

"Look, I couldn't care less, to tell you the truth," he says eventually of same­sex marriage. - This is an apathetic (look the word up) position on the subject where Bill reveals his personal beliefs when pressed on the subject.

"If you can get that changed, I'm not going to jump up and down and say I think it's wrong, because I don't" - Another apathetic statements about his beliefs.

"Fifty percent, that's all, support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. McCain came out saying he's against it. Bush is against it because Laura Bush doesn't want it. There's no chance. There's no chance to get a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in this country." - Taken from his show his as a piece of hard interviewing with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. A hard interview is a journalism technique and does not suppose support of a position on the part of the interviewer. Are you saying Bill is not a journalist?

So what you have are two statements of Bill's apathetic (i.e. non supporting indifference) beliefs towards gay marriage. Bill's non supporting beliefs aside, the debate isn't about what's in Bill's mind, rather it's about what Bill does. I provided a very clear argument you keep dodging, and instead you respond by pasting my statements back. This shows an amout of laziness (and also plagiarism) on your part. I was nice enough go along with that and even demonstrated difference in the required burden of proof. If you want to continue this discussion, address the arguments of my previous two posts. Sysrpl 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its vague, you are quite certain of its meaning so my solution is to elaborate the statement with conflicting statements. I am sure he will revisit the issue and give a more clear statement of his point of view in the future. No, he is not a journalist. Mrdthree 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10 1949) is an American commentator, editor, author, syndicated columnist, and a journalist.

I am assuming you wish to wait for Bill O'Reilly to say more before continuing the debate? If so, when he does please keep my above posts in mind. Sysrpl 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: TO address any apparent conflicts between my statements above (stating "Bill Oreilly is not a journalist" and below stating he is a journalist, let me make it clear that when I said that "Bill Oreilly is not a journalist" above, I did so with tongue in cheek; I linked the word journalist to the gratuitously violent realty show Maximum Exposure intentionally to convey that BIll OReilly is more of a sensationalist journalist than traditional objective journalist. Mrdthree 07:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reducing the opinions of MMFA in articles

I see a great description of Media Matters for America's opinion on this commentator, and an even greater amount of descriptions on the controversies page. While this is generally considered "counterweight" to the opinions that this commentator professes, I believe there is a line between counterweight and promotion. Between the two articles, the watchdog group is mentioned 20 times, and has over 24 links in the articles. I believe this is quite excessive for a group that isn't even associated with O'Reilly - these instances should be reduced down to a mention or two (we don't need to know their position on everything), and the rest moved to their article for reading. --Mrmiscellanious 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

MMFA is the only free archive of O'Reilly audio and video so dont think of it as something necessarily reflective of point of view.Mrdthree 07:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, most of them are just expressing MMFA's opinion on the subjects. This belongs in their article, not this one. --Mrmiscellanious 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So Mr.Misc, you're probably sitting there at your computer, examining the legitimacy of every single link sourced in the article, and deleteing or editing with zeal the negative statements made about O'Reilly when the websites alibi isn't airtight. Then the editors find a website that has rock solid sourcing information about Mr. O'Reilly and you decry it because these videos all comes from the same place. I have a proposal for you. Why don't you go out and find an identical video to those from Media Matters somewhere else on the web? Anywhere else, google, YouTube, whatever. You'll probably find a couple, or a few, but until you find them all and do what you signed up on wikipedia to do, we can all see your complaint for what it truly is. Spazik007 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Fresh Air

The ombudsman for public radio was talking on a local public (Jeffrey devorkan??) kcur "up to date" about O'Reilly's appearance on Fresh Air. --Gbleem 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ITs in bill oreilly controversies.Mrdthree 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

ref format?

Is there a reason why some references in this artcle are <ref> format, and some are not? -- Mikeblas 00:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made all the non ref links into refs, however I have not citedt them with title and author. This is causing errors in the citation section, but I figure it's a good start. I may tackle the bulleted lists and put them into paragraph format, and organize the data into more cohesive sections.

If someone can help clean up the ref citations, I would greatly appreciate it.

The issue I have is that there is SOOO much information. He talks for hours every day so there is going to be details on just about every topic in the news. Do we need to put every little piece of information in the article? Bytebear 00:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Polls

For a variety of reasons it is not the position of an encyclopedia to create a storehouse of conservative, moderate, and liberal categories based upon an eclectic set of informal polls. First, the public's stance in relation to the separation of church and state, abortion, social security, welfare, and other issues change over time. As such, any attempt to maintain a set of encyclopedic entries based upon popular opinion is doomed to fail. Secondly, the might makes right aphorism should not enter into play when dissecting political opinions. A majority opinion must be opposed if there is to be any state other than an oligarchy; that is to say calling any 51% poll a moderate position is in error. Using such logic, any government official (having been majority elected) should be called a moderate.

No, the proper thing to do is to base positions of liberalism and conservatism on analysis and discussion using comparisons against their traditional definitions. This will better insure the accuracy of our articles and provide easier maintenance using a fair point of view without regard to poll numbers. Sysrpl 21:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservative and liberal shift meaning too-- the liberalism article you linked to means libertarian in american parlance, conservatism means traditionalist however-- see american liberalism and american conservatism for U.S. politics definitions) but I dont think I will argue, I will say the old analysis had the benefit of convincing me that Bill O'Reilly is right wing. The current issue breakdown pushes me back in the other direction (right-center).Mrdthree 17:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me the people want cake. Mrdthree 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there are two options here. One is remove contested issues from the conservative, liberal, and moderate bin and place them in a fourth bin of independent views. Second option is if anyone is bored and wants to argue about moderate and centrist using polling data. A nice website full of free polls is:

• http://www.pollingreport.com/index.html. Mrdthree 17:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe we should discard the "liberal, conservative, centrist" views since editors will continue to shuffle them around. Maybe it would be a better idea to have "confirmed views" and "perceived views." Confirmed views would be those that no one disputes and contains proper citations, preferably primary sources that are direct and not taken out of context. "Perceived views" would be those that are not agreed upon or those that have been believed in error. The perceived views could be moved to confirmed views once there is no dispute.

The intro could read something like: "O'Reilly considers himself an independent in his political philosophy although many usually consider him to lean conservative. However, he does show letters accusing him of being liberal. Here is a list of known and perceived views he has had." MrMurph101 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming is Science Fact

Someone categorized belief in global warming as a liberal position. Global warming is a scientific fact. There have not been any scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen. Are you saying believing in science makes someone liberal? Sysrpl 10:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not on the same premise as you here. Global increase in temperature is fact, but the causes and concerns are highly debateable, otherwise it obviously wouldn't be listed as a POLITICAL VIEW. The solution is to clarify that his viewpoint on "global warming" is consistent with liberal viewpoints on causes and concerns, rather than simply the observation of temperature increase. I'll do that now. Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Only a very small minority of scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming. Almost all scientists have stated that the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. [16] [17] Perhaps you should read more about the scientific opinion on climate change. Among the scientific community humans having impacted global climate change is as about as controversial as whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. It's only the non-scientists that contend it's controversial.

By the way I am watching Lou Dobbs right now on CNN who is saying the debate is over about humans having contributed to global climate change. He is with a round table of climate scientists asking what can be done about it. Sysrpl 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Global warming is not a scientific fact. If you understood science you would understand that it is a method. THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING. All you are doing it appealing to authority and claiming that if most scientists believe it, it must be true. Before a reply, I urge to research and look into the history of theoritical science and how many theories have come and gone. In all of those research articles, fact and certainty were words frequently used. Science is a very broad subject and and many scientists believe that earth is cooling down. In fact, I was just reading an article by a Dr. Peter Dorman. I quote, ".. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica. When the scientists noticed that 'glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." Science shouldn't claim anything as fact unless it can be empirically tested. If you can show that the earth AS A WHOLE, NOT SECTION MEASUREMENTS, is warming up and is doing so more and more, then it will verify at least that the theory holds much merit. Much more testing has to be done and for a much longer time. I am pretty sure that I was taught in Biology class that the early earth was much warmer than today. Anyway, I am not debating you or even disagreeing with you, I am just showing you that you could be wrong, and learn not jump the gun in science. All we can do right now is gather clues and try to make sense of the whole picture. We don't have the full story. --RyanDaniel 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

--RyanDaniel 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RyanDaniel wrote and claiming that if most scientists believe it, it must be true. This is exactly how humans define truth. When the world presents a repeatable proposistion that is consistent with surrounding facts, then we call this proposistion "true". When the proposistion is not consistent with surrounding facts, we call it "false", and if the proposistion is not repeatable, then we are unsure if it is true or false and keep studying things.Jmd2121 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty much a scientist (will defend in a few months), know a bunch of scientists and I am very pro-business and I gotta say I know no one that would try to argue that mean global temperatures are decreasing. There is a very powerful argument that mean global temperatures are rising. THe data as you point out shows local variabilty such that antarctica is colder and much of the US is warmer than average. Points of debate are whether the greenhouse effect is the determinant of current and future global temperature trends . Science folks from poor countries seem to discount it too (their predisposition is not probusiness but more like the trouble ahead couldnt match the trouble I've seen). My position is that there is room for doubt regarding the human impact on global warming because historical fluctuations from causes other than the greenhouse effect have led to temperature variations that exceed currently observed variations, suggesting these variables exert greater control over the climate (solar variation theory). Mrdthree 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I will qualify that by saying mean global surface temperatures are rising (like <10000 feet altitude?). There are issues about temperature trends at medium and high altitudes, which do not always reflect this trend. Mrdthree 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

To Ryan Daniel, apart from the fact that my original post was on the topic of believing scientists does not constitute a liberal position, I would point you to this quote with regards to the non-debate "There have not been any scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen." Read that again and tell me which part you disagree with, and be prepared to present some non original research from the scietific community disproving that statement. Sysrpl 07:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement implies much more than what it actually says. "Heat island effect" is a well known man-made warming. Growing cities get hotter. Except it has nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse gasses or fossil fuels. What is disupted is the correction factor applied to heat island warming to arrive at global warming. What is also disputed is the role CO2 and greehouse gasses have on overall warming as well as what effect increased moisture will have (will it warm or will it cool?). The models for warming have been useless (witness the Hurricane predictions for just this year). What is not debated is that Media, Politicians and established Environmental Thinktank/fundraising orgs have a vested interest in maintaining a State of Fear. We are in the middle of a lexicon switch because Global Warming is about to peter out (because glaciers are, on average, growing and ocean levels are not rising). The new lexicon is "Abrupt Climate Change". It will become the new "fear" word just as Global Warming replaced New Ice Age from the 1970's. What has not changed is the culprit (man) or the solution (wealth redistribution as is the case with Kyoto). --Tbeatty 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Details of Sexual Harassment suit

I do not think that this needs to be included:

"O'Reilly allegedly forced Mackris to stay on the phone with him as he detailed a sexual fantasy and masturbated. The fantasy involved O'Reilly and Mackris travelling to the Caribbean, getting drunk, and showering together. O'Reilly described fondling Mackris' breasts and genitals, first with a loofa and then with a falafel. This was all detailed in Mackris' complaint."

It is addressed in the section in general and provides the reference to these details. If others think it is ok to include this I will accept that. MrMurph101 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it should be in there, it gives valuable details on the lawsuit, and the case, sexual harrassment is such a vague term, that I believe it should be explained. --Sopranosmob781 17:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• The only reason I added this is because I had heard rumors from watching the Factor and whatnot that there was a harassment suit and I never really knew the details of it. As I normally do, I went to Wikipedia to get the facts. To my surprise it wasn't there. The "reference" cited is 26 some-odd pages long, and I had to plow through it to piece togther the facts. Also, the source uses a lot of legal jargon which makes it that much more difficult to decipher the facts. I analyzed it, broke it down, and summarized it in layman's terms to put here on the page, so others would not have the same problem (in terms of finding out what happened) as I did. If my analysis is wrong/biased/inaccurate, I would be more than welcome to criticism, but I think it needs to be there in fairness of keeping users of this site informed. Crazyd782 13:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that it is more appropriate to include it in the article Bill O'Reilly controversies. I think that at one point in time it was actually discussed in detail in this second article, when it included a section on the sexual harrassment lawsuit as a controversy. -- Dcflyer 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points Crazyd. I withdraw my objection. If no one else objects, then it should be put back in. As for where to place this, the Bill O'Reilly controversies article is too bloated to put there (for now) and this looks like it fits fine in the "personal life" section. The Red Cross and United Way section are duplicated in each article also. Maybe there should be a vote to decide which article should have the respective sections. MrMurph101 05:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing junk links

The editor Cyde seems to think I'm removing just Anti-Bill links. Well, I didn't. I left official SmokingGun documents that make Bill look like a pretty bad guy, and deleted the other junk and media files per WP:EL. It's not my fault that the Other Links I'm removing are all Anti-Bill. I would do the same if they were PRO-BILL, as they have no place either. That's not the point here, the point is getting links off articles that do not belong. Wiki is not a directory for links and media files related to the subject of the article. --EmmSeeMusic 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Citation(s?)

The source that claims that O'Reilly has mentioned the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as far-left makes no mention of the newspaper, though the page may have changed. Can the rest of the citations be readily checked?

Arguments for Conservative, Moderate, Liberal Positions

I made some changes to the bullets conservative, moderate, and liberal bullet points. Please use this section to discuss changes to those bullet points.

I contend that supporting a George Bush blitz of stump speeches is NOT a liberal position. If the Republican President Bush decides to tackle immigration coming up with a half baked plan, to label that plan as liberal simply because it's nutty is wrong. If anything, support of that plan is to stand behind the Republican President in spite of what the public wants.

I contend that opposition to prostitution is still opposition to prostitution. Anyone can rationalize your opposition to a policy, but it doesn't change the fact that you are against it. It's with this in mind that I moved opposition to prositution out of the liberal column.

Opposing a flag burning amendment is not a liberal position. Republicans control both the houses and the Presidency and attempts to pass this legislation failed again. So it would seem that Republicans decided not to pass this ammendment, which by the way was pushed by a liberal Senator. Sysrpl 07:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The death penalty is quite popular in America. Opposition to it should not be considered moderate, but liberal.

---

Everybody knows Bill O'Reilly is a conservative and I don't see any reason why anyone would consider him liberal. Sharing a few liberal point of view about economy doesn't make him a liberal. I'm going to remove the views regarding him as liberal. This is not vandalism, anyone can discuss the changes here.-----

It's better to let people make up their own mind. I am going to put those entries back in. I do not see where taking out that section affects anything. MrMurph101 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

sarcasm?

In another of his bold assertions, he said on one program in 2004 that if al-Qaeda is able to bring a nuclear weapon or any other kind of mass-destruction across the border, that "Bush is done"... a sentiment all but echoed by other America-first commentators such as Pat Buchanan.

Would the "bold assertion" be considered sarcasm?

I think its pretty clear this entry is biased, but shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? --andrew leahey 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Journalist?

I would like to determine the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on whether or not this article should explicitly describe Bill O'Reilly as a journalist in its very first line (as it currently does). Please clearly state your vote, and a brief justification for it.

No -- The work Bill O'Reilly has done over the past decade both on his television program and in print (books, newspaper columns, etc) cannot be described as journalism based on the definition of this term. A pundit is not a journalist. The fact that O'Reilly started his career as a journalist should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, not in the very first line. --Ilyag 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- His work is journalism just as Dan Rather's work is journalism. So is George Stephanopoulous. It's a different brand of journalsim than straight reporting but it is journalism nonetheless. He does newsworthy interviews and has a degree in broadcast journalism. He does magazine style reporting and this is well within the realm of being a journalist. --Tbeatty 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes -- His shows are a mixture of news, commentary and analysis. His reportage and commentary are more balanced and more highly researched than that of other uncontested journalists such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. His program involves analysis (talking points), interviews of experts on topical issues (Top Story or factor follow-up usually addressign crime waves, science or social issues, facts of Sudan crisis, facts of bombings, etc.). FOllowing these there is usually some a pundit-style interviews (Impact Segment) and more variable or topical segments. Mrdthree 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to have a dubious tag or remove the journalist label. He does journalistic work and he has a degree in broadcast journalism. His program is a cable news program that has in depth coverage of current events. He is historically a journalist as well. There is no reason to remove it or tag it dubious as it is easily verfifiable that he is a journalist. Dan Rather is also a journalist yet he has no job in journalism. It is also in the first line of his bio. Journalism is a broad field. Andy Rooney has been doing commentary for many years and guess what? He is a hjournalist and it says so on the first line of his bio. Your personal feeling that O'Reilly is not doing journalism now does not mean that he shouldn't be described as a journalist. He considers himself a journalist among other things including commentator, author, etc. I removed the dubious tag after supplying the reference that he has a degree in broadcast journalism. --Tbeatty 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This debate was already hashed out when naming the article title. --Vector4F 01:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it this is about the title. This is whether he is a journalist at all. There is no doubt that he is a commentator. That may even be his main job. But he is also an author, radio talk show host, columnist and journalist. We don't need to rename the disambiguation title, but the reality is that he is more than just a commentator and that should be reflected (as it has been) on the first line.--Tbeatty 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "dubious" tag stays until there is concensus. Please stop removing it. I have removed the term "journalist" before, only to have you revert that edit. So, in an attempt to be fair to your opinion, I'm no longer removing this term because at least SOME people (namely, you) oppose the term's removal. I have taken the next logical step in an attempt to re-concile this matter: I added the "dubious" tag to draw attention to the fact that this term is disputed (you cannot doubt that it is disputed, because I'm telling you right now that it is -- by me) and urging people to see the TALK page and participate in this very discussion, in an attempt to reach a concensus. Once the concensus is reached, I propose that one of these two actions be taken: 1) The removal of the "dubious" tag, or 2) the removal of the term "journalist" from the article's introductory sentence. You voted for choice 1, I voted for choice 2. I don't see a third choice here. You can't "win" this debate by deleting people's complaints to make it seem as if there is no disagreement among Wikipedia's editors. There is disagreement. Until more editors express their views and a clear majority concensus is reached, the "dubious" tag stays. --Ilyag 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the tag descriptor. Dubious implies unreferenced and I supplied a reference. is similiar to . You cannot simply claim dubious because of your personal belief. It seems there is no evidence you will see that will change your mind which implies an improper use of dubious. Do you have a problem with the reference? Regardless, I also came up with a third choice. It simply changes "is" with "has been". It conveys all the same information yet it whould remove your complaint about the term journalist as he certainly has been one even using your logic that he isn't currently a "jounralist." I believe he certainly qualifies as a journalist as a descriptor of who he is and this is the normal way a bio references someone. Again, Andy Rooney is journalist. I haven't seen any "journalism" from Rooney in a long time. --Tbeatty 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the edit history shows that you have tried to remove journalist many times only to have it placed back in by numerous editors (not just me). It would appear that the current consensus has been to keep journalist while you are the only advocate to remove it. based on this, it cannot be suddenly claimed that "journalist" is a dubious assertion that needs consensus. Consensus has already been reached. --Tbeatty 03:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed. There is no consensus to remove "journalist."--Tbeatty 23:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think he's a journalist. He's an analyst. He's even said so before himself on his show. Spazik007 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WHen he interviews public figures he functions as a journalist. For instance when he interviewed president Bush, Rumsfeld, William Cohen. That was journalism, he disseminated news rather than analysis or commentary. Mrdthree 08:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

'Discredited claims by O'Reilly' may be vandalism

The section Discredited claims by O'Reilly in the article appears to be very biased to me.--Will 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

_______

Well it maybe biased but it is a fact that he keeps stating those claims (even did so on his show this week) when they have been discredited. So while I agree it probably was biased of me to bring it up but since it is true I wouldn't label it vandalism. He still talks about it, so why wouldn't it be valid to call into question the validity of those comments?

It is contrary to wikipedia policy and so it is removed. --Blue Tie 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideology

The section on Ideology has a long history and was first conceived as a compromise to a large paragraphs describing Bill's positions on issues in relation to differing political ideology. The discussion of the reformating are in the talk archives. If you want another major reformat, check back in the talk archives and present an argument for your ideas for better format, then listen to what others have to say before reaching a conclusion. Sysrpl 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is unsourced POV. Who says it is conservative, liberal or moderate? Without a source on the particular opinion it is just a guess. The labels by themselves are "weasel words" in the passive voice because they wouldn't stand up to their active voice version. His views should not be labeled unless a reputable source labels them.--Tbeatty 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Editors keep shulffing around where to put certain entries. It is better just to leave the labels out. Readers can decide for themselves. MrMurph101 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so hard in this day and age to call a man a Centrist? (Perhaps because our society is so polarized?) Anyone who watches O'Reilly for any length of time can see he has a mix of liberal and conservative beliefs; depending on the issue, that he is in fact, a Centrist -- and that he is most aggressive in opposing political extremists (including Liberal extremists). This does not make him a conservative at all, it makes him an outspoken middle-or-the-roader who is leary of political correctness. Sean7phil 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling him a centrist makes no sense whatsoever, concidering the fact that a great number of people would disagree. Never call him a centrist. Quote others calling him a centrist. Quote him calling himself a centrist. But never call him a centrist. -- Ec5618 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly isn't a centrist and Fox news isn't fair and balanced. You Republicans just don't like being told news you don't agree with (The whole John Gibson Pluto thing is a perfect example). You'd rather be spoon fed kool aid then hear something you don't like. Spazik007 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to exactly what John Gibson said: [18]. I know he and Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson aren't the same person, but they have the same mentallity. John Gibson guest hosts the Factor, and you can't be quite sure which one steven colbert is impersonating.

"Best selling non-fiction children’s book"?

Regarding the claim about O'Reilly children's book, is there such a category as "best selling non-fiction children’s book" in any reputable book poll?

I was unable to find a category like this anywhere. FinFangFoom 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It may simply have been on the list of childrens best sellers. I couldnt tell when I rewrote the section couple months ago. I will look in to it over hte next couple days. Mrdthree 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

right now the source is [19]Mrdthree 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I give up I'll post that.Mrdthree 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

His Personal Views Section

There are many things in this section that are presented without any support. For living people we NEED supporr for anything we write here. The bullet list of things he supports or opposes needs a great deal of work. --Blue Tie 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dis-ingenuity to Wikipedia being commited by Bill O'Reilly supporters

All the sentinals of this page guarding the sacred holy name of Bill O'Reilly are more concerned with protecting his reputation than they are with building an online encyclopedia. Instead of deleteing every single negative sentence that isn't sourced ("The good ones are ok, but the bad ones, no, THOSE have to be sourced), why don't you get on the internet, do some research, and see if MAYBE you could find a source. If this was a page about, say, the pollinating habits of North American Tulips, I'm pretty sure you'd be going out and researching an unsourced questionable fact instead of simply deleting it. You people really need to take a step back and leave your bias at the door when you edit Wikipedia. I personally think Bill O'Reilly is an evil man, but I recognize that there are those that don't feel that way, and feel his page should fairly represent both of those views. Why does your camp continue to deny us the same courtesy? Spazik007 20:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know of any Bill O'Reilly supporters here. But if you are upset about the need for sources on living people then you need change the policy. You will probably have to convnice Jimbo Wales to change it. He is pretty hot on this sort of thing because it represents a legal liability. But who knows? You might succeed and then we would not have to find all these sources for things and that would make writing the encyclopedia a lot easier. It might not be as good but it would be easier.

PLease read WP:BLP. It is policy and required to "[delete] every single negative sentence that isn't sourced" and you should be doing it as well if you are trying to build the Encyclopedia. Adding negative sentences with no sources opens WP up to libel and defamation. --Tbeatty 01:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could go out on the Internet and find the sources if it is important to you. But please do not attack innocent editors.--Blue Tie 22:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm trying to say to you. Wikipedia isn't (at least it shouldn't be) a competition. "Ha-ha that source violates section 32AB-1 and now I get to delete it sweet awesome!" Isn't going to build a better encyclopedia. I realize that you realize that there are people like me who don't like Bill O'Reilly and enjoy nothing more than dragging his name through the mud, just as I'm sure that you realize that I realize (deep down in your heart) that you would do anything to protect Bill O'Reilly's name and attempts to further his own agenda. If the two parties were to work together to organize the information from a collective neutral point of view instead of engaging in an endless edit war like they do now, I think the page on Bill O'Reilly would not only be of higher quality but also more accurate. Once again, I implore you to put your personal beliefs aside and work to build a better encyclopedia Spazik007 02:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Spazik007, but Wiki's policy is clear. Unsourced negative statements must be removed immediately. The burden to source is on the editor attempting to add the info. From WP:VERIFY: Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism, ... and do not move it to the talk page. This also applies to material about living persons in other articles. Ramsquire 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spazik, instead of complaining about double standards, it might be better to point out and even delete segments that you might believe to be "cheerleading" for someone. "Removing poor or unsourced negative material" is a priority per what Blue Tie and Ramsquire have already stated. This does not necessarily mean all positive things must remain. There are some people, who are subjects of an article, that want their article about them to be purely a promotional page for them with any example of criticism about them removed. This is also unencyclopedic and should not be accepted. Since you are new, I would recommend reading the WP:NPOV policy and going from there. Also, if you're anti-O'Reilly, there are already two articles devoted to him that would never be accused of being a fan page. MrMurph101 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is that you guys don't practice what you preach. "The O'Reilly Factor offers O'Reilly's point of view on national and international events through his self-described "no-nonsense" commentary and interviews." How about a source showing Bill O'reilly said that? "His views are frequent sources of controversy in various media outlets, including his own programs" Unsourced. "After graduating from Chaminade High School in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist College, a small, co-educational private institution in Poughkeepsie, New York." Unsourced. "While attending Boston University, he was a reporter and columnist for various local newspapers and alternative news weeklies, including The Boston Phoenix. O'Reilly did his broadcast journalism internship in Miami during this time, and was also an entertainment writer and movie critic for The Miami Herald." Unsourced. "At WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas, O'Reilly was awarded the Dallas Press Club Award for excellence in investigative reporting" Unsourced. Unsourced, unsourced, unsourced. You guys now have three options: 1) Go out and find dozens, maybe hundreds of sources for the Bill O'Reilly page. 2) Shorten the Bill O'Reilly page to perhaps 10% it's current length. 3) Admit your bias and concede to my reasonable arguement. Spazik007 23:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no bias and your argument is not reasonable. You're comparing apples and oranges. The stuff you mentioned may need citation but it isn't negative information, therefore it does not need to be removed immediately. Please read WP:BLP. When a statement is unsourced, generally the proper procedure is for an editor to tag it with the {{Fact}} template before removing it. However, negative statements in a biography of a living person are a special case and therefore has a special rule. That is why you need to remove them. Do you see the difference now? Ramsquire 00:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"a statement is unsourced, generally the proper procedure is for an editor to tag it with the [citation needed] template before removing it" - normally general procedure would be to modify it or to remove it to the talk page, esp. on living articles. If someone facts it they are generally just being really nice :). RN 00:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you advocating that I attempt to move 90% of the Bill O'Reilly article to the talk page then? Spazik007 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you disputing the factual accuracy of the article? Or are you more concerned that it seems to be missing cites? If it is the former, I can place a tag on the page so that we can all work together on clearing up any inaccuracies. If it is the latter, so as to not move 90% of the article as you say, I can add fact tags to the disputed sentences. But if your beef is that the article isn't negative enough, there is very little to be done about it per WP:BLP.Ramsquire 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you're finally starting to grasp the concept I'm soliciting. Like I said earlier, I'm a human being with biases and I don't like Bill O'Reilly. But it's also within my intellectual capacity to understand what Wikipedia is and that there are people who don't share the same view as me. The point I was trying to make is that I could go through the article and delete pretty much anything I wanted per the "Wikipedia Rules", yet I don't. People only seem to invoke those rules when it's convienent to them. "ZOMG they're talking shit about Bill O'Reilly *finds bullshit reason to delete*" isn't going to build a better encyclopedia. You can sit here and cite these hoytie-toytie lists of rules to me but you aren't getting down to the nitty-gritty that I'm trying to convey to you. You hide behind these Wikipedia policys to further your own agenda, and quite frankly I feel that that is even more disingenuous then using Weasel Words or NPOV. Spazik007 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, when editors are simply following the rules, and you come in and accuse them of bias and/or lying they have every right to respond by telling you the rules they are following and try to explain said rule to you. If you don't like the rules here, you are free to request a policy change. But to throw around words like "disingenious" and "bias" when no one is doing anything of the sort, is a violation of WP:FAITH. Sorry to give you another guideline, but this is Wikipedia and these are the rules here that everyone must follow. And what you're suggesting in your post is a form of wikilawyering and that is also frowned upon.

I've been through the article and all the stuff that needs tagging is tagged. Once more, people are not invoking a rule that is convenient for them or showing a bias when they delete negative edits. Unsourced negative info must go immediately. That is not the same as someone not citing that he went to Marist. I'm sorry if this is a problem for you but perhaps you should take it up with Jimbo Wales. Ramsquire 19:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

So unsourced negative material needs an airtight alibi but if it's positive you're allowed to write whatever the hell you want? That doesn't seem like it's going to create a very accurate online encyclopedia. Spazik007 19:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you come up with any examples where fans of O'Reilly are exploiting the BLP policy? If you can, maybe you have a point. Right now you just sound bitter about a supposed hypocrisy that you can not give any good examples for. Unsourced negative edits are going to deleted for everyone that's living, not just O'Reilly. Al Franken and Michael Moore deserve the same treatment too. The examples of unsourced material that you brought up were just dry facts. Sure they need a source, but are they controversial? If someone were to put in "O'Reilly is the only one who knows how to solve world hunger" that would be deleted pretty fast. The issue with negative comments are mainly for legal reasons. Any editor could be liable for putting in something negative in to an article about a person so it is really for your protection that you make sure you back these things up. Maybe you should propose a peer review for this article and get other's input. That might not be a bad idea in the long run anyway. MrMurph101 19:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My problem was with the way the page is being edited. I have a term I use. On Wikipedia people often refer to "Weasel words". Well what's going on on this page and many others is "Weasel editting". I've never contended that you can't site Wikipedia rules to justify your edditings. Of course you can. Many already have in this section. But you are still editting with bias. Do you investigate the unfounded positive claims of Bill O'Reilly and delete the ones with broken links or quasi-sourced material? I highly doubt it. If you were truly commited to bulding an online encyclopedia instead of defending your own point of view you wouldn't edit with such bias, or at the least agree to work with the people of another viewpoint instead of against them. You can cite all the Wikipedia rules you want, but you aren't invoking those rules because you truly want to make Wikipedia better, you're abusing them to defend your own point of view. I understand I may have come on a little strong in my debate we're having now. But think about it. Is what I'm saying really that unreasonable? Spazik007 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give any examples? MrMurph101 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Crooks & Liars

As much as I enjoy the site, do we really need all these links to the site? Some of them seem rather irrelevant. Rsm99833 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography of Living People

WP:BLP in a nutshell:

Here are some key points taken verbatim from the body of the policy:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.
• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.
• (For non-public figures such as family members): Editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.
• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...
• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

I am not familiar with Crooks and Liars but I think it is pretty clear from the above policy, that MMFA has serious problems as a reliable source in this article. I've deleted all of their reference points and have asked for third party citations. Ramsquire 18:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a very real problem with your claims about MMFA. Yes, they are partisan, in that they monitor the media for what they consider to be conservative misinformation. But from what I've seen they always back up their claims with transcripts and/or audio/video recordings. All of the MMFA references you deleted contained actual recordings taken from O'Reilly's radio program. I understand and agree with wikipedia's policy regarding "information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers" but in the case of MMFA, whenever they provide evidence of their claims, the information should remain in the article. Unless you are seriously claiming that MMFA hired an O'Reilly imitator and completely faked all of these comments, I believe all of your edits should be reverted.Hal Raglan 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What he said. Also, the reason this article takes notes of particular comments by BOR is because they have produced criticism or some kind of outcry. The link to MMfA substantiates the fact that there was criticism and that what is included in the article is not some random list of arbitrarily chosen comments. Gamaliel 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of arguing wholesale, I'll itemize my complaints. In most of the MMFA links, I kept the information in the article and asked for a another (hopefully more neutral) source. I would think an actual transcipt of his remarks from FOXNews or his radio program would be sufficient. I know Wiki discourages primary sources but if we're just quoting from the transcripts then there should not be the concern about original research, which is the main basis for the rule.

The other part of my edits were that I deleted information not because it came from MMFA but because the editor attempted to summarize the real quotes based on MMFA's and Crooks and Liars characterization of the quotes. I'm not sure we can do that with a quote. I'f I'm wrong, I apologize.

Finally, specifically to Gamaliel, the purpose of the quotes was not clear to me based on the current format of the article. After the biographical stuff, to me, there is just a list of stuff he said, so it isn't really clear why MMFA is being used. It seems like it's just to point out that BO has said some far out things. Maybe if we moved the MMFA stuff to the controversy section, it would be more clear. Just a thought.

To sum up, I have no problem with MMFA, I check it out everyday, and I know they do provide evidence in the form of transcripts. When I said "third party citations" that was one of the things I had in mind. My concern is that secondary publishers of libelous info, can be just as liable as the original publisher. I'm not saying that MMFA or we have committed libel in any of the stuff in the article. I'm pretty certain we haven't. However, if we get too comfortable adding stuff from partisan sites, without doing the appropriate background research, Wiki can get into trouble as well as the editor.

Ramsquire 20:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

MMFA is a tertiary source. If they source everything so well, it should be easy to use their secondary sources so that WP can form it's own text. Using MMFA for it's conclusions, rather than for it's sources, seems to be a violation NPOV especially in BLP. --Tbeatty 23:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cites that Need Fixin

Supports what he calls "coerced interrogation," at Guantanamo Bay, which he agrees some people would characterize "torture" This is cited to [20] but this information is not on the site ( I did a search for the word torture on the page and came up empty), it's actually on this one [21]. Is Newshounds considered a reliable source for this?

Believes the people of Iraq are a pre-historic group and says he has no respect for them. This may belong in the controversies section because a) it is two things taken out of a long diatribe, that although controversial is summarized to be more sensational than it is in context of the entire speech and b) it is not clear if it is a personal view or is simply BO blowing hot air for attention.

Has claimed that "many of the poor in New Orleans" did not evacuate the city before Hurricane Katrina because "they were drug-addicted" and "weren't going to get turned off from their source." O'Reilly added, "They were thugs." Same argument as the one above.

Finally does anyone know if Westwood One publishes transcripts of their radio programs?

---

> O'Reilly's remarks about the people of Iraq and the Katrina victims are exactly as described by the source. I watched the show the same days and you could easily find videos of them on YouTube. They are simplified exactly as the other remarks on personal views, only difference being that they present a very negative side of O'Reilly. If one of his admirers keep trying to hide the informations from the general public, I will keep putting them back on their place unless someone comes with a better argument than the quotes being "taken out of context"<-----George Pedrosa

I do not particularly consider the comments negative or positive. However, the import of what he was saying is different than the quotes portray. They need a full context and such a lengthy quote is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Quotes in general are not such a great idea for an encyclopedia but are better at wikiquote. You should also be aware that just because something may be true, that is not the same thing as saying it should be included. Simply listing every odd thing he said or did would not be correct according wikipedia rules.--Blue Tie 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the quotes are not out of context, they present exactly what Bill O'Reilly was trying to say. Every single personal view on the article is also simplified. If you don't like quotes, change the article to exclude them, but don't remove the information.--George Pedrosa

And as I said, the quotes are out of context. For example, when he said he did not have respect for the Iraqi people, he explained why. That explanation, being left off, changes the meaning and intent. When it comes to the people in Katrina, that was one, relatively minor comment in an overall statement regarding problems that dysfunctional people cause in society. Removing that statement from the overall statement substantially changes its tone and intent. It's almost the same thing as if I quote the Bible as: "Judas went out and straightway hanged himself" and "Jesus said, go thou and do likewise". Sure I am quoting the bible. Word for word. But I am getting the meaning messed up. The same is true for these snippets of rants that he was on. If you miss the context the sense of the quote is gone. It is simply wrong to do that. --Blue Tie 02:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

George Pedrosa, you seem intent on this change. I consider it a bad edit. The wikipedia way is to discuss it. I suggest that we get some other editors involved and see how it goes. If this does not work, then we should go to RfC. But please let's not edit war. --Blue Tie 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't just erase the information. If you think it's unfair, simplistic or out of context, then change it, but don't just delete the information, preventing people to see it, because it is a fact with sources. If this is a Personal Views article, why shouldn't people be able to see a personal view like this? Because it's bad for his image?

Concluding Remarks

What is the consensus on whether the section regarding Oreilly's Concluding Remarks is wiki-worthy. It seems rather irrelevant to his role as a commentator/journalist, and is more or less some trivial knowledge about his show.

it is trivial. --Blue Tie 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

then, unless there are any objections, I am going to remove the section.

This is already in The O'Reilly Factor article, it's more relevant there. MrMurph101 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys got only THREE days to add the following...

Alright I heard that he choppes up and edits his shows, you guys have 3 days to put this in, or that's it, I will. -the bird

With that sort of introduction, you will not be successful. Your changes will be reverted if you post that it is something you "heard". It has to be referenced or sourced. Moreover, there really should be some reason that this is an encyclopedic bit of information. --Blue Tie 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OKay blue tie, you freaking moron, everybody knows how he edits his stuff, just read the HOUR long article about his controvers's. and also, why should it be inlcuded? to keep not as biased as it already is. -the bird

Please refrain from personal insults and assume good faith. I do not think that everyone knows that he edits his stuff. Maybe he does, maybe not. If really everyone knows it, then it would be irrelevant to post it here.... sort of like putting in the statement that "water is wet" in the article on water. However, if it is not common knowledge, it must be referenced. As far as bias, what are the problems you see?--Blue Tie 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay one, comman knowledge? Dude either wayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly_%28commentator%29&action=edit&section=26 you said yourself that not everybody knows so, so right there we have to put it in. Oh, and now you guys have TWO days

I said it has to be referenced. I did not say it had to go in. Even if referenced, it does not seem to be very encyclopedic and that would also suggest it should not go in. Do you understand the rules of wikipedia?--Blue Tie 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. WP:RS applies even in the face of threats.--Tbeatty 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read this gentle introduction to how it is we have rules, when anyone can edit which will cover most of what you don't understand about wikipedia. Common knowlege should be easily referenced to a reliable source, right? Without reliable sources, and verifiability the project just won't work. If you have a reliable source that can be referenced and verified, you could state that Australia has thousands of people who state on official forms that their occupation is "Jedi". No matter how common the knowlege, it needs a reference, and even very startling and unsuspected facts are includable with a reliable source that can be referenced and verified. Please take the time to look around and get to know the place before you start raging around, it will be a more pleasant experience for everyone including you. User:Pedant 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for Delete on a Related Page

The Page Bill O'Reilly controversies appears to be a redundant POV Fork. I have nominated it for deletion. If anyone wants to comment, the comment page is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination)

It seems this proposal is hasn't got a "snowball's chance in hell". I am thinking of withdrawing it. --Blue Tie 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements

The following statements were removed after a fair period of review, because they are unsourced. If they become sourced they should be added back, so I retain them here. --Blue Tie 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• After Hurricane Katrina, has expressed supporting for owning firearms for personal protection. Lambasted San Francisco for passing a handgun ban. .

• Opposes a ban on flag burning .

• Is pro-Israel and asserts Israel's right to defend itself. He supports Israel's assault on Lebanon in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.

• Refers to Hezbollah as "terrorists", and agrees with the government's official listing of them as such.

• Supports Jessica's Law and criticizes lenient treatment of those convicted of child molestation.

• Opposes the inheritance tax or "death tax."

• Opposes taxpayer-funded Embryonic stem cell research

• Supports a national sales tax to pay for National Health Care Programs in America.

• Believes the US and its allies are fighting a war against Islamic fascism, and makes a distinction between Islamic fascism and Islam itself.

• Supports a flat tax

• Supports domestic surveillance programs

• Supports Social Security

• Supports President Clinton's opposition to Slobodan Milošević

• Supports guest-worker program for illegal immigrants

• Supports the creation of free speech zones

*Supports Jessica's Law and criticizes lenient treatment of those convicted of child molestation.

I re-added this to the article with a cite to his webpage. I meant to do that a week ago but wasn't sure if his page qualifies as WP:RS since it is in effect a promotional page for him, after mulling it over, I then forgot until today. I'm working on finding other cites as well. Ramsquire 16:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything by O'Reilly (webpages, blogs, etc.) qualifies as a reliable source for his own views. Gamaliel 16:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thank you for bearing with me, I'm trying to get a grasp of WP:BLP and how it fits in with Wiki policies on verifiability on other non-biographical articles. Ramsquire 17:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My new hero!

omg, listen to this guy! --Striver 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion

What is the purpose of this sentence: and anyone to the left of rush limbaugh, sean hannity or himself. after the list of who Bill O'Reilly sees as being on the far left? Seems like a rather strange line for a scholarly work. Bagginator 11:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objection i'm going to delete it.Bagginator 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

IT has been made inconvenient to get to the Bill O'Reilly (commentator). I think a solution that is good enough for Michael Moore is good enough for Bill O'Reilly. Mrdthree 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For those that want a quick search phrase that goes to bill oreilly (commentator) directly I changed the redirect for the phrase bill oreilly to come here instead of going to disambiguation first. Mrdthree 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to retract this edit, there is controversy by fans of the 1930-1940s cricketeer of the same name however the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page is barely used; there has been no discussion on the page since it was created in 2003 and it averages about one edit per month. The Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page is used by hundreds and edited by dozens daily. If anyone wants to weigh in on the discussion at the Bill O'Reilly disambiguation page, please do so. I am arguing the huge difference in interest between the sites justifies sending search terms like bill oreilly directly to this page rather through a disambiguation page. As there are only 2 bill oreillys, I question whether the disambiguation page is necessary at all and I am going to change the subtitle to link to Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) if there is confusion. A disambiguation page should relieve confusion, not promote inconvenience and there are only 2 bill oreillys on wikipedia. Mrdthree 14:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should put an afd for the disambig page and see what happens. MrMurph101 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation has previously been discussed and there was no consensus to change from the status quo. Nothing has changed since then. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus because the vote was falsely declared over and archived. It needs a revote. Mrdthree 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page.User:Mrdthree|Mrdthree]] 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This article may need protected

I say that because of the vandalism concerning Bill O'Reilly's father. Will 06:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We protect only in cases of persistent vandalism. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 16:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

quotes section

I was under the impression that a quotes section was against wikipdia policy. Is this correct? I realize that the quotes in this section are meant to show the irony in his Letterman appearance so perhaps the name should be changed, or it could be mentioned in a paragraph form somewhere higher up? It just looks bad all by itself at the bottom like that. Anyone agree? --Roccyraccoon 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those quotes belong in Wikiquote. Ramsquire 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Advice

I've noticed the article contradicts itself in regard to O'Reilly's views of President Clinton. In one section, it states that O'Reilly has endorsed Clinton and extracts a quote of him praising the former President. But two paragraphs later it states that O'Reilly has criticized him. The cite to the criticism is mainly about O'Reilly's views regarding John Ashcroft.

How should we fix this? I don't want to resort to blanket reverts as both positions are verifiable? Should we try to explain the apparent contradiction? Ramsquire 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote to REDIRECT Bill OReilly to Bill O'REilly (commentator)

IN order to make this page the first page that comes up when you type 'Bill Oreilly' There is a new vote on the Bill O'Reilly page to change its name to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation). The old vote was archived before it was completed. With this change the search term 'Bill O'Reilly' will be automatically redirect to Bill O'Reilly (commentator). This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page

The reason for the change is convenience; the usage of the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page is at least 100x greater and google hits of local and international web pages pull Bill O'Reilly (commentator) before and more frequently than Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) in every english speaking country except Australia where it depends on how you spell bill oreilly. Mrdthree 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny I just came here to suggest this. As you've had no objections for several weeks I will proceed. Move to Bill O'Reilly with a dablink for the cricketer Glen 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I should mention the vote failed. 12 for the change 10 against. Mrdthree 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted Glen S's move, since there was no consensus for it. (See Talk:Bill O'Reilly#New Vote on Disambiguation page.) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

far right?

I have removed Ann Coulter and the Ayn Rand Institute from O'Reilly's list of "far right" people/groups as the current grouping is quite misleading. The way it was structured, it looks like O'Reilly grouped Ann Coulter and the Ayn Rand Institute with David Duke and Neo-Nazis, whereas he actually used the term "far right" in different contexts. LaszloWalrus 06:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont wipe blemishes off his photo. THats how he thinks. He thinks nazis are far right.Mrdthree 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the "far right" and "far left" lists just chronicle each time he used those labels. Using your logic, the "far left" list should be truncated also. I would say to take out the nazi's and put back Rand and Coulter since they have both been cited as O'Reilly proclaiming them "far right." It might be good to go over the lists and keep what is really notable and weed out the ones that aren't so notable or ones that may be put out of context. With the length of that far left list, it looks like something like that would be quite an undertaking. MrMurph101 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not against truncating the "far left" list. I'm not trying to "wipe blemishes off his photo"; I actually quite dislike O'Reilly. LaszloWalrus 16:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I just made the "far left" list a spinoff article. If someone objects they can always put it back. It helps with article size. MrMurph101 00:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The list has already been afd'd. Anyone can make comments there if they want to. MrMurph101 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The list should be merged back into the article. As a separate article, completely out of context, it appears to serve little purpose. In the main article, it clearly helps to define O'Reilly's political stance.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but I remember a quite a while ago the Homer Simpson article documented every injury he suffered. It cleary defined that he was injury prone but was probably not the best way of presenting it. It was linked to the talk page for a while like we have here for the "far left" list but that is now gone or at least put somewhere else. MrMurph101 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Others Politics

It looks like the spinoff article is going to be deleted. I'll put the entire section here for now for comments on what to do. Should we keep it, review it first, truncate it, or just get rid of it all together. Editors outside of this interest mostly do not believe it is encyclpedic based on the afd discussion. Here is the section in question:

O'Reilly is generally critical of the "far left" and "far right" in American politics. However, much of his focus is on far left individuals and organizations. When asked why he rarely addresses the far right, he believes the far right have much less influence in the mainstream American media as opposed to the far left.

Whom he considers far right:

• Nazis[22]
• American militia groups[23]
• David Duke, [24]
• Ann Coulter
• Ayn Rand Institute[25]

O'Reilly has identified many more to be on the far left. The following people or organizations he considers far left:

• Daniel Akaka [26]
• Russ Feingold [27]
• Charles Schumer [28]
• Barbara Boxer [29]
• Cindy Sheehan [30]
• Ted Kennedy [31]
• Bruce Springsteen [32]
• Bill Moyers [33]
• Harry Belafonte [34] [35] [36]
• Howard Dean [37]
• Dixie Chicks [38]
• Al Franken [39]
• George Clooney [40]
• Media Matters for America [41]
• The ACLU [42]
• Air America Radio [43]
• moveon.org [44] [45]
• NY Times [46] [47]
• Atlanta Journal Constitution [48] [49]
• Paul Krugman [50] [51]
• St. Louis Post Dispatch[52]
• French media [53]

• The Globe and Mail [54]
• Campaign for America's Future [55]
• Andres Oppenheimer [56]
• Amnesty International [57]
• George Soros [58]
• Peter Lewis [59]
• Natalie Maines [60]
• Rob Glaser [61]
• Planned Parenthood [62]
• Anthony Romero [63]
• Michael Moore [64]
• The Boston Globe [65]
• German media [66]
• San Francisco Chronicle [67]
• St. Petersburg Times [68] [69]
• Dayton Daily News [70]
• Syracuse Post-Standard [71]
• Sheldon Silver [72]
• Hollywood [73]
• AfterNet [74]
• Jim McDermott [75]
• Think Progress [76] [77]

• John Conyers [78]
• John Podesta [79]
• David Corn [80]
• Secular Progressive Movement [81]
• Mike Farrell [82]
• Robert Scheer [83] [84]
• Richard Cohen [85]
• Brattleboro Reformer [86]
• Cynthia Tucker [87]
• Stephen Colbert [88]
• Michael Kinsley [89]
• Frank Rich [90]
• Capital Times [91]
• People for the American Way [92]
• Lynn Woolsey [93]
• David D. Cole [94]
• Molly Ivins [95]
• Bob Herbert [96]
• The Nation [97]
• The Guardian (UK) [98]
• Jimmy Carter [99]

Comments? MrMurph101 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This list is too inclusive for the article and not particularly useful. Take some time to go through the references and comment on each individually. I did that with the article a while back (before this list was added) and it works better than just listing links. It is also POV because the reference may actually say something different or specific about his thoughts on the individual or organization. Although I applaud you for your effort in colaborating this list, it is lazy just to lump it into the article. Bytebear 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight I did not write this. I don't know who did although I believe it was probably a collaboration among editors. I once reworded it and put the content into a spin-off article (which was promptly afd'd) so I put it here for now. I was just asking what to do about it. I'm not editing much for the moment so I don't really have time to go through all that but if anyone else wants to deal with it go right ahead. MrMurph101 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

To much trivia

Immediately after "The Factor" section, down to contoversies, the article is bloated and overdone. All that stuff shouldb either deleted or greatly reduced. It is trivial to the article. --Blue Tie 21:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is why the controversies became it's own article. It almost seems like the Political Views section should get it's own spinoff too now. I'm not gonna do it though but if someone else does it I won't oppose it. A spinoff article can go more in depth while the version here could be more concise. MrMurph101 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have started fleshing out each bullet point of the Personal Views section and hopefully after they are more descriptive, we can consolodate them in to a cohesive organized thought. Bytebear 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is looking a lot better now. MrMurph101 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon 69.249.195.232 Edits

The anon's edits are factually incorrect. The talking points does not say that democrats are receiving support from Iran but rather that Iran has taken initiative in Iraq to cause violence and thus affect the elections in the US.

But...Should every talking points memo get a line in wikipedia? If not, then why any?

--Blue Tie 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly's "coward" list and other citations

This citation is pretty weak. Using the quote "Howard Dean is the biggest coward in the world" needs a better citation.

Most of the citations need to be read, and the views put into context. How do you generalize "he opposes big American government" from an article about immigration and oil? Bytebear 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevada brothel program on HBO

This reference is from a very bias source. Please help me find a more verifiable source. Bytebear 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have wikified the bullet points. In doing so I removed the whole Morality section as the cites were either weak, supporting other points, or dead links. If you think you can do something with them, you have my blessing. 68.4.225.187 05:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) AKA Bytebear 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly raises money for Republican candidates at GOP fundraiser, game over for "neutrality"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610260014

• Don't violate WP:NPOV, and determine if it really is notable.

Stick that in the article.

The Chaser vs CNNNN

"On the Australian show, The Chaser, a parody of him is "The Firth Factor"."

The Chaser is the name of their political satire magazine. The television program with "The Firth Factor" was CNNNN, a separate project. It appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC-TV).

Add Author in the first paragraph

Author should be included in his opening description.

Done, but should it say "best selling author"? I think it should if verifiable. Based on the article on his last book I added "best selling". Bytebear 01:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Inflamatory comment added

I removed the following comment that was recently added because, without a citation, it looked rather inflamatory.

"Bill O'Reilly is well known for fabricating information in order to support his arguments."

Will (Talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed it? I thought I removed it. :-) Lawyer2b-blp 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I called it vandalism because it sure seemed like it. Perhaps I am mistaken if the person who put it in is a wikipedian tyro. Lawyer2b-blp 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We may have tried to edit the file at the same time. I have noticed that sometimes when I revert using popups, that if someone else happens to be reverting that edit at the same time, they seem to win. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really vandalism. It's true, but it does need a citation. Just as an example, he argued that the economy of France had been affected by a personal boycott of his and when challenged, he cited the "Paris Business Review" confidently and unequivocally. It was later found out that there is no "Paris Business Review".

David Letterman has accused O'Reilly twice of fabricating information in his last two visits to the show. In particular, it was found that the examples he cited regarding "the war on Christmas" were also made up. He also accused U.S. American troops of torturing and executing POWs in Malmedy in support of his argument, when the opposite was actually true.

Media Matters has transcripts of these incidents and Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" does, too.

In fact, if you do a search on Google for "Bill O'Reilly fabrications" you get 300,000 results, most accusing Bill O'Reilly of fabrications. When you do the same search for another journalist say, Wolf Blitzer, you get only 2,000 results, and the fabrications are attributed to people other than Wolf Blitzer (namely guests).

He also claimed multiple times to have received a Peabody award for his show Inside Edition, which at the time had never won a Peabody award.

If this information is true, and you can check the transcripts, it's not vandalism, and it is not libel. If Wikipedia is going to have an entry about Bill O'Reilly, it might as well be factual. Deepstratagem 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your intentions are noble but your arguments are filled with assumptions:

• 1) It is at best a leap of faith go from acknowledging that the "Paris Business Review" doesn't exist to stating "and O'Reilly fabricated the idea of its existence." Perhaps he did and perhaps he was just misinformed. Until there is uncontrovertible proof, any charges leveled at him of "fabrication" are POV and probably inappropriate for the article.
• 2) Well if David Letterman accuses O'Reilly (twice!), that's good enough for me. NOT! Re the Malmedy controversy, again, there needs to be proof before labeling what could have been an honest mistake as outright fabrication.
• 3) Unfortunately, I don't think the sheer number of google results is good indicator of their validity.
• 4) I'm starting to see a pattern here. If I recall, one time O'Reilly told me it would rain over the weekend and it didn't. LIAR!

You should really read up on WP:BLP and WP:Reliable Sources, etc. Lawyer2b-blp 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should sue Bill O'Reilly for falsely telling you it would rain over the weekend, you have my deep sympathy for your loss. As for (1) he either made it up or was misinformed. There aren't many other options. (2) David Letterman is one of several people who have accused him of this, and it happens regularly on his show, where he is regularly called a spin doctor. (3) No, the number isn't the only factor, he's a statistical outlier when it comes to internet statements about his fabrications, and the number of sources attributed to his fabrications within those results.

Finally keep in mind the number of times he repeats such statements before he corrects himself. How do you honestly believe that you've won a Peabody award if you didn't, tell everyone about it incessantly, then deny that you ever claimed it, and then tell people you misspoke each time?

Seems like an outright lie to me. So don't take Letterman as an isolated incident. Everybody knows (deleted by Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} per WP:BLP).

Maybe I can't prove this by BLP standards, yet, but I hope others reading this can post such evidence and improve the article. Deepstratagem 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions and Uniforms

"He also thinks that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention expicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform.[35]"

I can not find a uniform requirement anywhere in the Geneva conventions. Am I missing it, or is it not there?Harksaw 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "he claims the soldiers must be wearing uniforms". See the citation to see if it accurately defines what he said. I haven't looked at it recently, but I think I expanded the text at one point. Bytebear 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From the GC "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." which certainly implies uniforms. Do you know any other way they can distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Bytebear 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but that certianly would require a rewrite of where the article says it "explicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform" Harksaw 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of the GC did you find "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." ? I've found that mentioned on websites describing the Geneva Conventions, but not anywhere within the Conventions themselves. Harksaw 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The uniform "requirement" is found in several places of the 1977 revisions, particularly Protocol I. However it is irrelevant whether it is found there or not. The article says it is Bill O'Reilly's reason. Since the article is about Bill O'Reilly rather than about the Geneva Conventions, it is Bill O'Reilly's interpretation (which is pretty much the common interpretation) that is important. --Blue Tie 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't suggest that Bill O'Reilly's interpretation is "the common one". If the uniform requirement is a matter of interpretation, we need to make that clear. If it isn't, we should clarify that. So which is it? -- Ec5618 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I say that if it is true? It is the common interpretation. The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniforms. However, recognizing that some more impoverished combatants may not have "regular" uniforms, the Conventions also allow for insignias and other such items "recognized at a distance" as being functionally equivalent. However, the most common phrasing when describing this requirement is to use the term "uniforms". Why is this a problem? --Blue Tie 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be commonly used to describe it, but no, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically mention uniforms anywhere as a requirement for combatants. This was my main complaint about the original wording. Harksaw 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally there are some folks who do not need uniforms or identifying insignia. These include civilians of a non-occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms to defend their country against an invading force, and have not had time or means to organize into an actual commanded army. Also civilians who accompany armed forces (such as reporters) do not need such ID to be protected under the Conventions. --Blue Tie 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To get a clearer picture, I have re-read the source. The reference cited has three significant quotes from O'Reilly:

• "According to the Geneva Convention, to be a POW and to get protections under it, you've gotta wear a uniform, Judge. They don't wear uniforms."
• "I don't think that was torture. Torture is takin' off a limb. Torture is takin' somebody's eye, somethin' like that."
• "Military tribunals, yes. Geneva Convention, no."

Given these statements, do we need to determine that the convention explicitely states "you've gotta wear a uniform"? Or can we rephrase it so that it talks about his interpretation that uniforms are required? I will play with the wording and let me know what you think. Bytebear 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Election changes

This article should be updated when "Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" becomes "Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi". The official change hasn't taken place, so this is more a heads up. Also the wording should reflect that the statement made was when she was House Minority Leader. Bytebear 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors here are usually on the ball with those kind of updates. Sometimes they even jump the gun. I had to do stop a good bit of that premature updating in January 2005, and during the changes on the Supreme Court earlier this year. It's very tedious, but you're right, it needs to be done. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick

The link under the picture of Jeremy Glick should be changed from Jeremy Glick to Jeremy Glick (author) to avoid ambig link. Thanks. Dbsheajr 15 November 2006 6:47 _P.M. EST

Done Harksaw 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what he gets

Bill O'Reilly is a good man, and of cours, people hate him. This is how good people are treated. 66.218.11.133

• He's a muckraker who brings it on himself, and loves it. "You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take Inside Edition out of the boy." Wahkeenah 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Malmedy

He has not corrected his error about Malmedy. Instead he offered that he confused it with a massacre perpetrated by American troops slightly later in the war. Of course, there was no such massacre. This is not an apology.

• Then offer those details you listed above. Wikipedia has a reponsibility in reporting accuratley and leaving details out like that is not only biased but it is irresponsible.

He got it confused with chenogne which Americans did massacre German SS soldiers.

Inflamatory comment added

There is a lot of play below about the tens of thousands of people who claim that Mr O'Reilly tells lies. All this shows is that the man has tens of thousands of enemies (not surprising considering tha that there are a lot of webites who tell their readers to attack O'Reilly) - not that he tells lies. As for presenting Mr Letterman as an unbiased judge..... well that is a bit of a stretch.

I should point out that I am not a Roman Catholic or an American (nor am I a great fan of President Bush or the Iraq war) - so I have no personal reason for defending Mr O'Reilly.

Paul Marks.

I removed the following comment that was recently added because, without a citation, it looked rather inflamatory.

"Bill O'Reilly is well known for fabricating information in order to support his arguments."

Will (Talk - contribs) 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed it? I thought I removed it. :-) Lawyer2b-blp 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I called it vandalism because it sure seemed like it. Perhaps I am mistaken if the person who put it in is a wikipedian tyro. Lawyer2b-blp 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We may have tried to edit the file at the same time. I have noticed that sometimes when I revert using popups, that if someone else happens to be reverting that edit at the same time, they seem to win. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not really vandalism. It's true, but it does need a citation. Just as an example, he argued that the economy of France had been affected by a personal boycott of his and when challenged, he cited the "Paris Business Review" confidently and unequivocally. It was later found out that there is no "Paris Business Review".

David Letterman has accused O'Reilly twice of fabricating information in his last two visits to the show. In particular, it was found that the examples he cited regarding "the war on Christmas" were also made up. He also accused U.S. American troops of torturing and executing POWs in Malmedy in support of his argument, when the opposite was actually true.

Media Matters has transcripts of these incidents and Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" does, too.

In fact, if you do a search on Google for "Bill O'Reilly fabrications" you get 300,000 results, most accusing Bill O'Reilly of fabrications. When you do the same search for another journalist say, Wolf Blitzer, you get only 2,000 results, and the fabrications are attributed to people other than Wolf Blitzer (namely guests).

He also claimed multiple times to have received a Peabody award for his show Inside Edition, which at the time had never won a Peabody award.

Most people don't even know what a Peabody award is, and the ones that do would likely immediately know he didn't win one. Why would O'Reilly intentionally lie about something that he could so easily be found out on?

If this information is true, and you can check the transcripts, it's not vandalism, and it is not libel. If Wikipedia is going to have an entry about Bill O'Reilly, it might as well be factual. Deepstratagem 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your intentions are noble but your arguments are filled with assumptions:

• 1) It is at best a leap of faith go from acknowledging that the "Paris Business Review" doesn't exist to stating "and O'Reilly fabricated the idea of its existence." Perhaps he did and perhaps he was just misinformed. Until there is uncontrovertible proof, any charges leveled at him of "fabrication" are POV and probably inappropriate for the article.
• 2) Well if David Letterman accuses O'Reilly (twice!), that's good enough for me. NOT! Re the Malmedy controversy, again, there needs to be proof before labeling what could have been an honest mistake as outright fabrication.
• 3) Unfortunately, I don't think the sheer number of google results is good indicator of their validity.
• 4) I'm starting to see a pattern here. If I recall, one time O'Reilly told me it would rain over the weekend and it didn't. LIAR!

You should really read up on WP:BLP and WP:Reliable Sources, etc. Lawyer2b-blp 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should sue Bill O'Reilly for falsely telling you it would rain over the weekend, you have my deep sympathy for your loss. As for (1) he either made it up or was misinformed. There aren't many other options. (2) David Letterman is one of several people who have accused him of this, and it happens regularly on his show, where he is regularly called a spin doctor. (3) No, the number isn't the only factor, he's a statistical outlier when it comes to internet statements about his fabrications, and the number of sources attributed to his fabrications within those results.

Finally keep in mind the number of times he repeats such statements before he corrects himself. How do you honestly believe that you've won a Peabody award if you didn't, tell everyone about it incessantly, then deny that you ever claimed it, and then tell people you misspoke each time?

Seems like an outright lie to me. So don't take Letterman as an isolated incident. Everybody knows (deleted by Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} per WP:BLP).

Maybe I can't prove this by BLP standards, yet, but I hope others reading this can post such evidence and improve the article. Deepstratagem 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions and Uniforms

"He also thinks that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention expicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform.[35]"

I can not find a uniform requirement anywhere in the Geneva conventions. Am I missing it, or is it not there?Harksaw 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "he claims the soldiers must be wearing uniforms". See the citation to see if it accurately defines what he said. I haven't looked at it recently, but I think I expanded the text at one point. Bytebear 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

From the GC "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." which certainly implies uniforms. Do you know any other way they can distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Bytebear 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but that certianly would require a rewrite of where the article says it "explicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform" Harksaw 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What part of the GC did you find "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." ? I've found that mentioned on websites describing the Geneva Conventions, but not anywhere within the Conventions themselves. Harksaw 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The uniform "requirement" is found in several places of the 1977 revisions, particularly Protocol I. However it is irrelevant whether it is found there or not. The article says it is Bill O'Reilly's reason. Since the article is about Bill O'Reilly rather than about the Geneva Conventions, it is Bill O'Reilly's interpretation (which is pretty much the common interpretation) that is important. --Blue Tie 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't suggest that Bill O'Reilly's interpretation is "the common one". If the uniform requirement is a matter of interpretation, we need to make that clear. If it isn't, we should clarify that. So which is it? -- Ec5618 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I say that if it is true? It is the common interpretation. The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniforms. However, recognizing that some more impoverished combatants may not have "regular" uniforms, the Conventions also allow for insignias and other such items "recognized at a distance" as being functionally equivalent. However, the most common phrasing when describing this requirement is to use the term "uniforms". Why is this a problem? --Blue Tie 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be commonly used to describe it, but no, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically mention uniforms anywhere as a requirement for combatants. This was my main complaint about the original wording. Harksaw 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally there are some folks who do not need uniforms or identifying insignia. These include civilians of a non-occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms to defend their country against an invading force, and have not had time or means to organize into an actual commanded army. Also civilians who accompany armed forces (such as reporters) do not need such ID to be protected under the Conventions. --Blue Tie 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To get a clearer picture, I have re-read the source. The reference cited has three significant quotes from O'Reilly:

• "According to the Geneva Convention, to be a POW and to get protections under it, you've gotta wear a uniform, Judge. They don't wear uniforms."
• "I don't think that was torture. Torture is takin' off a limb. Torture is takin' somebody's eye, somethin' like that."
• "Military tribunals, yes. Geneva Convention, no."

Given these statements, do we need to determine that the convention explicitely states "you've gotta wear a uniform"? Or can we rephrase it so that it talks about his interpretation that uniforms are required? I will play with the wording and let me know what you think. Bytebear 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Election changes

This article should be updated when "Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" becomes "Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi". The official change hasn't taken place, so this is more a heads up. Also the wording should reflect that the statement made was when she was House Minority Leader. Bytebear 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors here are usually on the ball with those kind of updates. Sometimes they even jump the gun. I had to do stop a good bit of that premature updating in January 2005, and during the changes on the Supreme Court earlier this year. It's very tedious, but you're right, it needs to be done. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick

The link under the picture of Jeremy Glick should be changed from Jeremy Glick to Jeremy Glick (author) to avoid ambig link. Thanks. Dbsheajr 15 November 2006 6:47 _P.M. EST

Done Harksaw 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what he gets

Bill O'Reilly has fought vehemently against the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-faith sludge being spewed out by the mass media. He has opposed the ACLU which has fought for the removal of God from the schools and public places and against anti-American, anti-military rants that have found a safe-haven in liberal universities across the U.S. and around the world. Of course he is wrong in some respects but I give him credit for standing up for his beliefs, my beliefs Christianity and America in general. God Bless

Bill O'Reilly is a good man, and of cours, people hate him. This is how good people are treated. 66.218.11.133

• He's a muckraker who brings it on himself, and loves it. "You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take Inside Edition out of the boy." Wahkeenah 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'll think of a better response when I STOP LAUGHING AT THIS. hahahaha. "A good man" Snoopydance 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hello, look at the article. He really is a dumb old conservative neo-con idiot but according to wikipedia standards we're not allowed to put that in articles, hence it's not in there. So don't whine about people hating him, most of us do, but we'll make sure not to put that in an encyclopedia. 68.40.190.172 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can you post a link to the poll indicating "most of us" hate Bill O'Reilly please?
• It is claimed he has the top-rated cable news commentary program. I guess all those "most of us" who hate him still watch him anyway, eh? Wahkeenah 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Still waiting for that link showing "most" of us hate him...I guess it's not coming.

I agree-- It's so funny that this guy says that 'most of us hate' O'Reilly when the truth is that he has one of the top rated shows in the entire country. A better guess might be that there are those on the 'far-Left' as Bill calls it, who are incapale of self-criticism-- in fact they 'hate it' since they already have all the 'answers' figured out.

Equally funny is the tendency of many non-FOX reporters to call him a "Conservative Journalist". Anyone who watches OReilly and actually pays attention knows that the he has a mixture of views that variously range from what could be traditionally considered to be 'Moderately Liberal' on the one hand (he is not opposed to Civil Unions for gay couples, he hates racism, he wants to protect the environment without going overboard, he is not anti-Union and he is no fan of corporate fat cat CEOs who exploit their workers pension funds) all the way over to moderately Conservative on other issues (he believes in self responsibility over bailouts, he doesn't like political correctness, is anti-abortion, supports the War on Terror, he is tough on crime and believes in higher testing standards for students and tougher vetting of teachers).

In other words, the O'Reilly doesn't follow any ideology-- he basically thinks by the issue and figures it out for himself. He is tough in some ways and compassionate in others-- overall he is a Moderate Centrist or, as he says-- a 'traditionalist' with little patience for ideologues of the far-Left OR the far-Right. But he is tough on the politically-correct far-Left set and doesn't hide the fact that he hates their formulaic and impractical neo-socialist thinking-- and so they label him as a 'Conservative'. What a laugh!

168.103.82.104 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• He's a muckraker first and foremost, and a major league egotist. Never forget that. He's also good entertainment. I like the shouting matches he gets into; never mind the constant liberal straw men, and characters like Al Franken (that book publishers' TV show encounter was priceless); how about his arguments with folks like his supposed friend Donald Trump, or Fox co-workers like Geraldo Rivera, or neo-cons ranging from Newt Gingrich to Ann Coulter. Not to mention picking fights with other right-leaning hosts such as Neil Boortz and Rush Limbaugh. It's a refreshing change from the Sean Hannitys who fawn over those right-wingers. I'm sure it's no accident that they never have O'Reilly and Hannity on together. That would be good for pay-per-view, to see those two highly opinionated "Fighting Irish" slug it out. Wahkeenah 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He's a bigot who invites people on his show but cuts them off when their views disagree with his 75.69.207.170 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He identified himself on his radio show as approx. 65% conservative, 35% liberal. Cory Liu 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr O'Relly has some odd opinions. For example, his belief that high oil prices were created by speculators and that this is proof that the oil market is rigged.

Of course all commodity markets have people trading in futures - such "speculation" is nothing to do with "rigging" a market.

Whether people decide to call such opinions "liberal" or "conservative" is up to them.

On the general government provision for the poor area, Mr O'Reilly is clearly in favour of government schemes, but thinks they have grown a bit too far. Given the size of (for example) Social Security now (compared to its start in 1935-1937) or Medicare and Medicaid now (compared to their start in 1965), it is hard to believe that F.D.R. and L.B.J. would not have agreed with him.

Paul Marks.

• • I still think it's funny that one of the posters above considers disliking racism to be a liberal position. Here I thought that shuold be a universal position. 24.90.119.169 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • A "universal position", eh? So if everyone's supposed to be against racism, who in fact is racist?

Info999 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GTMO suicides

Old news by now, but I wonder what the connection is. Maybe he called them the Arabic equivalent of "pinheads", and their fragile egos were devastated. If only they had sent Dr. Phil instead of Dr. No-Spin. Wahkeenah 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How is the suicides correlated to his appearance there? Should be removed.

• The media made a big thing of suicides there shortly after his visit, and shortly after he went on TV and said everything was peachy there (as detention sites go, that is). It's that aspect of the story that makes it relevant. However, that key point is not developed in the article. It should either be developed, by someone better than I, or should be zapped. Contrary to my sarcastic comments, I'm not aware of any evidence that connects him to the suicides other than bad timing. Wahkeenah 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert's Parody

I am almost positive that soon after Colbert's show premiered he clarified that he was satirizing pundits in general and not specifically O'Reilly. While segments like "The Word" obviously satirize certain parts of O'Reilly's show is it worth putting Colbert in O'Reilly's article? I apologize for the lack of sources, maybe someone else can find where Colbert said this. Martin 05:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[Sorry to disagree. Colbert's show is primarily a direct parody of Bill O'Reilly, no question about it. Colbert refers to O'Reilly as "Papa Bear", he patterns at least the first two segments, and the interview segment, directly after "The Factor", and the title of the show is lifted directly from O'Reilly (and there's the portrait). While Colbert certainly includes embarrassing and idiotic characteristics of other "commentators", these characteristics are most concentrated in (and many were introduced by) Bill O'Reilly. There is no question that The Colbert Report is parody of The O'Reilly Factor.]

I think Media Matters citations violate WP:BLP

I find references by Media Matters to be useless in this article. Because O'Reilly criticizes them so much, we have to take any citations to their website or their stories as a violation of WP:BLP. -Will Pittenger 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've often wondered if Media Matters can be considered "reliable" as per Wikipedia policy? One would not think they possibly could be. Dubc0724 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've brought this issue up on Ann Coulter's page and on the WP:BLP talk page, and was told that since MMFA uses transcripts it is OK. However, I am unconvinced. There is a problem with using them as a source especially concerning "right-wing" persons. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not buying that, either. Dubc0724 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The other problem with MMFA is that it often just places the defamation one click away. So it's not at Wikipedia, but if you go over to MMFA, it's there for all the world to see. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why. The Media Matters website contains both transcripts and videos. Those are essentially primary sources. In addition Media Matters hardly inserts any commentary. The focus of Media Matters may be biased against the right, BUT, the individual articles are not. If Bill O'Reilly makes some outrageous statement and later denies it Media Matters may compile a list of dates when it occured. See this as an example. Each quote is taken from a transcript and the commentary is kept to a minimum. Most of the time, the entire transcript of a particular segment is shown in it's entirety. Can someone point out the alleged bias? Deepstratagem 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, that MMFA does its own transcripts, which bring up the reliable publisher issue regarding transcripts. Also, their commentary is always biased against the conservative. There have been times where their criticism has fallen flat because they're commentary has been misleading. And then there's my big concern about using it as a source in articles; if you click down to comments, you are likely to be exposed to all manner of defamation re: the living person. If WP:BLP is to protect Wikipedia from defamation suits and embarassing situations, should there be some consideration of where Wikipedia leads its readers? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Perhaps someone more familar with the purpose of BLP can address the question of where Wikipedia leads its readers. That aside, FOX News edits Bill O'Reilly's transcripts to sanitize them every now and then (frequently enough to question FOX's transcripts). From the point of view of FOX, it's advantageous to sanitize the transcripts. From the point of view of Media Matters, it's advantageous to be as accurate as possible. Thus, Media Matters' transcripts are probably more reliable (and to be sure, one can watch the videos). Deepstratagem 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters could be considered an advocacy source which is discouraged in wikipedia under BLP policy. I believe is is ok to use Media Matters as a source as long as you do not use their interpretations and only what they source. But it would be better to find more neutral, third party sources that aren't pro- or anti- O'Reilly. MrMurph101 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not be at all suprised to find that they don't research thoroughly. In fact, I figure once they find anything, however skewed or out of context, supports their claims, they will publish it as 100% verified fact. Anything that support Bill O'Rielly? They will bury that by either omitting it or mentioning it only as a minor footnote that gets lost in the stream. Their reason? "Who cares about him?" -Will Pittenger 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we appear to have a consensus to drop the Media Matters references. I suggest that we wait for 72 more hours (from the time on my sig; I use CST at the moment). If there are no futher objections by then, lets remove those references and the materials that refer to them. -Will Pittenger 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the goal isn't to find incriminating quotes from any single source, but to look at many sources and reflect the overall pattern of opinion of the person (in this case O'Reilly). A good example is O'Reilly's views on Jessica's Law. Clearly he has opinions there, and they are clearly stated in his interviews, radio program as well as essays. And he has a ton of essays. It should be easy to find verifiable references from him without going to a secondary source. Also, his essays are more verifiable than transcripts because they are penned with thought and not spoken in the heat of debate, and are less subjective. Not that ither sources aren't valid, but given the choice to quote Media Matters, or an essay from O'Reily, the choice is obvious. Bytebear 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how quoting from his essays is more subjective than quoting from his interviews. Transcripts contain what he said, instead of what he wants people to think (thus a more objective metric). And between choosing to quote Media Matters and O'Reilly, the choice is not obvious. Deepstratagem 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If we are attempting to list his opinions, why rely on others to tell us what those opinions are? -Will Pittenger 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the article is not just about his opinions. It doesn't make sense to delete every Media Matters reference on that basis. Deepstratagem 12:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

but if the Media Matters article is quoting O'Reilly on a speicific subject, is is far better to find an essay on the subject and use a reference there. If he is quoted as saying "I believe in X", find an essay written by him that says the same thing. Go for the primary source first. Bytebear 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not a good reason to delete all Media Matters references. Doing so implies that all Media Matters transcripts and videos are unreliable, which no one has established. In matters of opinion, I agree that the best source might be O'Reilly's essays, though why omit what he has said or done on his show? He is inconsistent, and the best way to establish that reliably is to cross-reference. Deepstratagem 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, I do have a problem with MMFA --the defamation-- so I'd never use it. But in terms of reliablility (if there were no comments section), I wouldn't support deleting every citation to MMFA here. There is video along with the transcripts, so the readers can see and hear for themselves what O'Reilly said. But even with that MMFA should be used as a last resort, and never for it's commentary. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but defamation is contingent upon false statements. As far as I know MMFA does not fall under that category. Deepstratagem 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the defamation in the comment sections of MMFA. If MMFA says that BO said something "baselessly" or "falsely", that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a contributor at MMFA using that post to write something nasty and vile about O'Reilly that may not be true, and Wikipedia leading someone to that comment because MMFA was used as a source here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked, all comments are hidden so that's not really an issue to be concerned about. Deepstratagem 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not like you have to log in to see them though. All you have to do is click "Show". If it were on some separate page, that would be one thing but unfortunately it's not. But on a larger note I have brought this issue up in a few places here and no one seems to think it is a big deal. It's just a restriction I've placed on myself in support of what I feel is the spirit of BLP. It's not just MMFA, I don't ever link to any Internet source that allows for general comments on the front page. If I had my druthers, MMFA would be banned as a source on this basis, not the accuracy of their transcripts. However, I concede I have seen no consensus for my position yet. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have is simply that Media Matters has been accused of taking this out of context, misquoting, etc. That makes me nervous. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why we shouldn't use their commentary, but if we need proof that O'Reilly said something (without characterizing it) since MMFA has audio and video, it should be OK in that limited sense. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Who has accused MMFA of taking things out of context? Is there any evidence for that? Deepstratagem 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Usually the subjects of Media Matters's posts defend themselves by saying their quotes were taken out of context. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But is there any evidence for that? - If John Kerry says his "education and troops" statement is taken out of context by FOX News, does that mean we can't use FOX News as a source? I would imagine the right thing to do would be to use accurate sources (whether they are from FOX News or not), not erase all FOX News references just because Democrats believe they are being taken out of context. Deepstratagem 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's why (outside of my unrelated objection stated above), I don't think MMFA is a inherently bad source provided it is used in the narrow manner I mention. The problem is editors here don't like to write "On X date Bill O'Reilly said Y" with a citation to MMFA. They prefer to write "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank)" with the citation to MMFA or "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank) because he said this" with the cite to MMFA. The first sentence seems to be non-BLP violating way to use MMFA (again outside my other objection). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, if MMFA (or any source) is going to be used, the word choice must be neutral and specific to the instance sourced. Context should be provided to avoid blanket statements. Seems that the major issue is really poor wording by editors or inaccurate blanket statements (vandalism?) rather than MMFA being inaccurate. Deepstratagem 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that in a general sense. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

I just reverted a bunch of edits that added "scare quotes", expository and nNPOV section headings, and other biasing info. Sorry to the IP editor who added them, but if you want to take issue with words like "radical", "liberal", and "agenda", adding "quotes" around the words doesn't really accomplish your goal in a good-writing way. It just makes the article, "harder to read," and it looks a little "sarcastic". It would be better perhaps to cite a source that offers an opinion on the way that O'Reilly uses those "words". Don't write it yourself, but find a source and quote it briefly; Wikipedia says, "no original research." This and other policies cover to "op-ed" writing as well.

Yes we know him, we love him or we hate him, but we have to treat even a paragon of (something either demonic or angelic) like O'RLY in a nonbiased way here on el Rancho Wikipedia.

 Erielhonan  05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

The article on the FAIR group clearly states that the group is liberal. Labeling them in this article is for the sole purpose of pre-empting any legitimate issues they might raise, dismissing them on the grounds of "liberal bias", thus pushing a personal point-of-view agenda. Wahkeenah 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't even classify O'Reilly as a conservative, why do we need to classify FAIR as liberal? Harksaw 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly frequently takes liberals to task, but he denies being a conservative, but rather calls himself an independent. He delights in reading e-mails that take him to task when he doesn't kiss up to the Bush Republicans, and warns his viewers not to expect "ideological stroking". I would say the majority of his views align with the conservative checklist, but he's totally at odds with some of them. Wahkeenah 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than having a paragraph about FAIR and the ""Oh Really?" Factor, why not use the book as a source? This article should not be about labeling either side as liberal or conservative. That judgement should be left to the reader. If he claims they are a liberal group, find the citation and note it. If they call him a conservative, cite it as well. Wikipedia presents verifiable facts, not opinions. Bytebear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely dismissing issues due to liberal bias is a choice left to the reader? When judging a historical source, for example, one should not only look at the comments themselves, but also who made them. I think the addition of "liberal" helps clarify what background the issues raised are from. Is it any better if the liberal reference goes at the end of the paragraph, so that it reads something along the lines of: The book catalogues what are argued to be distortions and inaccuracies on the part of O'Reilly from a liberal perspective.? Ollie 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the book? I haven't. But some or all of their claims about O'Reilly could be factually true even if not viewed from a "liberal perspective". An obvious example is the Peabody vs. Polk award fiasco. It does not require a "liberal perspective" to assert and prove that Inside Edition got the latter and not the former. Whether it's a mistake important enough to deserve a flogging from Al Franken is another matter altogether. Wahkeenah 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good example. So do you write "O'Reilly lied about getting a Peabody" or "Left Wingers attack O'Reily claiming..."? No, you write "He has been criticized for claims that he got a Peabody.(reference) He explained his mistake that he mispoke and meant that it was a Polk. (reference)" Now Franken may be referenced specifically if O'Reilly criticized him specifically, or talked about "Left winger" attacks mentioning this specific incident, but it is not up to us to put labels on people without references. Bytebear 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that he (or his researchers) got it wrong in the book. Then, if you want to bring O'Reilly back to Inside Edition, you could talk about the catfight that he and Al Franken got into thanks to Franken beating that minor issue to death on C-SPAN. Or, you ask yourself if it's worth even mentioning in the article. He has acknowledged that it was a "mistake". Of course, he also says the grounds for invasion of Iraq were a "mistake". All in all, the latter mistake seems a tad more important to the course of human events than the former does. The point being: yes, stick to the facts. Labeling FAIR as "liberal" is not representing a "fact", it's an opinion. Wahkeenah 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I might accept this text if cited properly

An apperant vandal added "He's frequently called a bigot, naïve and narrow-minded" which was reverted by Dcflyer. I would accept that if we can find a citation for that. It actually sound rather plausible and in keeping with WP:BLP as we would only be reporting someone's essay on what they believe he is like. Notice the keyword: Believe. Does anyone agree? Will (Talk - contribs) 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to see the source first and make sure it's not just conjecture by the editor based on the source. Just to make sure you're not violating WP:BLP, you may want to just provide the diff and not it's text. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the link to the outfoxed documentary belongs on this page. I'm gonna take it out if no one cares in a little bit.

Levittown vs. Westbury

The WP:3RR has been broken on this. There are comments saying to stop it, so we need to come to a consensus. If it is changed again, we need to issue warnings. Whoever keeps reverting, stop! Bytebear 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have usually just reverted any change to this section, as I assumed that the comment implied some sort of factual correctness / consensus. But having actually looked into this a bit further, I realise the issue is not as clear cut as that.

The article that the comment refers to (Bill O'Reilly controversies#Controversy about O'Reilly's childhood home) does not seem to me to reach a firm conclusion. The correct name of the place seems to change with time, and hence the place to name in the article depends on which time is referenced. The choice of name seems to be very POV loaded and ought to be sorted.

I can see two possible compromise solutions:

• Name the place twice, as it was at the time of O'Reilly's birth and the current name. For example, something to the effect of O'Reilly lived in Levittown, but the address is now in Westbury.
• Name a broader geographical area and refer to the controversy page, allowing the reader look into the controvery themselves, should they so wish. For example, something to the effect of O'Reilly lived in Long Island, New York, but there is some controversy over the actual address.

Without having looked at the issue fully, these are the best ways I can see of maintaining NPOV, but I'm open to suggestions! Ollie 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer listing both names, with the expla

Anination (your first solution), at least temporarily. Hopefully this will end the revert war until we further determine the true state of things. Bytebear 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Have added words to the effect of the first one, with a link to the O'Reilly controversies article. Ollie 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It still sounds POV to me. "He was born in Wesbury, but he claims he was borin in Levittown" could just as easily be written as "he was born in Levittown, but critics claim he was born in Westbury". I think we need it to be presented as fact "He was born in what was then Levittown, but boundary changes moved the address to Westbury. This has causes some critics to ..." with a link to the criticism. Bytebear 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Does the City Recorder have some weight on this issue? Look at this. Bill O'reilly's mother's house is in Levittown. Stop with the Westbury nonsense and fix the article to represent O'Reilly's upbringing accurately. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the article to reflect the reference (actually quote it): "In 1951, his family moved to Levittown, in an area that overlapped with the outskirts of Westbury, on Long Island." Bytebear 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate. O'Reilly is not from Levittown, he is from Westbury, and there is a difference. The reference cited above to the frankenlies.com webpage specifically says "It may help to know that, beginning in 1947, William Levitt built thousands of homes in Island Trees (renamed to Levittown). He then continued his development within the villages of Wantagh, Hicksville, and Westbury, and these newly developed subdivisions were often identified together with Levittown.2" So, Westbury, as well as other subdivisions, were lumped together generically. In addition, his own mother in a Washington Post article dated 12/13/2000 is quoted as saying he grew up in Westbury "a middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown." But she's probably just another factually inaccurate secular progressive out to bring down the mighty Bill. 141.156.162.171 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is still inaccurate. O'Reilly is not from Levittown, he is from Westbury

Sorry, but you are wrong on this. O'Reilly has produced the actual deed from the home with the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. (It does not say "Westbury" anywhere.) See it at [[100]] The Levittown reference is correct. Maybe you got your information from Al Franken. He was wrong on this. HonestAndFair 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the reliable sources (here the City Recorder deed to the house) says Levittown, any statement that Bill O'reilly grew up in Westbury is original research. Of course we can mention both sides of the controversy, but to come down on any side of this issue violates WP:NPOV. So the current version that says Levittown, with the Westbury explanation is the only way we can present this information. Enough. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the article on Mr O'Reilly and my memory of the article is that it says comes from "Westbury". As pointed out above he actually produced the title deed of the house and it says "Levittown".

It is rather like the choice of the words "private school" rather than "Catholic school" to describe where this person was educated. My aim is clearly to imply that Mr O'Relly's family were well off - which they were not. Mr Frankin has stated that the source of his information on the O'Reilly family is Bill O'Reilly's mother - as this lady has been suffering from dementia for some years such a source (even if any interview really took place) is not reliable. For example, the regular family trips to Florida (a claim by Mr Frankin) turns out to be one trip to Florida - a trip made by bus.

Just because Mr Frankin (or mediawatch or whoever) says the O'Reilly family were well off does not alter the fact that they were not well off.

I write as the product of a government school and from a government (or as we say in Britain "Council") house.

Paul Marks.

O'Reilly has produced the actual deed from the home with the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. (It does not say "Westbury" anywhere!) See the deed at [[101]] The Levittown reference is completely correct. Al Franken was flat-out wrong on his assertion. D323P 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

anon user 71.252.106.46 is wanting to start a 3R war on this subject. I thought you should know. I have pointed out that the deed says Levittown, but he seem to think that it isn't the case. Please discuss. Bytebear 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Single word removed

The final sentence in the Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Terrorism section read "wanting to leniently try terror suspects in civilian courts." I removed the word "leniently." As it originally stood, it was unclear to me whether the word referred to O'Reilly's views, or if it was intended as a factual statement about what the "SPs" wanted to do. Mdunford 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "leniently" in this context amounts to a NPOV violation. By using "leniently", the author is agreeing with O'Reilly. nut-meg 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How did that thing about Clay Aiken get in there? Is there any evidence about a relationship or does that picture even exist?

He put his foot into his mouth

There seems to be a sense of humour failure here.

Paul Marks.

When he stated that "Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman on earth" he revealed to the world that he is mentally unbalanced. GhostofSuperslum 12:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that calles him mentally unbalanced? Opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, as they fall under original research. We welcome your contributions, but please give us something useful. Bytebear 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly might actually be right about that. However, I'm also mentally unbalanced. (Too much to the left, not enough to the right). Wahkeenah 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead image on page

As per the caption, "The image above is believed to be a replaceable fair use image. It will be deleted on 2007-01-04 if not determined to be irreplaceable." Has it been decided that the image is usable? I removed the image because today is 2007-01-06, after the date. If the image is fair-use, the tag should be removed; otherwise, the reference should be removed SanitySolipsism 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. DONE. Wahkeenah 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the current image is acceptable for use on this article, and have removed it. As explained on the image page, this image includes a copyrighted logo which must serve to illustrate the "organization, item, or event in question" to qualify as fair use. I would say that the image is OK for the The O'Reilly Factor article, but not here, where it is used to illustrate the person. Aside from this issue, I would also suggest that, in the same way as the previous image, the image is replaceable and hence should be removed. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the image from article Bill O'Reilly controversies. It seems a bit unusual to have his picture in a sub-article about him and not the main article. Anynobody 06:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gay rights/marriage

Actually, as conservative as Bill is, I believe he supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, and may even support gay marriage....I remember him being sort of like "just leave gay people alone; I wish I was gay, maybe someone would ask me out" and that is very similar to what he said on his show few years ago, the radical right was shocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.116.91 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

• While his views on gay rights are fair, he does not approve of gay "marriage", at least not if sanctioned by courts rather than by the citizenry through legislation. He also doesn't believe in public flaunting of sexuality in general, which is a very traditionalistic viewpoint. Wahkeenah 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr O'Reilly has stated (for example in his recent book "Culture Warrior") that he supports homosexuals being allowed to foster and adopt children. This clearly puts himself outside the teaching of the Church (the Roman Catholic) that he belongs to.

On "gay marriage" (as opposed to "miserable marriage"?), the position of this person would seem to be against homosexual marriage, but in favour of civil unions. It seems to be the word "marriage" that Mr O'Reilly draws the line at.

Paul Marks.

Outfoxed image

I removed the image of the Jeremy Glick interview from Outfoxed from the Controversy section, as neither Glick nor Outfoxed is ever mentioned in the article. Image captions are not an appropriate place to introduce topics, and certainly should not be the only place an issue is mentioned. Please feel free to readd it with appropriate in-article context. GertrudeTheTramp 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

National Headliner Award

There's a reference to O'Reilly winning two National Headliner Awards for his work at ABC World News Tonight, where he worked from 1986-89.

But he's listed nowhere on the "past recipients" page at the National Headliner Awards website [102] -- which also says the award only goes back to 1997. Where did this information come from, and can we verify it? --69.22.254.111 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume the information came from his Fox News bio [103]. Other people claim to have received the National Headliner Award previous to 1997, so I suspect that the official website just doesn't go back that far. I will do a news search to see if I can verify this fact independently. Brainslug 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

According to National Headliner Awards, they've been given out since 1935. - KimmyChanga 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This man's views are often incoherant, uninformed, and blantantly internally inconstistant. Is there a reason that the wiki page sanitizes his opinions and career to this degree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Another problem with the autthor's lack of neutrality is his reference to the "War on Christmas" as if it were real. nut-meg 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• The issue of the so-called "War on Christmas" is an annual crusade of O'Reilly's, whether such a "war" is objectively "real" or not. Wahkeenah 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you all do not understand the concept of neutrality on Wikipedia, and the neutrality tag was in bad faith. Wikipedia isn't here to judge whether or not he is right; this biographical article is to state what he does, and why he does it. It is not here to judge whether or not he is correct. -- The Hybrid 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Under terrorism heading

There is a sentence that reads "He has been critical of politicians such as Democratic Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi and George Soros for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts." This is incorrect as George Soros is not a politician.

Then there is this one: "He was also critical of Attorney General John Ashcroft for CIA blunders in intelligence over weapons of mass destruction." First of all, it should read "former Attorney General John Ashcroft...". Second, it makes no sense because the CIA does not fall under Justice Dept. purview and never has; the FBI does.141.156.162.171 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for yor comments. Wikipedia encourages users to be bold - why not change it youself! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly's comments on kidnapped boy

Curious whether O'Reilly comments on the Shawn Hornbeck case are notable enough to be included. Here's a partial transcript:

Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here...

Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?

Bill O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.

GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --

BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --

GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...

BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --

GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...

BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.

GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?

BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.

GVS: Some kids like school --

BOR: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.41.89 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it probably isn't noteworthy in and of itself, but if it can be used in conjunction with his overall opinion on a subject, such as child exploitation, then it can be included. He also made comments about the Smart girl's kidnapping, and others, and how relavant are they now? Bytebear 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The story is on going (for example in yesterday's "Factor" Mr O'Reilly reported a "Newsweek" article directly relevant to the case). It would be unwise to include anything about the case in a Wikipedia article before the facts are fully known.

Of course in a British context Mr O'Reilly's comments would not be allowed (as they might bias a jury in the forthcomming trial). However, Mr O'Reilly is an American commenting on an American case.

Indeed, from what I have seen, Mr O'Reilly is normally very strict on child abuse matters - regarding (for example) the punishment of child abusers in Vermont as far too mild.

As for Pattie Hearst: this women claims she was raped by her captors - hardly "exciting". I hope Mr O'Reilly is correct in thinking that nothing like that happened (but I doubt he is correct).

There are also such things as the behaviour of American P.O.W.s in Korea and Vietnam. The "Stockholm Syndrome" may indeed be very rare, but there are various ways of making even adults speak and act as their captors would wish.

Paul Marks.

• It is hard to figure why O'Reilly has taken the stance he has in this case. I suspect there's a double-standard here. That is, I suspect he thinks boys should be held more accountable somehow. He is certainly getting some heat for this, though. Wahkeenah 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rephrased the blurb about O'Reilly's commentary on the Hornbeck case. The previous version was phrased as such: O'Reilly...stated that a Missouri pre-teen, Shawn Hornbeck, who was abducted and held prisoner for four years by an alleged child molester... which, to be fair, implies that Delvin had already been charged with a sex crime prior to O'Reilly's comments. I changed the section to reflect that formal charges had not been brought against the kidnapper at the time O'Reilly made his comments. I personally disagree with O'Reilly's take on this issue, but to be fair, he was apparently speaking from the angle that no sex charges had been brought upon Delvin at the time. Though it seems that O'Reilly is the only person around that doubted that the boy was abused. Anyway, I hope I made sense here... --buck 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops. The accused's name is "Devlin", not "Delvin". I've rectified the misspelling in the article. --buck 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounded like he always thought that the boy had been molested, but he knew that if he didn't pretend to give him the benefit of the doubt after telling off the leader of the Black Panthers over the Duke Rape Case that he would be called a hypocrite again, and that he would have no way to refute the accusations. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

ACLU

He appears to have suggested the ACLU are traitors in the 31st January? episode he asked someone if he thought they were traitors when that other person said no they're pacifists who are entitled to their opinions he said he thinks they go a bit further then that 203.109.240.93 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• It fits right in with his opinion of the ACLU. Wahkeenah 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've figured out what bugs me about this article.

The thing that bugs me about this article, no matter what my position on Bill O'Reilly, is that NPOV is not really being followed. There's a whole "Controversies" section (really a disguised "Criticisms" section, IMO), but yet I see nowhere that details why supporters of the program believe it is so good! This article really seems biased, in my view. And I don't necessarily like Bill O'Reilly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• There might be a shortage of citable sources singing his praises. He reaps what he sows. Wahkeenah 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is biased because no body on this site likes him. Until we get a hardcore American Republican on this site the page is pretty much screwed. -- The Hybrid 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and he could write a book: The Edit Warrior. I'm a liberal-leaning sort who watches O'Reilly for the entertainment value (think Inside Edition-type entertainment) and the occasional expository piece. So that makes me a fan in a perverse kind of way. I've tried to correct vandalism and blatant POV-pushing as it arises. But it's difficult to be an Army of One. Wahkeenah 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a centrist, plain and simple. He's entertaining, and I think he's correct on some stuff and wrong on others. I'm at this page to protect it from the blatant vandalism and POV edits as you are. I'm no source to correct what has already been done. We need someone as far right as he is to piss everyone off and get wheels turning. Anyone have any friends like that whom you could convince to join Wikipedia? Cheers, -- The Hybrid 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If the structure is poor, clean it up. Get rid of the controversies and weave them into his various positions. When I found this article, it was a bullet list of his opinions, and good thing they were referenced. I went through the references and found the true point of each of his articles (most of the references are from his weekly column), and put them into coherent paragraphs. So, if there is a criticism, find where it fits into the paragraphs of his beliefs and weave it it. If a criticism doesn't fit anywhere, it is probably too vague to be referenced. Bytebear 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't lose sight of the fact that a significant part of his modus operandi is to court controversy. Spiritually he's still doing Inside Edition. Wahkeenah 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the controversies section was there to soften the criticism (make it less blatant). The reason it wouldn't matter if there were any "hard-core conservatives" editing the page is because you can't turn his lies into truths. And you can't present his exaggerations neutrally. His self-aggrandizing nature requires that he is always right morally or factually, even when he contradicts himself. Deepstratagem 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Deepstratagem but understand what you are saying The Hybrid about the article having an overall biased feel. We can only work with what Bill O'Reilly gives us to work with regarding his statements. I've tried but I seriously don't think it's possible to put him in a centrist light considering what he says and how he says it. Contrast him with other conservative commentators like Joe Scarborough. Seriously, give it a shot yourself to see what I mean. Perhapos you'll actually write the neutral sounding article we are all hoping for, or you'll understand why the page reads the way it does. Either way you win. Anynobody 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly shouldn't be portrayed as a centrist. He is a traditionalist, and that is what he should be portrayed as. However, since in the minds of many, including myself, traditionalist = conservative when a bunch of liberals have to write the article (this talk page confirms that) it is going to be biased. There is no way to avoid it. I know that it hasn't been done on purpose, but it still happened. 1,000,000 monkeys will write Shakespeare, but 1,000,000 communist monkeys will write the Communist Manifesto ;). Something along those lines happened here, but it was 1,000,000 liberal monkeys, and it was about Bill O'Reilly. We need some conservative monkeys to balance this out. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that's a weird metaphor, but let's just roll with it ;). Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard him refer to himself as a traditionalist, but that is a very vague label considering his views on certain traditions. For example I understand he would support civil unions for homosexuals, which seems to acknowledge he doesn't mind a homosexual couple pledging to live together in monogamy as long as it isn't called a marriage. "Traditionally" speaking a gay couple seeking recognition of a marriage-like situation might get beaten or killed. Can anyone point to a page that expands what should define a traditionalist as O'Reilly sees it. Anynobody 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"Traditionalist" is pretty slippery as a label, but that's what he calls himself. He is by no means a gay rights advocate. I think he sees civil unions as a reasonable alternative to the presumed sanctity of marriage. It's safe to say that in general, he is not happy about the "gay agenda" being pushed. Wahkeenah 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NCMEC Dinner

It may not yet be worth noting in the article, but their statement seems to imply his cancelled appearance may not be so much about his comments about Shwan Hornbeck as it was popular demand. NCMEC annoncement 09 Feb 07 Anynobody 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But the popular demand was driven by people's reaction to O'Reilly's comments, which makes it, in effect, the reason why he was dumped. -- Info999 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the NCMEC has left itself an "out" by not citing the specific comments they were receiving. I wonder if they fear a lawsuit from him, otherwise I'd think that an organization like NCMEC wouldn't let anyone in the media say the stuff he did without voicing a reaction. Anynobody 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)