Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Proposed changes to this article

I notice this article, like most information sources, misses the more important point of the Franken/O'Reilly Peabody/Polk issue. It seems most people think the Peabody/Polk confusion is the crux of Franken's story, but it's not. It's setup. It's not that important that he switched the names on the awards. That could be an honest mistake. Both names start with a "P" after all, and it was won after he had left the show, so who's to say whether that's really a lie? Though this issue is often taken to be Franken's actual point, what he's doing is fully explaining it on his way to his larger point.

The important part of Franken's story is what happened after the confusion/lie (take your pick) was exposed in the press. The discrepancy was reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2001 and picked up by a couple of news outlets, including Newsweek. On March 13, O'Reilly denied the report on his show, calling it a lie and attack journalism, when he had already admitted directly to Franken that he had claimed the Peabody. That is, he knew the truth, but he denied it on the air.

The account of the story in this article incorrectly focuses on the name switch issue as if it's Franken's only point. I don't know how the account could be rewritten to focus on real point without making O'Reilly fans mad, but I think it should be changed, because in its current form it is simply not accurate in it's representation of Franken's accusation. Perhaps that part should just be removed.

=

I've looked at this article and think it's clearly biased against O'Reilly. For instance, it doesn't seem that articles should get into the middle of debates by finding contradictory quotes and nitpicking statements made by people. I've visited similar pages about political commentators in the US (Michael Moore,Al Franken,Rush Limbaugh) and none of those articles do that. If there is an ongoing debate/controversy, they state the basics and leave the dissection of quotes and facts to ideological websites and mud-slingers.

As such, I'd like to make some changes to the article but wanted to get people's opinions before I do it. I think the dispute sections (with Franken and Moyers) should be cut to the basic outlines as that's the most clearly biased part of the article. Also, I find the list of his conservative/liberal opinions a bit simplistic. Perhaps this should be supplemented/replaced with some major/ongoing stories/opinions from the show (eg his crusade against gansta rap, the 911 charities thing and the like). Feedback very welcome, I'll wait for some before going ahead. Frikle 10:07, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and voiced similar concerns a while back (see some specifics at POV dispute). Edit boldly. --Diberri | Talk 03:45, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Left, right, whatever

O'reilly is right of center, but is in no way "right wing". I've seen the show a few times.. on at least one of those occasions, a guest accused him of being right wing and he got very angry about it and listed off a dozen or more major issues where he completely disagrees with the Republican party. That's not right wing.

In addition to that, he ends every show by answering mail.. half of the Democrats writing in think he's a Democrat, half of them think he's a Republican. Half of the Republicans think he's a Republican, the other half thinks he's a Democrat. Why do you think that is?

I think he says he's a libertarian.

You should get an identity - log in and create one.. and use three tildes ("~")to sign your name when you write something -'Vert

He's full of shit, and may aspire to someday find the moderation to be called a libertarian, but he is not. I often notice though, that: To those people who listen regularly to radio TV and web fascists that call themselves conservatives, O'Reilly might look like a breath of fresh, left-coast air. Nonsense. Granted, a lot of these neo-facist conservatives might occasionally be overheard saying something like "its only showbusiness" and "I dont really think how I speak on the air"... "I am the voice of dissent." Granted. What we are here to deal with is what they are... What they are is a media creation, and as such we deal first with the apparent aspects, not the hidden underlying subleties of disingenuousness and pandering to the tyrant voter block. Be well. -'Vert

Regardless of what you think of him - he's no "right winger". I doubt many "right wingers" or "left wingers" would claim him. As the other person said, he pisses everyone off at one time or another. And despite what you seem to think, O'Reilly's audience is not made up entirely of conservatives.
He's not a libertarian because he wants a strong military and troops on the border with Mexico. He's not a conservative because he's against the death penalty and believes global warming is real. He's not a liberal because he favors cutting taxes. The politician he most respects is Bobby Kennedy, a Democrat. The politician he least respects is Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
He says he's an "independent". He says he's fighting for the little guy and isn't beholden to the "established" media, although that's what he's becoming himself. Whether he's "full of shit" or not, he has the highest-rated cable talk show, and he's a voice of "reason" to many Americans, although he seems to disagree with everyone on at least something. 136.152.197.144 09:48 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Keep in mind the disingenuousness of it all. This is infotainment, on Fox, no less, run by Roger Ailes! LOL. And youre repeating some pretty meaningless statements about what he does or does'nt believe, without bothering to connect these to real meanings: Does he admire BK because he remembers him -hence idealizing the image of BK without dealing with who he was. Its easy to agree with dead people, after all. As for his ratings, voice of reason, and all... even whatsherface's book "Slander" was a bestseller, despite the fact that it was a complete piece of garbage, based on about one valid source. Eric Alterman's new book "What Liberal Media" does a thorough job of servicing in a manly way her book as well as a bunch of other nonsense notions of what;s conservatite... who is the "voice of reason" etc. And he actually cites sources. Wow. Moral: Dontcha be believin the hype. -サチベチゴ

Excellent discussion! IMHO the article needs a section on demagoguery and its natural tendency to supplant civil discourse, as is all too evident these days, as we repeat the precursors to 1930's fascism. User:User
he's basically a neo nazi

This was an old post, but if you're out there Vert, I think you make some mistakes in your logic. First, just because he disagrees with the republicans does not mean he is not conservative. Issues like global warming really have nothing to do with political ideology, even if Republicans are more skeptical of it than Democrats. And on issues like border control, he disagrees because he has a more conservative stance than the Bush administration.

Also, you note that he is angry when he is accused of being right-wing. He does this only to reinforce his false image of an unbiased observer. How many people are totally right or left-wing, with no exception? Not many, inculding O'Reilly.

And last of all, you note how his letters balance out to saying he is too liberal or conservative. This is totally meaningless. As far as we know, he gets 100 liberal complaints to every 1 conservative complaints. He's just trying, hypocritically enough, to spin his image to being nonpartisan.

I'll admit he isn't as conservative as some of the right-wing pundits, but saying he isn't a conservative is ignoring reality. --Tran Nguyen

Cricket Player

Huh?? Who is this clown? What about the real Bill O'Reilly, who is famous in three continents? Tannin

ROFL ---サチベチゴ

Pundit?

Pundit? In his own mind, maybe! -- Zoe

If "pundit" == dipshit, then yes. He's a pundit.

Criticism

During a September 12, 2003 broadcast of his television show, Bill O'Reilly spoke out against supporters of the separation-of-chuch-and-state. He said they want "no moral-judgments. You want to have two guys making out in front of your 4-year-old? It's OK with them. A guy smoking a joint, blowing the smoke into your little kid's face? OK with them. And I'm not exaggerating here. This is exactly what the secular movement stands for." Critics could reply that supporters of the separation-of-chuch-and-state include founder James Madison; that gay rights and drug legalization would protect private behavior, not public displays; and that believing it's wrong to discriminate-against-gays or to imprison-non-violent-drug-offenders is itself a moral-judgement.

Moved text here for discussion. I'm not sure you can put "critics could say" and then put you own rebuttal. Not sure that we need to have every controversial Bill O'Reilly quote followed by critical (and supporting) commentary.Ark30inf 00:06, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ark30inf- I restored a new version of that paragraph in which I made changes to address your objection to the phrase "critics could say." Having some quotes from the show can help illustrate the show. -Eric J in MN, Sep 20, 2003

(Ark30inf- I added the separation-of-chuch-state-paragraph. I agree that we don't need to list every controversial thing he has said, but I think the early paragraphs make him sound more middle-of-the-road than he really is. In those recent comments on his tv show I quoted, he equates supporting separation-of-chuch-and-state with wanting "no moral judgements" and public displays of homosexuality and pot-consumption. I admit that the phrase "critcs could say" was an introduction to my own criticism, but still, I think I'm balancing the premise of the earlier paragraphs that he's so moderate no one knows if he's a Republican or a Democrat. He's a Republican. -Eric J in MN , 17 Sep 2003)

Took the graf out again because it still seems to be rather weak, perhaps try another quote to illustrate a typical O'Reilly debate? Fuzheado
I agree, we shouldn't provide an opening for anybody to add their own capsule/quote from their particular favorite O'Reilly show to try and sway the POV one way or the other or try and prove that he is a Republican or not. I don't think its the Wikipedia's job to prove that he is something he claims not to be. Thats Al Frankens job and we can report on that. The idea of selecting an exchange from the show just to show how a typical show works and how he relates with guests would be good. I would suggest maybe a small exchange from the Janeane Garafolo interview since it is one of the most famous and important.Ark30inf 23:02, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Fuzheado and I went over this before. Lets not open the door for everyone adding their favorite or least favorite O'Reilly episode. The article clearly states that he is against separation of church and state already in the traditionally conservative list. It does not need to be re-stated in the Other Views category with quotes and dates from particular shows. It is stipulated in the article that O'Reilly is clearly against separation of church and state no question, no debate, its true. So it does not need an elaborate proof to illustrate the fact.Ark30inf 02:52, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moving page

I believe "pundit" (part of the article name) is somewhat negative POV. At the very least, it has a negative connotation, unlike other words that can be used. I looked at the google results for "Bill O'Reilly" pundit and it resolves to Wikipedia first and then a higher than average number of negative articles. Searching for just "Bill O'Reilly" returns a less uniformly negative set of pages.

My method: I looked up all of the synonyms for things he could be and tested each one in google (scripted, I assure you) and tried to determine which adjectives were most commonly used. Granted, this is not a precise method (since words that show up in his own reporting would also be counted), but I thought it would narrow the field well. Here are the top 30 results out of a total of 106 words. I left out the counts for 15 words that didn't seem appropriate at all: magazine, source, paper, newspaper, journalism, judge, herald, authority, accuser, master, expert, producer, singer, hack (right below pundit, by the way), and finger.

  • star 173000
  • editor 142000
  • observer 33200
  • writer 23400
  • journalist 15900
  • columnist 14800
  • publisher 13100
  • commentator 10600
  • analyst 9380
  • adviser 9280
  • anchor 9270
  • correspondent 8010
  • critic 7930
  • pundit 6010
  • contributor 5280

I think "commentator" or "anchor" are probably the best two options, but I went with "commentator" since it covers his radio show and writing as well. A google search for his name plus "commentator" doesn't appear to be predominately negative or positive. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ranting in article

This is supposed to be a factual article about Bill O'Reilly, not a rant about views of his that particular editors find offensive. Merely ranting about his views in a POV fashion is just not going to cut it.

He also makes speeches implying that "secularists" are trying to change America for the worse. He warns viewers that "secularists want no moral judgements" (September 12, 2003) and that "we are becoming a secular, quasi-socialist society" (October 14, 2003).

I disagree with a fair amount of what O'Reilly says (I actually consider him an authoritarian and a bit of a blowhard (there was a long period where I couldn't watch his show for more than 5 minutes at a time), hardly a conservative or liberal), but the above addition borders on being a tirade. I will add something to the views to cover the above. Daniel Quinlan 02:40, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. It would help a lot if you (67.251.130.x) had an account. It's hard to communicate with someone that has a dynamic IP address. Thanks.

More on left vs. right

Regarding this edit by anonymous 67.(250|251).x.x:

his Talking Points Memos criticize liberals at least 9 times out of 10. The even-handedness quote needs to be balanced in consideration of the actual content of the show

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, you should not let your opinion seep into articles. Fuzheado got it right when, instead of inserting opinion, he backed up the information about his voter registration as a Republican with the link from the Washington Post story from 2000. However, Wikipedia is not a forum for original analysis, opinion, or advocacy, such as your interpretation of the Talking Points segment. Daniel Quinlan 06:54, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Bibliography?

It is a bibliography. See http://webster.com : b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house Evil saltine 11:01, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, so it is technically a bibliography. Anyway, I usually interpret "Bibliography" as definition 1, 2a, or 3, especially in the context of Wikipedia articles 1 : the history, identification, or description of writings or publications 2 a : a list often with descriptive or critical notes of writings relating to a particular subject, period, or author b : a list of works written by an author or printed by a publishing house 3 : the works or a list of the works referred to in a text or consulted by the author in its production. Daniel Quinlan 11:44, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

You can't attempt to deflect criticism of Bill O'Reilly by labeling it "analysis". Pure hard facts are not "analysis", they're fact, and it's a fact that Bill O'Reilly criticizes liberals in 9 out of every 10 talking point memos in which he is criticizing a particular political position which can be pointedly identified with either the right or left of this country. He has made claims that "Progressives want to remove all mention of God from the American government and want to turn this country into a secularist nation".

Bolding

Eeeck! Fuzheado, what's with all the bolding? That's awful. Daniel Quinlan 04:04, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree I don't like it either. But we need to do something because the list is very hard to read. Some are phrases, some are sentences, some are compound sentences, some have links, some don't, some things are dbl quoted, ... yuck. How about taking a crack at parallelization of the points, because bolding was an attempt at highlighting at least keywords, but bolding links doesn't really work well. Fuzheado
I tried cleaning it up a bit. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

View on media bias

As pointed out by Evil saltine, O'Reilly has changed his mind about liberal bias very recently [1]. The article might want to briefly address the change if his position was originally that the media was not biased. It seems related to recent editing, after all. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Problem with redirect

When I use wikipedia's google search for O'Reilly, it brings up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(pundit)

   which contains an old version

then I have to click the Pundit link on top to get to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Bill_O%27Reilly_(pundit)&redirect=no which says REDIRECT Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator) </wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(commentator)>

only by clicking that link do load the current version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_(commentator) contains the latest version

Is this happening to other people? How do we get just the latest version to display? -Eric J in MN on October 21, 2003

It works fine for me. It could be an issue with a web cache between you and Wikipedia (your ISP or site) or perhaps your web browser. Daniel Quinlan 12:24, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

POV dispute

I'm going to remove the NPOV header in a few days, given that there's been no discussion since October. Unless anyone objects...

I actually made a few comments about this article's POV-ness just a few days ago (see the "Bibliography?" section). I put the NPOV message in, and think it should stay -- this article is definitely (albeit subtly) POV notwithstanding a lack of discussion about it on this talk page. --Diberri 18:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I moved Diberri's POV claims down here: --Rookkey 22:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Substantial portions of this article are subtly POV. A few highlights:

O'Reilly has pundits and elected officials as guests and doesn't hesitate to interrupt them or to disagree, sometimes even telling guests to "shut up." He decrees on his show that it is a "no spin zone" and that "the spin stops here." O'Reilly often challenges spin from guests more aggressively when they hold views opposing his own (see below for example views).
In 1989, O'Reilly joined the nationally syndicated Inside Edition, a tabloid television program (also known as "infotainment").
Article fails to mention O'Reilly's perspective on the Polk vs. Peabody debacle.
Critics attest that O'Reilly has close ties to the Republican party and other conservative groups. (weasely -- what close ties? which groups?)

Thus, I'm marking this article as NPOV. Will give a once- or twice-over when I have some free time. --Diberri 01:07, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Enough waiting around. Since no work is being done to remove suspect POV claims, I am removing the Neutrality header. --Rookkey 02:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "self-proclaimed political independent" because O'Reilly really is a political independent -- there's no self-proclamation there. --Diberri | Talk 01:27, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ummm execuse me, "self proclaimed political independent" is much more accurate. To actually make a decision on whether O'Reilly is or is not independent is a non-neutral statement. I am going to add it back in. CrazyRadicalJewBoy 20:46, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is an official American Independent Party in the US, so IMO identifying someone as belonging to that party is not an assertion of POV. I agree that "self-proclaimed political independent" is also a NPOV statement, but it doesn't capture the fact that O'Reilly is registered party member. Thus I've changed your edit to "registered political independent" to compromise. Of course, you are always welcomed to opine. --Diberri | Talk 21:30, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you have that O'Reilly is in the American Independent Party, and if he is in that political party doesn't that by definition void his very independence as he has joined a party that just happens to be named the American Independent Party. O'Reilly's claim is that his independence is based on not voting because of political party but because of the individual candidate. StoptheBus18 02:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. As far as I can tell, O'Reilly is not a member of the American Independent Party. I've changed the intro text back to "As a self-proclaimed political independent..." --Diberri | Talk 08:47, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Score one for me. I am the smartest man alive. StoptheBus18 00:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clearly. --Diberri | Talk 14:24, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Glad we can agree on something. Talk 14:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maddox criticism

"Maddox" refers to the owner of a well-known website on the internet:

"Maddox, the owner of The Best Page in the Universe, wrote a long page criticizing O'Reilly for what he feels is his "crybaby" additude. Maddox complains that O'Reilly tries to censor his opponents, citing the lawsuit against Al Franken that was dropped. He also cites the percieved bias of Fox News, the station which O'Reilly is on. Maddox also sent O'Reilly tampons and baby shampoo in a package to O'Reilly as an insult to underscore the percieved "crybaby" attitude. [2]"

I think this should stay, as one, he has a cult following on the net, and two, I like how he mailed O'Reilly tampons and baby shampoo. WhisperToMe 03:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The fact that someone has a "cult following" and that you liked his/her gag does not by itself warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm not yet convinced that Maddox's criticisms are particularly noteworthy. --Diberri | Talk 05:01, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this section adds nothing. The article subject is Bill O'Reilly; incidents or controversies involving the subject of the article (such as the Franken and Rose incidents) are relevant. Criticisms by a third party might be worth mentioning if the third party is in itself noteworthy or clearly an example of a widespread phenomenon or opinion. This third party is neither. Jgm 12:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I dunno whether its right to put it in the article but sending tampons and baby shampoo, that is some funny shit. StoptheBus18 02:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Guys, whether you like it or not, Maddox is really huge, and his article about Bill has been read over 1 million times [3] so at the very least, there should be a mention of it in this Wikipedia entry.
EliasAlucard|Talk 21:29, 13 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio section

The following text—previously found under the Political opinion section—was taken verbatim from [4] as far as I can tell, so I've removed it. For the future: if/when we do include an enumeration of O'Reilly's political views, we should have references to support each one of them. --Diberri | Talk 14:30, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, whoever runs lyingliar.com copied hijacked what we had at Wikipedia for his own purposes. Take a look at the history of this article since October and it is obvious that we have continually edited O'Reilly "traditional views" over time. Especially telling is the fact that he forgot to remove the link to Wikipedia's article on October 18! The guy at lyingliar.com just swiped what we had. --Rookkey 16:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I checked the history, and indeed it looks like Wikipedians have authored the section and that the lyingliar.com folks are now using it for their own purposes at [5]. FWIW, I believe that's a violation of the GFDL since they don't credit Wikipedia as the source of the material. I'll look into this. In the meantime, I've merged the political opinion section back into the article. IMO, we should still include references to support each one of his alleged views, as I suggested in my original post above. --Diberri | Talk 18:14, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal media?

I've removed this bullet from the "Conservative views" section:

  • Believes that most news media has a liberal bias [6] (since approximately October 18, 2003, previous view was "... the issue of the liberal media. Bogus. Rush Limbaugh has the most powerful radio program in the country and the Fox News Channel is the highest rated cable news network — at least in primetime." March 29, 2001 [7])

First, the web link cited does not support the position. It's simply him criticizing the New York Times. And as the quote indicates, he believes the liberal bias thing is "bogus." -- Fuzheado | Talk 23:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking through O'Reilly's latest book, Who's looking out for you?, and he provides several illustrations of the media as both left- and right-leaning (see chapter four). Removing this bullet point from said section was the right thing to do. Thanks. --Diberri | Talk 01:59, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Since I had originally added the quote back in [8], it may seem confusing that I'm ceding this point. However, I simply added the quote back in because User:Stopthebus18 had claimed it was a POV comment (presumably by a Wikipedian editor), when it was, in fact, simply a quote from O'Reilly.
Sorry, every week O'Reilly brings up another newspaper editorial that 'proves' that "far-left secular progressives" control the print media and much of broadcast journalism.[9] He says thats why Fox News, a "traditionalist" source of news (as he puts it), is so controversial. He constantly refers to the mainstream print media as 'the liberal newspapers.'


american media, as with anything american, is conservative. whenever i turn on the u.s. news, all i hear about is how americans are "heros and liberators" in iraq. you never hear about the innocent people that americans are killing in iraq everyday. hows that for liberal media.

Quotes section

I completely disagree. Why should they be in the external links section? It is this mans job to talk so knowing what he says is an important part of the article; we should know what his ideas are in his own words. It can't be buried in the external links section because its not outside POV commenterary. I'm putting it back in. StoptheBus18 17:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First off, it seems to be unwritten WP policy that references to Wikiquote entries go at the bottom of an article. (Consider Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein for just-off-the-top-of-my-head examples.) Secondly, since Wikiquote is not a subsidiary of Wikipedia, per se, it seems that entries therein should be treated as external links. Thirdly, any partial list of quotes is inherently POV, and we should not treat them as integral parts of an article that aims to be NPOV. The Wikiquote reference should be moved back to the external links section. --Diberri | Talk 18:19, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK. You convinced me. I am no longer the smartest man in the world. Do with them as you wish. StoptheBus18 18:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wait though, one issue of contention. Wikiquote is a part of wikipedia. The links all have the en.wikipedia.org, prefacing them. It's not enough to put them back in the article but I do disagree on this issue. StoptheBus18
From what I've read, Wikiquote is related to Wikipedia, it's not a part of Wikipedia. In particular, both WP and WQ are operated by Wikimedia, which is also the parent body to Wikibooks and Wikisource. That the URLs have "wikipedia.org" in them is rather irrelevant, IMO. --Diberri | Talk 21:20, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Glick interview

Before someone angrily reverts my edits, I just wanted to give my rationale for changing

O'Reilly shouted "Shut up! Shut up!"...

to the more accurate

O'Reilly demanded that Glick "shut up, shut up,"...

After watching the interview for a second time [10], it's clear that there are some points that O'Reilly did in fact shout (e.g. when O'Reilly claimed that he was more upset about this issue than Glick himself), but O'Reilly did not shout the words "Shut up! Shut up!" to Glick. That he demanded is more accurate. --Diberri | Talk 04:45, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Section for traditionally moderate views?

The problem with the conservative/liberal lists is that quite a few of his opinions don't fall completely under either category. For example, his stance on gay marriage can be viewed either way -- he's fine with it if people vote on it, but he doesn't want judges deciding for the citizens. He's legally pro-choice, except for partial-birth abortion. He believes in gun control, but he also thinks Americans have the right to bear arms. Those are pretty moderate views, so should we create a list specifically for those types of stances? Adding in clarifications for each opinion seems like a lousy solution. Beginning

  • But his position on gay marriage is NOT moderate. He has been quoted as saying it's fine if people vote for it and he might even cast a "Yes" ballot himself, but that was a while ago. Now, my local talkradio station airs a PROMO for him where he says legalizing gay marriage will destroy it's meaning, and lead to bigamy. He also says tha gay marriage does not mesh with traditionalism, of which he is a fierce advocate.

The real problem with him on this and other issues is that in print interviews for mainstream publications, he comes across as very moderate. On his programs, not so at all. He's constantly drawing lines, agree with him or not. But it's hard to cite a radio broadcast.

More stuff

I wanted to explain why I think the Levittown paragraph is irrelevant, as requested by User:Rookkey. As I stated before, I think this article has serious POV issues, one of them being the way the arguments are handled. By spending too much time on Bill's disputes (which are currently much less prominent in airtime than, say, his criticisms of the ACLU, immigration laws etc etc), the article gives the impression that OReilly spends most of his time baiting opponents. This is especially true of the Levittown thing, as being mere punctuation in the controversies. Also, this is an encyclopedia which should be presenting facts and opinions - but when the article says that so and so spoke against so and so and this much of the facts were "correct" and the original person responded with such and such etc etc, it makes the article get actively involved in the debate. What Franken thinks about which side of the street OReilly lived on should not be significant enough to make it into this article - so I think the best thing would be to remove it altogether. The links are enough to lead those interested to similar contentions ad nauseum.

On a related note, I think we should limit the links, and classify them according to official/informative, as well as pro and anti Bill. This will make it clear if there is a bias towards a particular POV in the links.

Suggestions welcome, otherwise I'll review the links in a few weeks, as well as the Levittown paragraph. Frikle 04:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. Yes, this article absolutely makes it seem as though all the man does is argue with other people, and that's not a good thing. I don't consider myself pro- or anti-O'Reilly, but I do find the guy to be interesting, and I don't learn much from this other than "people don't like him and he yells sometimes". That seems to be the bulk of the article, and I'd really like to avoid that. They're worth discussing, but not this much. At this rate, we could make a whole new article out of that stuff, you know? It's taking over the whole thing.
However, as the person who wrote probably the majority of O'Reilly's truly biographical information (his education, early career, and upbringing are concerned) before starting an actual Wiki account, I don't want to see the information on Levittown removed. Adding it in with the Franken information isn't good, in my opinion, but it is obviously important when we talk about his upbringing, and that's why I originally put it at the top of the article where his upbringing is discussed. I feel that by including the link to the deed and pointing out that there have been people who have questioned his roots, that should cover the questions at the center of the debate without having to detail each and every barb traded between the Franken and O'Reilly. (I know the article doesn't do that now, but it could get to that point.)
As far as links are concerned, news and opinion articles (such as from the Herald, the Post, etc.) should either be put under their own heading or linked within the article as sources. Looking quickly, it looks like 4 (?) of the current links are articles about him, and I get the feeling that number will keep growing unless we find a way to either seperate them from the rest or work them into the article itself. I think the latter is a good way to cut down the size of the list to keep it managable while still retaining the information.
So, to summarize: try to somehow limit the "controversies" info before it takes over the whole article, retain Levittown information but move it back to the "Personal background" section, and clean up the links. I really think that will help improve this article so that it's worth reading for more than just the fights. Beginning

Links

OK, I've finally categorised the links so its more clear that they need to be cleaned up. There's 5 supportive sites (four official sites by OReilly and an article that is tentatively supportive and that I placed in that category as it doesnt have the glaring criticism of the others) and 8 critical sites. Nothing from non-official sites supporting O'Reilly. Now, I grant that more sites on the net about him are critical than not - but let's stick to the main anti-O'Reilly sites - say oreillysucks and lyingliar - I think the Glick interview (the placement of which IS criticism as it's selectively taking a controversial bit of footage) and rotten.com should go. Oh, and I know my 2 levels of categorisation (text type and viewpoint) are overkill, but that's just to help categorise and review the links - when they're improved I think we can go to just a support/criticism split. Frikle 02:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I really do think we should try to work the articles in as sources. This list is so long, it really does look like overkill. (I think part of that is that it's so categorized right now; while I like most of what you did, I think it's broken up too much and is a bit unwieldy.) Much of the information in these links is the same thing over and over again (he yells, people don't like him, Franken says he lies, etc.). We should figure out what's necessary and what's redundant, and remove whatever doesn't add anything to the article.
The big ones that need to be linked are: his official website, the Factor website, OReilly-Sucks.com, O'Reilly column, and WikiQuotes. (I should point out that I don't think the WikiQuotes article should be called "official" or "supportive", seeing as it's not an official site of his and has numerous quotes portraying him in a negative light.) That leaves you with only one anti-O'Reilly website, three self-promotional, and then his quotes, but virtually everything else is either anecdotal or articles, and that's why I'm really thinking we should cut the list down and add them into the article itself as sources. If we want to make it an even split between pro- and anti-O'Reilly sites in the final listing of external links, we can find more anti- (the Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly blog, maybe?). It's not like they aren't out there, and as long as they're rational ones (not just "O'Reilly's a jerk"), I'm fine with that, provided we move some of the articles linked into the entry itself to make room for the new additions.
Here's what I'd recommend:
1) Put the MediaMatters.org link under "Criticism from organizations". The article linked automatically pulls up a list of related anti-O'Reilly articles on the MM website, so it's almost like a directory of sorts. Although it's unorthodox, we could also simply link the search results page from their website, which gives almost 70 articles as well as a bunch about FOX News in general.
2) Put the movie file of Glick as a source at the end of the following sentence: "Guest Jeremy Glick accused O'Reilly of using 9/11 to fit his own needs, and stated that President George H. W. Bush trained the Moujahadeen in Afghanistan." (That paragraph should also clarify that O'Reilly apologized immediately after the segment; right now it just says "he".) Also, has anyone watched the movie file to see if it's been edited down at all? If it has, we should get a complete clip so that it's not seen as pro- or anti-.
3) Put "The Life of O'Reilly" as a source at the end of this sentence: "Franken and others have also claimed that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in its more affluent suburb, Westbury." Much of the article deals with his personal background, especially where he grew up, and the Post was the first major newspaper to accuse him of not being from Levittown, so it's a fitting place for it.
4) Put the "Sheer O'Reillyness" article as a source after the following sentence: "FAIR complains that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias."
5) Put the Bostonia article as a source after the following sentence: "While he tends to turn some people away from his show with his brash attitude, he has attracted millions of viewers with his self-described confrontational interviews." Much of the article deals with his attitude and appeal, so this is the perfect place for it.
6) Put the Herald article as a source at the end of this sentence: "His show is famous for its direct, combative approach, with O'Reilly often getting into heated arguments (and sometimes shouting matches) with guests."
7) Remove the Rotten.com link entirely. It's a recap of the disputes with other people already covered ad nauseum throughout this article and the pages already linked. The only sections that seperate it from other articles are the timeline, which has events already covered in the article here, and the list of quotes about the Iraq war, which are more appropriate for WikiQuotes.
Those changes allow us to keep all of the information (aside from the redundant Rotten.com article), and we're only left with 6 links for the external links section, which removes the need for subcategories. Sound good? Beginning 04:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan, and you've already started with Glick. As for my categorisation of links, it was only meant as an intermediate one - so after you implement the Seven Point Plan - :) - I'll review that. The wikiquote was put in the first category simply because it is more "official" than the others, I'll make it more readable once the article links move up to the body text as references. Frikle 05:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Done. I replaced the link to the movie file with a link to the page where the movie can be watched/downloaded, because that just seems to make more sense. "The Life of O'Reilly" was already linked as a source in the article itself (after a quote somewhere, can't recall right now), so I did not include it with the Levittown information. (I did, however, point out that they've questioned his roots, which I think is a fair compromise.) Previously, we had the first mention of FAIR as a direct link to their article on him, so I changed that link to a link to the Wikipedia article on FAIR, and used their article as a source in the next paragraph when talking about what they've accused him of. I also changed his column link, because previously it made it seem like his article is only in the Daily News, and it's actually syndicated by Creators, so linking to them made more sense.
I think it looks really good right now the way it is, and I don't think we need to break up the "External links" section at all. I'll continue to watch for anyone adding new links to the article, and if any are added that are redundant, I'll simply remove them. Also, I'll try to keep adding them in as sources, rather than leaving them in the EL section. Thanks for working on this.  :) It was really needed, and I'm glad it's out of the way now. Beginning 21:17, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal/Conservative views

who the fuck changed the article oreilly factor, one of u left win nut cases

Various observations about article

I've noticed a few things about this article that are worth bringing up. First, much of the section "The O'Reilly Factor" should probably be moved to the article on that show, since it's not really biographical. The information from "After the September 11, 2001 attacks..." is specific to him, but the information prior to that is about the show more than anything else. Is there a way we can condense that down so that it's just about him, and then move the rest to The O'Reilly Factor?

The final line of the 3rd paragraph under "Political opinion" seems to be not fit there, especially since the mix of opinions is discussed later on in the article. I think it would work better if it were edited into the first line of that paragraph: "Although O'Reilly emphasizes that he is an independent thinker by pointing to the politically diverse opinions he espouses, this claim is intensely disputed." (I'm not saying that's the best wording; I'm just trying to show an example of what I mean.) Likewise, the 4th paragraph in that section doesn't seem to fit, either. I understand that it's trying to give an example of a liberal opinion, but it's stated shortly thereafter in the list of his political opinions. Is this paragraph necessary, at least in that spot?

The paragraph on Franken naming his show "The O'Franken Factor" seems more appropriate for The O'Reilly Factor than here, since that's what it's playing off of. Thoughts?

The quote from March 23rd, 2001 is confusing me. Is this something FAIR has specifically pointed out, or is it something that someone here on Wikipedia is pointing to? Although I can figure it out, should we explain why FAIR objects to that specific statement (rather than a general "they don't like the way he frames things"), assuming they have? At the least, remove the "both sides on this in a moment" part of the quote, since it's not necessary and just takes up more space.

This quote: "President Bush ran on the slogan 'reformer with results'...that sounds good to me." I'm sure we could also find something positive O'Reilly said about Clinton, or Gore, or Kerry, or any other Democrat. Again, is this a specific criticism from FAIR? If it is, we should say that it is an example of something they complained out; otherwise, it gives the impression that's an example we (writers) found for the purpose of using it in this article. Also, should we not have a rebuttal from O'Reilly? Point out he's said positive things about Democrats? For every criticism, I really do think we should have a rebuttal from O'Reilly simply to main NPOV. Right now, we don't seem to be doing that in each case. We're giving examples of statements groups (I'm assuming) have pointed to, but nothing to refute them as well.

When we talk about O'Reilly speaking at the "Restoration Weekend" event, we don't give dates. We also don't say what it was he spoke about. We get the impression it was part of the GOP convention — it wasn't affiliated, though it was held nearby — nor do we have any idea what the "Restoration Weekend" is all about. For all the reader knows, he could have been there to "give the other side" — we don't know, and it's never said. (Of course, I don't actually think he was, but nothing's to say he was giving a "Vote Bush" speech, either.) Are we saying it was the content of the speech that shows conservatism, or simply his attendance? I have found all of 3 mentions of this speech so far on Google, and none give any more information than what we have here.

The "apology to the nation": does this really warrant its own section, or should it be condensed down to a line or two somewhere else? I can see this being simply "O'Reilly said that if no weapons were found, he'd apologize, and he did on..." The rest can go to WikiQuotes. I don't think this needs its own section at all, though I suppose I could be wrong. Paragraph, maybe, but not section.

Some minor things I'd like to see: the spelling of "Moujahadeen" changed, since this is the only article on Wikipedia that uses that spelling, and use of American or European date styles consistently (month, day, year or day, month, year).

For the record, I'd like to point out that I'm neither liberal or conservative (I'm actually nonpolitical), nor do I think O'Reilly's wonderful or evil. I'm just finding a lot of areas that could use improvement in this article, in my opinion. Beginning 04:56, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

You've written a lot for our consideration. I'd recommend just making the changes you think are appropriate and see if they fly. Making a change will provoke more response than trying to debate it first. Just don't do them all at once, though. Make them one at a time. If you make a change and hear nothing, you know you've done good work. --Nysus 07:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi Nysus. I see you're new to Wikipedia, so welcome. Sometimes, when someone wants to make some major changes to an article, it's good to mention them on the Talk page first before going ahead with them. Often, someone will make a huge change just to see it reverted a few minutes later due to no one else agreeing with it. Since the changes I'm proposing involve deleting and/or moving large pieces of content, especially almost the entire O'Reilly Factor section, I feel it's important to mention it here first. Also, since I don't know the answers to other questions I've brought up — information on the Restoration Weekend being a good example — I can't very well change anything in the article until I've gotten answers from others. Thanks for your tips, but I'm pretty comfortable here already. Beginning 22:17, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Most recent topics

The first paragraph talks about his most recent topics. They are a bit dated. A regular O'Reilly viewer should either update these or the sentence should be changed to say something like: "Some past controvertial topics include..."

Mention of "Outfoxed" in first paragraph

I agree that we should acknowledge that O'Reilly draws a lot of lightning from critics in the first paragraph. But to single out one movie that holds one opinion about the guy in the lead paragraph isn't the best way to do this. Why not simply say he's controversial and let the section that is set up to address that aspect of O'Reilly cover the details?

Also, it seems very odd to mention "Outfoxed" in an introduction to Bill O'Reilly and then not discuss it anywhere else in the article. However, even if it were discussed at length, I still don't think it should be mentioned in the first paragraph.

--Nysus 07:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points, but I don't think that saying he's "controversial" is specific enough; specifically, most criticisms of him are that he is conservative, and they come from people for whom "conservative" is a criticism. I mentioned Outfoxed as an example, to show that it's mainly liberals who criticize him for being too conservative. Is there a better way to phrase it? I thought it better to source the criticism, rather than simply attribute it to "critics", or "liberal critics". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:50, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
You run into a problem when you use the generalization that "most" criticism of him are that he is conservative. How do you objectively measure this?
Also, imagine if "Unfit for Command" was featured in the introductory paragraph to John Kerry. Does it really belong there? Wouldn't you think the person who put it there had an axe to grind?
And as far as "controversial" not being specific, well, it's the introductory paragraph. It's not supposed to be specific. If people want to find out why he is controversial, they can read on.
--Nysus 07:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, for example, a Google search on "Bill O'Reilly" +conservative turns up ~89,000 hits, many of which appear to be criticisms/exposés (see e.g. [11], from FAIR or [12]). Apparently, he's been featured on Democratic Underground's "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" several times, and so on. This appears to be a main vein of the criticism against him, and simply saying he's "controversial" doesn't inform. The lead section should at least sum up the "liberal vs. conservative" section of the article, which is quite long; anything less seems like trying to disguise the argument, and presents O'Reilly's view (that he's an independent) as fact, without mentioning the counter-claim. I'd be more open to editing out the Outfoxed and replacing it with a generic "liberal critics", though I think you can justify its inclusion, given that it seems to be one of the more prominent criticisms of O'Reilly. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:08, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
To bring up the John Kerry analogy again, imagine if the first paragraph said that "...many critics charge he is untrustworthy and have published a book "Unfit for Command."
It's true that many people charge he is being disingenuous when he says that he is an independent. And whether he is or isn't "independent" is completely subjective. What does "independent mean anyway? However, he does call himself an independent. That's why the "self-proclaimed" qualifier is there.
And actually, if I had it my way, none of this stuff would be in the first paragraph. It would look more like the Michael Moore article with just a quick, one-sentence blurb that talked about what he does for a living. And, yup, [John Kerry] gets the same kind of terse treatment in wikipedia. Seems like bios should have a consistent format. I prefer the straight and to the point type.
Makes sense. I've removed "He is a self-proclaimed political independent who has become a controversial figure in American politics." from the lead, keeping the rest intact--is this satisfactory? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:39, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Works for me.

Paris Business Review

While I agree that a mention of the France boycott is absolutely appropriate, either here or over at The O'Reilly Factor, we again should include a rebuttal so we're not just giving one side. O'Reilly has since given a different name for the publication, and stated that it was this other business journal in France that backed up his opinion. (He's given the name, but I can't recall what it is.) O'Reilly also had a guest on from said publication, and he's had at least one government official from France on saying that his boycott has somehow affected their economy, though the official blamed their problems on a worldwide recession, as well. Also, while the Media Matters link is good to include as a source, the other two are simply satirical and don't provide any information at all beyond what the MM article has. Because of this, I'm going to reduce the sources down to just the MM link; feel free to discuss if you disagree. We could always make a Paris Business Review article to cover that topic more in-depth. Beginning 22:35, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I can certainly attest that there is no business journal of note called Paris Business Review. In any case, O'Reilly's boycott certainly has not influenced significantly France's economy. More than O'Reilly's dubious economic quotes, I find it significant about him that he pretended to seriously affect one of the world's largest economies with such a boycott. David.Monniaux 07:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There's no debate over whether or not there's a publication by that name. There isn't one, he either lied or gave the wrong name (depending on who you're getting info from), and that's that. My issue was that, like so many parts of this article, his side of the argument wasn't given. Also, while your personal impression of his actions isn't one I'm going to say is wrong (it is pretty incredible to think that one man's boycott, even if he is watched by millions, would affect the economy so drastically), I'd like to keep the content based on just facts and not inferences regarding his personal character, so I'm glad you didn't include that type of content in your work. One question for you: is the figure of $1.4 trillion based on the Euro, the American dollar, or something else? It needs to be clarified which unit of currency that's based on. Any insight on that would be much appreciated. Beginning 18:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
Dollar, based on 1999 CIA Factbook info (current stats are probably different, but that's not significant since the point is to contrast the real impact of the boycott with total US/France trade and the size of the French economy).
I think indeed that the reader may draw the inferences him/herself. My opinion is that O'Reilly panders to naive and nationalistic followers of his, that believe that the whole world lives off the US' largesses (as shown by his argument that the French tourism industry relied on US visitors - who are a small minority).
I've corrected your figure to have it reflect the 2003 estimate of 1.654 trillion. It is significant because we're supposed to be showing the effect of the boycott (or lack thereof), not what the French economy was like 4 years prior to it. As for readers drawing the inferences themselves, that's fine; I just don't want us including our own. I think the section on this subject is adequate now, anyway, since 4 paragraphs on one event in the man's life seems to be more than enough in many ways. Thanks for your work. Beginning 14:51, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I think that an approximate quote was more than enough to show the discrepancy between the alleged impact and the total size of the economy (i.e. even if successful it would be a drop in the bucket).
I think that these incidents deserve the full paragraphs they use. Bill O'Reilly is a man whose life would be thoroughly unworthy of encyclopedic attention if he did not take highly inflammatory positions, and I find this one pretty illustrative. David.Monniaux 21:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This "article" on O'Reilly is clearly biased against him and reduces the credibility of Wikipedia as an "encyclopedia." Articles like this one will cause the whole encyclopedia to become a laughingstock if it is allowed to remain the way it is.

Hello Bill. I think that this article is fair, if not generous to O'Reilly. If you see bias or inaccuracy, then edit. The odd mistake, rather than making Wikipedia a laughingstock, will remind readers that, like other encyclopedias, Wikipedia is fallible. However, if readers understand the reliability of Wikipedia, then they will find it a useful resource. Tim Ivorson 07:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article claims that Bill O'Reilly said that he got the information from another publication. However, this is the only place on the entire Internet where I have seen such a claim, and whoever wrote that part of the article did not say what the publication's name was. I think this part of the article is highly suspect and should either be removed or should have a link to a source.

He has said numerous times on his radio and television programs that he used the wrong name for the publication. The reason the article doesn't name another publication is because he hasn't named another publication. Beginning 20:16, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Ludacris

Could someone add the dispute with Pepsi and with rapper Ludacris to Disputes with individuals? (Or somewhere, given that part of the debate is with a company.) It's in Ludacris' article, but not here; I think it's fairly notable. 130.63.100.99 04:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update Photo

Can somebody get a newer photo? The one used currently is fairly old, and he looks a lot different now.

I don't think he looks that different. When was the picture taken? Seems fine to me. Beginning 22:15, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

External links

Good lord, "Beginning", you have really worked on this article haven't you? I'll categorize the external links again, you may like disorder, I don't like it.--Jerryseinfeld 07:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are few things in life more annoying that writing up a long response to someone, hitting "Save page," and having your computer freeze up. Here we go again, with ever so different wording.  :)
One of the problems that we've had with this article in the past is that the "External links" section has gotten a little out of control, mainly because of the many articles about O'Reilly that have been linked. We've had people linking articles multiple times, linking outdated articles, linking articles that don't seem to have much to do with anything relevant, etc. The way we've been dealing with this problem for months now is by adding in all links to individual articles, media files, and the like as sources within the article itself, and not to the EL section. (That's why I directed you to Talk in my edit comment; there's a discussion about this somewhere up there.) The only links we add to the EL section are ones to main websites and directories.
Another reason we've been doing this is because we've had a lot of questions about sources come up in the past (Talk should give you a feel for this). People have a tendency to add in new information about him, but not show where they got that info from. Because of this, we try to keep all sources with the information we took from them. For example, I removed your link to the C-SPAN media file and placed it in the article with the information on his fight with Franken. It is a logical place for the information, since the reader can immediately go see the video file if they'd like, and it also gives a definite source for our writing. This is a method that is used at many articles on Wikipedia, and not just at this one.
Additionally, it makes very little sense to break up four links (or six, as it stands right now) into four separate sections. This actually adds to the so-called disorder, in my opinion, and isn't beneficial in any way. If you would like to clearly state that the OReilly-Sucks.com link is to criticism, a simple note of " -- criticism" after the link should suffice. The media file you have again linked to is now already linked within the article itself, so readding the link is simply redundant.
Finally, it's minor, but the BusinessWeek article you've linked to is factually inaccurate on various levels, which is something O'Reilly himself has criticized it for in a letter to their editor. It gets the genders of his children wrong, how many books Doubleday has published wrong, his yearly income wrong, the economic impact of his various enterprises wrong (according to him), etc. As such, it probably shouldn't be linked from this article to begin with. Unfortunately, BusinessWeek no longer has his letter on their website, but some of those statements are clearly wrong just from the information in our Wikipedia article.
I don't mind adding new links to the article; in fact, I love it when people do, because I like having sources. However, we've had a standard way of doing it for months now, and I think that way works best. If nothing else, the redundant link to the C-SPAN file should be removed. I'll leave my comment here for a day or two so people can weigh in if they'd like, but I'll probably end up reverting your edits again for consistency's sake. I believe they make the article more disorganized, and that the way we've been doing things for a long time is the best way.
(Also, while I realize the latter part of your comment was snark, I hope the first wasn't. Yes, I've made a lot of edits here, but it's because I try to keep the article orderly, well-sourced, and accurate, and not because I'm some Super O'Reilly Stalker or something.  ;) I don't consider myself a huge fan, but he's a lightning rod and I try to make sure the article stays — forgive me — "fair and balanced.") Beginning 15:55, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
Due to no one voicing any objections to the long-standing rule of thumb, I have reverted your edits. I added in a "criticism" note next to the OReilly-Sucks.com link, and I have removed the BusinessWeek link due to it containing factual inaccuracies that would be misleading to readers. If someone can think of a good argument for adding it back in, feel free to share. Beginning 16:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Virginity?

Since there's currently a mini-revert war going on over this one, I'm not going to delete it without discussing it first. However, is the info one when the guy says he lost his virginity really relevant in any way? He probably eats spaghetti, too, but it's not like that's a major part of his background or important for readers to know. The other info in this section (former jobs, athletic achievements, degrees, family, etc.) is important in his history, but his virginity? Does this actually belong in an encyclopedia article? I can see it in a porn star's bio, but here? Beginning 23:35, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Move

I think this pageshould be located at Bill O'Reilly and that Bill O'Reilly should be moved to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) - the cricket player is not as notable, is linked on 4 pages (not including lists and user pages). The talk show host is linked on over 40 articles (again not including lists, user pages and redirects) and is the person most people would be looking for if they entered Bill O'Reilly in a search - we could include a line at the top referring to the cricket player. Trödel|talk 16:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seconding this motion. 66.36.144.114 18:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

US France trade increased

I removed (temporarily)

A CBC documentary concerning Fox News noted that two years after the start of O'Reilly's boycott, US-France trade had increased.

I think this should be included if we can find a decent reference on it - this is a contested issue and we should at least have an external reference on it. Trödel|talk 12:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reference: On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television newsmagazine the fifth estate, broadcast an investigative documentary show entitled, Sticks and Stones. [13] See also: [14]. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002." [15]--Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

O'Reilly's claim about "The Paris Business Review" also needs to be added to the article. --Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Churchill on other Networks:

CNN: NY Times:
ABC News MSNBC

Of course the lack of lead stories from the other networks demonstrates their bias. Symes 01:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV nonsense

Old Right removed the following from the list of conservative views, "Believes gays and lesbians should stay closeted about their sexual orientation, though he says that he does not feel there is anything wrong with them." Without insisting on its inclusion, I would like more details of why it was removed. I thought that it was basically true. Was it expressed in the wrong words? Was it in the wrong place? Doesn't it merit inclusion? Tim Ivorson 07:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree - this should stay in - I have heard him on his radio program say something very close to this. It accurately reflects his view and is an unusual postion to take. Trödel|talk 12:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should it be in the list of traditionally conservative views, if it is unusual? Tim Ivorson 09:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is a good point - there are a few of his views that are not clearly liberal or conservative - e.g. his view on gay marriage - he supports it if it is voted for by "the people" - though he hasn't been clear whether that means by legistlature or by ballot initiative - but opposes it if imposed by courts. In many ways this is a more principaled postion since it can have opposing results in different states. Trödel|talk 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not nonsense or POV -- that's his stated position. Revert is warranted. 66.36.130.75 00:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global warming and EPA

I think the two liberal points "Supports raising automobile fuel efficiency standards due to his belief in global warming" and "Supports a large and well-funded Environmental Protection Agency" should be merged into one. They are both related to his environmental belief, in fact I'm sure that his stated position on the EPA is related to global warming (besides, where is the source?) If we're going to name support for a particular agency/organization as a single point, why not have a "Opposes the ACLU" as a conservative viewpoint? I think the best thing to do would be to merge to two above points. Comments? 66.36.137.246 23:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Supporting the EPA, and opposing global warning are both related to his belief that we have a responsibility to care for the earth. Thus, they should be seperate. Additionally, I would support adding opposes the ACLU that is clear. Finally I don't think we need a specific reference since it is his widely stated view repeated many times. Not some random off-hand comment he made once or twice on one of his shows. Trödel|talk
Sounds good, EPA will stay and ACLU will be added. 66.36.144.93 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Levittown/Al Franken/growing up controversy

This has been brought up before, but I think the whole 'Levittown' controversy should be dramatically shortened, ASAP. It was a pretty big issue for O'Reilly (though not the biggest), and has never been fully resolved, so it certainly deserves a mention - but three paragraphs? And while Al Franken has done much to raise the issue, it feels out of place in that section of the article, at least at it's current length.

So I move to clean it up very soon.

  • done and done. Length actually increased by a few sentences, but it's been moved to a new area - 'General Disputes', at the end of the controversy section. Makes a lot more sense there, IMO.

Immortal Technique who?

"Harlem rapper Immortal Technique, who isn't signed with any major labels and vows he never will has thrown harsh criticism O' Reilly's way, calling him a racist who tries to be a patriot."

Is this relevant? This sounds like self-promotion, as do the main site for Immortal Technique and his Wikiquotes site. As I am not familiar with the genre of music, I don't really know.

I'm not sure if Immortal Techique's criticism of O'Reilly is notable, but he's had national radio play in the UK and I'm sure that he deserves a mention on Wikipedia. Tim Ivorson 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


Can the language be cleaned up and perhaps expanded, then? It seems almost "slangy".


What, no Hypocrisy?

It is truly amazing that so many anecdotes of blatant hypocrisy are described in this article yet not once is the actual word hypocrisy used. Jeez, we can't even say the sky is blue these days on Wikipedia what with all the neo fascist admins.

In a pointless and futile exercise to correct this distortion, I attempted to add the following trivia, which will no doubt be deemed POV by the NPOV Nazis:

"Franken has also played clips from O'Reilly's audio book reading of his novel containing graphic scenes of sexual perversion, to illustrate the hypocrisy Franken finds in O'Reilly's criticisms of rap music lyrics."
  • To be honest, I think something of what you are saying deserves inclusion in the article. However, I believe that a centered, uninflamatory approach has yet to be taken. Yeago 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing of it is, ya see... the thing of it is... it is not possible to be neutral about O'Reilly, once you've seen him in action. And that's the way he wants it. He is, at heart a muckraker and an attention-seeker. You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take the Inside Edition out of the boy. Likewise for being a New York City Irish Catholic. He loves a fight. He lives for it. And as long as his ratings go up, that's all that matters. It is not possible to write a neutral article about him unless you keep it to the bare facts, which would make it about 1 or 2 sentences. I wonder: Does this enyclopedia have a category called "Lightning Rods"? Wahkeenah 12:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What, no loofah or falafel explanation?

I keep reading and hearing jokes about O'Reilly confusing falafel with a loofah[16] or something, yet there is no mention of either in the WP O'Reilly article. As it seems to be such a popular association with O'Reilly it would deserve at least a politically-correctified and hyper-NPOV-sanitized mention, imho, to aid all of us who missed the original reference.

Tabloid TV anchor

Bill "O'Liely" is the same man he was on Inside Edition

Chris Burke?

I'm really confused about the whole part about Chris Burke. The link links to the actor from Life Goes On. Is this really supposed to be right? Fluent in Russian, a Fulbright Scholar, friends with Putin and going on the O'Reilly Factor to talk about disarming? Where is any of this coming from?

The whole section should be removed.

O'Reilly Has Disputes With Half the Human Race

Is there anyone this man isn't currently at war with? At what point will the list honestly stop growing? Within a year I guarantee there will be 10 more names on that list.

By the way, Cindy Sheehan and Ward Churchill both belong on that list.

Explanation of Removal

I have removed the "libertarian view" that O'Reilly believes in "medical marijuana being legalized". O'Reilly has contradicted himself several times on this issue, claiming that the legalization of medical marijuana in California was "outrageous" and cited it as a act of "judicial activism" by the courts, but only complained that even with voters legalizing it, it was "radical". It doesn't matter if he has said at some point that he believes it should be legal, because if he's also saying it should be illegal that means it deserves no mention because you can't take one particular instance of his rhetoric seriously. O'Reilly is full of shit and won't make a definite stand on the issue because he wants to pander to conservatives.

I have additionally removed the claims that he supports gay marriage and a "social safety net". I removed the gay marriage claim because it's a blatant contradiction of remarks he has made over the years that gay marriage is "ridiculous" and "radical". This is another issue he has contradicted himself on, hence you can't claim that he supports it if he is also claiming that he doesn't support it. It deserves no mention since he has not made himself definite on the stance. Or if you want to mention, mention that he has contradicted himself, and his real stance is incredibly ambiguous. As for the "social safety net", I removed that on the basis that it was a "liberal view". The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in social programs, and O'Reilly is against welfare. He doesn't point out any particular "safety net" that he supports which conservatives generally don't. Even most conservatives tend to support social security, limited welfare and things like medicaid. Hence it isn't a liberal view. He's stated he's against universial health care, because he doesn't think he should have to pay for health coverage for "crack addicts" and "people who lead lives that don't deserve sympathy for what happens to them, my tax dollars should not pay for that". Things along those lines would be considered a social safety net and he doesn't support them. That makes him a moderate at best. That is not a liberal view, hence it has been removed until someone can point out a specific social program he supports that conservatives oppose and not simply liberals support, because social security is generally supported by a majority of both sides, even if some want to see it "modified". No one wants to tear it down.