Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)/Archive 7

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 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →


Contents

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 [[1]] 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 [[2]] 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 [3] -- 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 [4]. 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)