Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Acts of intimidation 2 About controversies section... 3 Spouse and Children 4 WP:BLP 5 NBC News 6 Requested move redux 6.1 Survey 6.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 6.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 6.2 Discussion 7 Vandalism Abounds 8 Bias 9 Very Long 10 Snoop Dogg vs. Bill O'Reilly 11 Vibrator 12 Media Matters 13 Kool Aid 14 High status idiot? 15 Name Calling (Part II) (Added more names to the list) 16 Anon comment 17 The Simpsons have a feud with Fox News 18 Dead Reference Link 19 No reference link 20 Disambiguation page isn't needed 21 biography by kitman -why is this here? 22 External links 23 Military Service 24 Merge proposal removed 25 Reducing the Controversies and Criticism Section 26 reference 30 doesnt go anywhere 27 New Wikipedia Technology: Countdown with Keith Olberman 28 Did O'Reilly say: "He does not have a right to be in this country" on the air. 29 Can we all agree he is a conservative? 30 Daily Kos 31 youtube as a reliable source 32 Media Matters as source 33 April Pruning

Acts of intimidation

Several months ago Rosie and Joy alluded to Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit. This is what happened next according to Rosie at rosie.com:

“

when joy and i alluded to bill oreillys sex scandal on the view we were told the following day that we couldn’t bring it up anymore or else bill o would “go after” all the hosts of the view

”

Legal filings about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit are here.

Bill O'Reilly has also threatened NBC in an effort to silence and later fire Keith Olbermann for his remarks regarding Bill.

Are you requesting or suggesting this Rosie feud be placed in the article? If so, be bold and do so yourself. But if it is just here for gossip or discussion purposes, I'm afraid it doesn't belong as it goes against the guidelines of WP:TALK. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Bill O'Reilly has become obsessed with Rosie O'Donnell. He has had five segments this week to Rosie even though The View has not been on since Friday of last week. On Monday he advised Rosie to stop the personal attack, an obvious reference to the above quote. Since Rosie posted that message Bill has gone after her like she said. I think this needs to go in the controversies section.

I am removing HagermanBot's above comment, see WP:ISNOT BATTLEGROUND Elementalos 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the HagermanBot didn't leave that comment! :) Bad HagermanBot! Bad! MoodyGroove 15:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

About controversies section...

O'Reilly's appearance at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children event was not, in fact, canceled by the NCMEC. A subsequent correction to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article from the Tuesday, February 22 edition, page A2 (it does not appear to be available online), states:

Representatives of Bill O'Reilly and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children say the TV show host canceled his appearance at a fundraiser scheduled in Naples, Fla., next month. A story in the Metro section Friday incorrectly stated that the organization, which had received complaints about O'Reilly's on-air comments concerning Shawn Hornbeck, had removed O'Reilly as its speaker. The article also incorrectly stated that O'Reilly representatives would not comment. Prior to publication, no one from the show had responded to a reporter's phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.

To that end, I have removed this erroneous information from the article. 68.166.139.133 19:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Does "The Colbert Report" really fit there? I mean, I know it belongs in the article, but I hardly see how it fits in the controversies section, O'rielly doesn't really seem to mind the parody, and I highly doubt he would remain silent about it if he didn't like it. He has even commented that he likes "The Colbert Report". Perhaps it could be placed somewhere else.--Metasex 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly has two choices: appear to have no problem with it (and make the "issue" of how he feels about it go away) or complain about being professionally and competently mocked (which Colbert is doing, virtually 100% of the time), and appear to be an oversensitive whiner who couldn't handle having a mirror placed in front of him, which is how he appeared dealing with Franken's spot-on criticisms of a few years ago. Regardless of O'Reilly's public attitude towards Colbert, I think it belongs in this section, because it's an accurate satirization and mockery of O'Reilly, and many of his fans and apologists gun for Colbert frequently.-- Info999 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The "Limbaugh blurb" as MrMurph101 calls it is not a quote from Limbaugh, it's a quote from O'Reilly, and it's about how according to O'Reilly, he is a "journalist" and should therefore be held to journalistic standards. Please stop deleting this text, as it's a key quote for this section to understand how O'Reilly is "fair game" for his critics, who frequently demonstrate O'Reilly's playing fast and loose with the truth.-- Info999 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Info999, O'Reilly is comparing himself to Rush Limbaugh and saying that Limbaugh is held to entertainment standards whereas O'Reilly himself is held to journalistic standards. Personally I see it as a nullification of Limbaugh's credibility. Essentially O'Reilly is saying Limbaugh is free to not know what he's talking about, but as a journalist O'Reilly has to "know the facts" for lack of a better term. Anynobody 10:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the Limbaugh blurb quoting an O'Reilly opinion(which I never mentioned was Limbaugh's opinion by the way) should be completely deleted from the article. I just thought it was misplaced and misused. As it is stated now it is ok but this criticism should be elaborated more. Just stating an O'Reilly opinion as it did originally should have been put in the personal views section. I believe the gist of this criticism is how some believe he is an objective journalist when in reality he is a guy who presents his opinion with guests that may debate or concur with him. This part just should have been explained better. MrMurph101 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The new statement looks like an improvement, it started to sound like all mention of it was to be removed. Anynobody 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand that the Controversy & Criticisms section can have more in it than simply direct criticisms; the overwhelming majority of criticisms of O'Reilly stem from the fact that he continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false. The inclusion of the quote from O'Reilly helps to place these criticisms in context; if comedian Rush Limbaugh isn't held to a factual standard, perhaps others may be encouraged to let O'Reilly off the hook as well, telling us that we're making too much of the situation. That O'Reilly opens the door to hold himself to the "journalistic standard" is certainly relevant here. And Murph: you may not have wanted to communicate this point, but when you said "took out Limbaugh blurb, states an opinion of O'Reilly", your sentence construction means that you think Limbaugh said it about O'Reilly. If you had meant that you understood it to be an O'Reilly quote, you should have used "...states an opinion of O'Reilly's." Also, if you never meant that it should be "completely deleted from the article" - why did you in fact completely delete it from the article? Why not simply move it, and explain your reasoning? Sounds to me like you fell on the wrong side of the prevailing wisdom and then tried to scramble back and agree with us from the start. Very much like O'Reilly!  :) (just a joke, not a personal attack).--Info999 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false. If that were so there would be a lot better examples to go by here that go beyond what advocacy groups like Media Matters come up with. There are those out there that claim all his critics have been immediately proven to be false and that is POV also. People can decide which side to believe if any. As for the article, in hindsight I should have explained my intentions and that was my bad. I believe it is the goal in wikipedia to reach consensus, not have everything my way or any certain way and be inflexible. I was just trying to keep the article section from getting bloated with tangential references. For instance, I concur with Metasex's take on the Colbert reference. Until Colbert actually goes on record as saying "I do not like O'Reilly and I'm here to mock him" (the real person, not the character), it's POV and original research(connecting the dots) to consider it crticism. Colbert is just a comedian at this point. The Colbert Report is mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article and has been for quite some time. As for my edit summary on Limbaugh, here it is: "took out Limbaugh blurb, states an opinion of O'Reilly, nothing really controversial or any criticism noted" I probably should have used "O'Reilly('s)" instead to make it more clear. The sentence in the article at the time just stated something without elaborating. However, the entry is now better so I do not have any issue with it. That is our goal, to make articles better as we go on. MrMurph101 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom you're referring when you say "it is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false." I never said that, and I never even came close to saying that. What I said was that O'Reilly "continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false." This is a true statement of fact. For several years, analysts, critics and journalists have demonstrated instances where O'Reilly made a claim of fact that turned out to be false. I'm not talking about opinions, political beliefs/stances, or predictions - I'm talking about things that O'Reilly have said were facts which were proven not to be so, from the Peabody to Malmedy and so on. These are not things that "people can decide which side to believe" - they are instances where O'Reilly is demonstrably wrong. I never stated, either in this discussion or in the article, any sense of how often he does this, only that he does "continually" (meaning he has done so in the past, and despite being called on it, correctly, again and again, continues to do so) - which is true.

In terms of Colbert, if you don't think a criticisms section belongs here, you're entitled to that opinion. If it belongs, however, then the three most significant critics of O'Reilly - Media Matters, Franken and Colbert - belong. And as a side note, claiming that Colbert is "just a comedian at this point" underestimates his (and Jon Stewart's, to whom Colbert has to be seen as connected to understand his signifigance) importance to current political discourse and political/journalistic criticism. You may not like them - that seems pretty clear - but it's naive to dismiss either as "simply a comedian."--Info999 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned anything about Jon Stewart, whom would be a much better example of a critic of O'Reilly. By the way, I enjoy both Stewart and Colbert and I do like them. However, Colbert has not engaged in any true commentary as Stewart has done on occasion. One day Colbert may get serious and say what he really feels and therefore whatever criticisms he has would certainly be credible. Right now it is a major assumption to say he is a critic of O'Reilly.

As for the statement you said, I reread it and I'll revise my statement. You stated "...the overwhelming majority of criticisms of O'Reilly stem from the fact that he continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false." To say it's the "overwhelming majority" is POV. One could counter after being on for over 10 years with somewhere over 100 airings per year, give or take, that the amount of factual errors is pretty low. Also, the New York Times had to issue a correction about his statement refering to Cindy Sheehan as a traitor. One could easily find a list of factual errors made about O'Reilly if they wanted to. I'm not here to be an O'Reilly apoligist. If pro-O'Reilly people kept taking out everything that he has criticized for and turned this into a promotional page I would revert that too. Edits should ultimately be about improving the article, not proving a point one way or the other. MrMurph101 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Satire is usually thinly veiled criticism. If you watch the show as you say you have, what Colbert is saying should be pretty clear. Deepstratagem 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Spouse and Children

Given the numerous personal threats to Mr. O'Reillys safety (including the FBI's private meeting with O'Reilly mentioning that was under threat at one point from some terrorists), I think it would be humane to remove the neames of his wife and children from this article.

–Can his claim of terrorist treats be verified? Or is this simply his ego talking and he is simply trying to make himself seem more important than he really is? Who else is on this so-called list? Cbbs70a 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If his wife is already famous-- then at very least his childrens names should be removed from this article.

Also-- why do we need to know where he currently lives? Many Wiki articles do not list where famous people live (some do but many don't). The FBI has warned O'Reilly of threats against him, so why not show a little discretion and kindness here?

I therefore suggest that name of his town of residence along with the names of his children be removed from this article.

71.208.226.116 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

71.208.226.116 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the inclusion of the name of Mr. O'Reilly's wife and children is necessary. First, they are not notable in and of themselves. Second, Mr. O'Reilly has gone to great lenghths to keep their identities private. Third, there is no strong precedent of placing persons spouses and especially children in articles about them. Would anyone object to the removal of the names from the infobox per the privacy provisions of WP:BLP? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not know he was married so that part seems important. It is interesting to me that his wife's last name is not O'Reilly. Timothy Clemans 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The test is whether it is notable, not solely importance. In addition, the importance of her name, is up for debate. That being said, if there is no objection in the next few days, I will delete the name of his children per the privacy provisions of WP:BLP. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure I was just to know that he is married and has kids. Timothy Clemans 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would note that he is married, as it affects his positions, particularly on child advocacy, but if she is not noteworthy, her name should not be mentioned. Bytebear 06:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

His wife's last name is O'Reilly. She used to host A Current Affair.

WP:BLP

I object to the Colbert's description of his character as a ""well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot." This description of Colbert's character has no relevance to O'Reilly, except as to backhandedly call O'reilly these names. Such a characterization violates WP:BLP. When it comes to BLP, NO information is preferred over non-sourced negative information. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramsquire: you win. Looking over your "contributions" and your discussions not only on this article but on several others, I can see that you're a committed conservative idealogue, doing whatever you can to protect and enhance the reputations of famous conservative idealogues, while trying to make it look like you're "only following wiki policy" ("...only following orders" can't be far off for folks like you). I personally find that reprehensible, and won't spend any more energy fighting you over the trivialities of your hero Bill.--Info999 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deepstratagem 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very disappointed in both Info999 and Deepstratagem's dive right into personal attacks and incivillity. Considering I explain my position, the fact that neither of you wishes to even discuss it without the PA's is very telling. Good luck to both of you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem. Amazing how some people think the legitimate political spectrum extends from liberal to moderate, with conservatism being a question of abnormal psychology. It makes no difference whatsoever what articles Ramsquire contributes to, unless there is a pattern of tendentious editing, which is not an accusation to be made lightly. If you're here to stigmatize or injure Bill O'Reilly, then you may have difficulty writing his encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view and fairness of tone. MoodyGroove 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Ramsquire in order to say it has no relevance to Mr. O'Reilly, I think we have to first ask: Is Stephen Colbert parodying Bill O'Reilly's mannerisms and style? Many people in the media think he is. (I tend to agree with them, but Colbert doesn't seem to be able to capture the emotion BOR exudes when he gets really angry.) If he is, then how Mr. Colbert describes his character is relevant to BOR because it shows Mr. O'Reilly has gained enough attention that he now has spawned a parody of his show. After all, without Bill O'Reilly to parody the Colbert Report would not exist. If Mr. Colbert is not parodying BOR, I'm curious to know how you explain issues like the "Papa Bear" talk and Mr. Colbert's spoof of Mr. O'Reilly's talking points segments? Anynobody 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I am arguing that Colbert should be included in the article. However the description of the character as a ""well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot" must be shown to be clearly relevant to O'Reilly or else it comes off as an implied insult to BO, which would violate BLP.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that Colbert is parodying his styles. It is another thing to say that he is parodying him by acting like an uninformed idiot. If I have to explain why that is wrong according to Wikipedia policy, then I don't think that you deserve to be told, but I'll do it anyway. It violates WP:NPOV, and it is up to individual interpretation, making it OR. Problem solved? 声援 -- The Hybrid 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think The Hybrid is seriously missing the point: and that is that no WP editor ever made the comment about Colbert's character being "a well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-class idiot." Colbert himself made the comment, and he was referring to the character that he plays on The Colbert Report and in public appearances. Much (if not most) of The Colbert Report is a satiric parody of O'Reilly and the O'Reilly Factor (including the name of the show, The Word segment, his bizarre novels, his fan web site and fan store, his crusades and boycotts, Colbert Nation, his flights of grandeur, his bluster when faced with inaccuracies, his unabashed and over the top patriotism, the specific manner in which he lobs loaded questions at his studio guests, his claim to be a "man of the people" while clearly having status and money, among others). It is not OR to point out the fact that Colbert is parodying - and, more importantly, criticizing - O'Reilly. Nor is it OR or POV to quote Colbert's characterization of his...well, character. It's integral to his criticism. You cannot cherry-pick only the flattering - or, at worst, the moderately critical - aspects of the public criticism of a figure such as O'Reilly. It's not biased to report and record what is said about him, especially by O'Reilly's (arguably, if for nothing other than level of exposure) most prominent and vocal critic. If the Fox News Half Hour News Hour parodies Michael Moore, and the actor portraying Moore is in a huge fat suit and oversized mask that greatly exaggerates Moore's appearance, and that becomes the most prominent criticism/satire of Moore over a long period of time, then - however unfair, unseemly and unoriginal the parody - it is valid to include the fact of its existence in Moore's WP bio. So is Colbert's show, and his quote. It does not violate WP policy to include relevant, central quotes.--Info999 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Info999 is exactly right, Mr. Colbert's description of his parody of BOR is what it is. The Hybrid there will be times when information which is notable to the person or subject in question will be inherently POV, especially when dealing with quotes. As an example from history, in 1941 Winston Churchill was asked why he was suddenly saying nice things about the Soviet Union after Nazi Germany invaded it. He said, "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Please understand I'm not literally equating Colbert/O'Reilly and Churchill/Hitler on the same historical level, I am pointing out that it's neigh impossible to make a POV concept like an opinion sound NPOV. Anynobody 08:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I did miss the fact that it was a quote. Of course, I wouldn't suggest editing a quote for neutrality, but to create, an overall sense of neutrality for the CR area of the Criticisms section, the quote should be mentioned before a concise mentioning of O'Reilly's general apathy towards the Colbert Report. This is just as a way of saying how he has, or rather hasn't, responded to Colbert calling him an idiot. That seems fair to me. 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid: considering the way you addressed Anynobody up there, I'd say a small apology to them is in order ("...you don't deserve to be told...", snippiness, etc.). You were in the wrong, and you came on strong - stronger, in my opinion, than was warranted, even if you had been correct, which you were not.--Info999 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant it as a general statement, which is why I didn't post it underneath anynobody's statement, but if I offended anybody I apologize. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, Info999 for caring and 声援 -- The Hybrid for apologizing. Personally I hate it when I make an error like that, the only thing worse is somebody giving me a big speech about stuff I already knew because I missed a detail somewhere. Therefore I too must apologize for getting so long winded in my explanation. I'm trying not to offend anyone and it seems to increase the size of my edits. Anynobody 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. that's not a shot at you Info999, as soon as I posted my last edit it occurred to me that size wasn't the issue I was trying to apologize for but for use of big analogies)Anynobody 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe editors here need to keep in mind that because an editor objects to or disagrees with an edit in one form, it does not necessarily mean that said editor wants it gone from the article forever. Part of the consensus approach at Wiki is objecting, discussion, and then suggesting changes to reach a consensus version of an article. If editors refuse to assume good faith with each other, and launch right into personal attacks, then that becomes impossible. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. Which is why I never engaged in any kind of personal attack; I simply stated my opinion that Ramsquire's political ideology was influencing the things that he or she took out or left in on several consevative bio articles. Whether it's correct or not, it's an opinion based on a review of the record, and isn't a personal attack. However, when Ramsquire accused me of attacking him personally (on my talk page), Ramsquire used the term "stupid" to refer to what I did. Who's engaging in personal attacks?--Info999 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPA-- "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ... What Is Considered a Personal Attack? ... "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." (and in this case the attempting affiliation is demonstrably false). I have made almost 2,500 edits here at Wikipedia over the last two years, and less than 10 percent of those edits have been made here, at Ann Coulter (if you read the actual edits, you won't find a political bias-and I was given an NPOV barnstar for my edits), and at FoxNews (because of two RFC's--again no bias in my edits) combined which I believe is where Info is getting it's FALSE information that I am a "committed conservative idealogue". Also on your talk page, my sentence reads in its entirety "Your allusions about my ideology is absolutely wrong and stupid in this context." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If Ramsquire was referring to what you did, which he was, then he wasn't making a personal attack. If he attacked you as a person, then it would have been, but an editor's actions are fair game. In fact, we have a place for editors to tell people that what they have done sucks ;). Also, reminding someone that they were wrong when they had just said that they get why they were wrong is the kind of thing that really turns people off. It didn't bother me, but some people around here get really huge egos, and it would be best to try not to deflate them. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"I did miss the fact that it was a quote." Yeah, because those quote marks are so hard to see. -- Jibal 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody: I'm dropping it - they deserve each other, and Bill. I left an explanation on your Talk page. Thanks!--Info999 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is really sad. One gets no clue from it that O'Reilly is widely known as "O'Lielly" or why. -- Jibal 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NBC News

Shouldn't there be a new section about his continuing criticism of NBC News? -Amit, 03/05/07

Be Bold. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move redux

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Abounds

Apparently some over-enthusiastic O'Reilly haters have vandalized the page again with false information. I move the article be checked for it's neutrality and I will eliminate the offending remarks, of course. 72.198.194.159 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The information that you deleted contained the precise dates of broadcasts, and was sourced. Could you explain why you consider this information to be false? -- Cat Whisperer 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The information that you deleted was not vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL for a definition of what is considered vandalism here at Wikipedia. -- Cat Whisperer 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As no explanation was provided, I've restored the deleted material. -- Cat Whisperer 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is wrong to mess up the page, but I can understand why people are so mad at this guy as he is the evilest human being on the entire earth. Chris 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please leave your illogical bias out of wikipedia Dabomb691 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

O'Reilly has come out as pro-gay rights (he supports civil unions although not gay marriage), opposes the death penalty, is pro-environmentalist, and has called Bill Clinton, a Democrat, a "successful President".

So no-- O'Reilly can not simplistically be called a 'conservative'-- since he takes a mix of moderate liberal and moderate conservative positions.

O'Reilly has also been consistently critical of far-Right figures like Jerry Fallwell for example (O'Reilly defended Falwell from personal attacks after his recent death, but in life he debated with Falwell many times and challenged his extreme-right views numerous times).

So calling O'Reilly 'a conservative' is simplistic and innacurate-- He is Liberal on some issues, Conservative on others, and is generally moderate with a strong overall distrust of extreme-Left and extreme-Right positions.

O'Reilly, more than anything, is an independent and perhaps could also be called a strong centrist as well as a 'traditionalist' -- as he calls himself rather accurately.

O'Reilly is aggressively anti-ideological more than anything else. Which gets him in trouble, but which is very refreshing to many Americans-- which is why he has had the top-rated cable show for many years now. Many people-- Liberal and Conservative-- are tired of far-Left and far-Right politics and their associated ideologies, and O'Reilly has strongly opposed both.

71.208.226.116 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we simply state in the article the obvious conservative bias of O'Reilly? Do we really need to beat around the bush? We could just say he has "many conservative opinions," citing his view on gay marriage, etc., couldn't we? Please comment back! Xredsox14x 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Xdrakemanx

We can't, even though it would probably be accurate, and I'll explain why. There are stricter guidelines surrounding what is said about living people here, WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not supposed to make assertions about people, instead what it can do is cite allegations of bias that are made in notable sources. If he came out and admitted he is a conservative, that would also be safe to add. Anynobody 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly claims to be a "Traditionalist", so some of his views can fall into the conservative area, but if he is going to just be called a "conservative" and potrayed as a right wing nut, then why aren't Keith Olbermann and his like called what they sound like--"left wing liberals?"

I see a clear liberal bias when I look through the pages of the various political personalities here at Wiki, so I can't count on it for factual info.

Conservatives are often potrayed as shady and dishonest with any little scrape they have had blown up and detailed, often inaccurately and unfairly, while liberals and Democrats are potrayed as credible and honest and their records are mainly clean.

O'Reilly is accurate and fair the big majority of the time, but here he is potrayed as more or less a lying unreliable big mouth "conservative" talk show host whose every word and scrape he's been in is scrutinized, while those like sports reporter Keith Olbermann who has spouted much vicious and inaccurate trash at those he disagrees with politically, but works for liberal MSNBC, is labeled a "political commentator" and is potrayed on his page here as totally credible and well mannered.

I saw O'Reilly's segment with Glick when it played originally and I saw what Glick did to tick O'Reilly off. It wasn't long after 9/11 and O'Reilly had no idea Glick was going to go off on an anti American rant and blame 9/11 on Bush, and Glick wouldn't let up when O'Reilly told him they weren't there for that, but in O'Reilly's page here Glick is potrayed as the innocent victim and O'Reilly the bastard.

Every little scrape O'Reilly has had is in his page here and with him potrayed as the bad guy--and many of them where he was not. This is not the case for any liberal commentators. They are mainly portrayed here as credible, upright and polite, and Olbermann just to name one, is sometimes anything but that.

No wonder Conservapedia was created. This site can't be trusted for accurate and fair political info.

Maybe the people who created Conservapedia and yourself should try to be a part of this community and be bold where you see improper edits. However, I suspect that your major problem is that the articles on people like Olberman aren't hit pieces, and this article isn't a brochure for the greatness of O'Reilly. If you have verifiable information about Olbermann, add it to his article. If there is incorrect information in this article about O'Reilly, delete it per WP:BLP. This is an open project, anyone can contribute, so your call of some sort of institutional liberal bias is way off base. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me, so what you "suspect" about me isn't an issue. "Hit piece" is the issue. This is supposed to be an "encyclopedia", not an op-ed page. When I read the pages for "liberal" commentators, they are nice and clean with those commentators looking upstanding and honest and reporting only the facts. Barely a hint of anything negative or to even suggest they are ever biased and full of it when many times they have been. If somebody is to believe what they see here, these are apparently brilliant and objective people and flawless commentators who never stray from the truth or the facts.

Fox is "bold" and leads the others in ratings, and they have "hit pieces" on them regularly from every liberal media avenue. O'Reilly has far larger ratings than Olbermann, and like Fox has many enemies in the liberal camp and in the rest of the media that is largly liberal. He's hit on by them regularly for just about anything he says, and this page looks more like a "hit piece" every time I look at it and find newly added material and new sections highlighting every little scrape and "alleged" lie and scandal he's ever been even close to, with O'Reilly potrayed as the villian every time.

I have seen segments of O'Reilly's show and then later read a totally differing account of his behavior and what was said, and it's usually the new account that becomes the "truth" all over the media. I have even seen clear "jokes" by him potrayed in the liberal camps as "serious" and hateful comments. I don't have a hundred years to correct every error I see at this site. The difference is I don't care to go to "Olbermann's" page and enter any and every stupid or inaccurate or vicious thing I have heard him say, or blow up and try to create controversy from any little thing so to try to discredit him. Olbermann is no threat to me or what I believe. "O'Reilly" has a lot of people who do care to do this, as his page shows, because he apparently is a threat to their views, ratings and politics.

I have added material at this site in other areas like the entertainment field, but it's far too big a job trying to set anything straight in the political area, and one can and likely will just come by and "delete" my entry later on. I understand the point of the Wiki format, but I don't know if there is a point in having it when all is "not" said and done. An "encyclopedia" that can't in it's format give complete and accurate accounts to all subjects fairly is not useful. I don't accuse the Wiki "creators" of bias, but that doesn't change this.

There have been discussions about a liberal bias in the article. Some think that it has one, and others don't. None the less, this is a wiki. If you and other editors from Conservapedia wish to come and attempt to make this article more accurate, and more balanced, than by all means do so. On Wikipedia, any and all contributions made in good faith that better the project are welcome. Assuming that this article does have a liberal bias, I challenge you and other Conservapedians to consider why that is. You may come to realize that it is because the conservative editors that would balance out the liberal ones have gone to Conservapedia, and left this article to fend for itself. The solution to that problem is very simple indeed. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 04:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't represent Conservapedia, I found it as I did Wikipedia. If I find Conservapedia isn't accurate in their facts then it's no different to me than Wikipedia if it isn't. Facts are what I want. I don't care what political views the subject has. It's "hit pieces" I don't like. In this comment area here from the people at this page, most of the people seem to dislike O'Reilly, and I'm sure that feeling goes into their additions to this page.

Even if I wanted to try, I couldn't balance out this or any subject's page alone, and if not enough people do, then it and any of it's type are of limited use to somebody looking for balance and "facts" without negative allegations and speculations in the mix posing as facts. Facts shouldn't be selected or ignored by party lines in an encyclopedia. I don't condemn Wiki or the format, but it's a reality. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.139 (talk • contribs)

Let me clarify me earlier point. You appear to be ready to leave (or to not want to participate) because you feel like the job of balancing is too big for one person. However, if you contributed and stated your opinions on specific items in the talk pages, you might be surprised at the response. Sure many editors here are liberal, but most will listen to your suggestion and try to compromise with you to reach a consensus, and you will almost always find support from someone. Yes, sometimes, you will also be attacked personally and accused of stuff by some editors, but editors who do that are idiots and are outnumbered immensely on this Wiki. My point was be bold, state specific objections, make suggestions. Don't just drive-by, condemn, and move on. That is usually done by extremely biased editors who don't like their guy's article having negative information in it. From your second post, you appear more thoughtful than that, so I apologize for being off base with my initial impression. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors who take action in an attempt to solve a problem that they see generally receive a positive response, regardless of how those watching them feel about it. While other people may disagree with you, they will almost always be willing to talk with you in order to achieve a compromise. Those that aren't are indeed the minority, and are generally not respected. Those that name call will generally have their wiki careers ended by a community sanction down the road. If you tell them what they did in a polite manner, and request that they not repeat the action, then they will probably stop. If they don't, then they are in violation of policy, and you can begin the dispute resolution process. If you are in the right, then you will come out on top. Please consider registering an account and working to improve this article yourself. Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, everyone knows that there is an enormous liberal bias on Wikipedia. It is the internet after all. I personally think that we should treat our articles about living people with some respect on not try to poison them with right or left propoganda. The article should go through some evaluation. In particular, the criticism and political views section. Put aside our opinions and try to achieve a NPOV. --68.173.177.238 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why everyone who simply protests something without explaining, such as the sweeping statement "everyone knows there is an enormous liberal bias" doesn't bother to register? Surely if somebody has something meaningful to say they don't mind being associated with it? Would it be advisable to 'lock' this article so that only users who have bothered to create a Wikipedia account can edit it, given that many of the changes that have caused controversy here have been done by unregistered users? Whisperwolf 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows, including liberals, that there is a huge partisan bias on wikipedia and in the media in general. To dispute this is pretty much ignorant, and Bill himself has done research on it. To suggest locking the forums is also a ridiculous statement, as anonymity is one of the best things the internet has to offer. Dabomb691 04:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha. You don't know what "everyone" knows. You give no sources or citations to back up your POV; don't expect your views to be universally agreed to, simply because you have asserted them. O'Reilly's "research" on such topics is superficial, poorly sourced, and given credibility only by like-minded people who look to him for confirmation of their own bias.

Whisperwolf didn't suggest locking the Talk Page; s/he suggested locking the article.--HughGRex 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed "DaBomb" Provides no evidence of a "liberal media bias" at all. In addition, since Mr. O'Reilly is one of the world's foremost conservative commentators, I would challenge anyone to provide examples of "liberal" viewpoints held and expressed by Bill on his show that would back up his representation on this page as a "moderate". jplatypuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplatypuss (talk • contribs) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Very Long

I noticed this tag {{verylong}} and had a suggestion, create a subpage for the more minor (as determined by a discussion of course) entries to cut down this pages overall length. Anynobody 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea Timothy Clemans 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea makes a lot of sense, I'm just curious as to whether there is any precedence for creating such a subpage. The minor items could be deleted as non-notable, pending discussion, of course. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I had assumed that the move would look something like the creation of the controversies section before, but maybe concentrating on his views and opinions this time. The longer he's on the air the more views he will express, so it seems like a matter of time before it gets bigger and bigger. Anynobody 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Also the criticism section is getting a bit too large considering that it does have a separate subpage. Anynobody 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried to split a section, and this happened. It was a section that bloated the article but it was something worth mentioning so I gave it it's own article. It is still in one of the talk archives though. However, I believe that the Political Beliefs and Points of View should be split into another article because that right now is the largest chunk of the article.MrMurph101 02:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your example is, I think, a good idea caught up under a POV sounding title. Let me explain that I understand there really isn't a left when it comes to him, there's a far left. Supporters of BOR probably saw the use of "Bill's" term as a sort of bait, and detractors may have seen it as BOR propaganda come to Wikipedia.

I've thought about creating a similar category, groups and individuals defined as liberal by BOR. Having seen your experience, maybe one page with all people and groups he has associated with the right/left/center. I have a feeling the liberal section would fill up fast, but if we allow for the possibility of him labeling more groups on the right or in the center it could address any issues with WP:NPOV.

I definitely agree that the Political Beliefs and Points of View needs reorganization first. Anynobody 08:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The list can be found here under the "opinions on other politics" discussion. It includes a few that he thinks are "far right" as well. And yeah, it wasn't the best title for an article but I could not think of any other way to word it at the time. The far left part was a huge list. The problem is if you try to define what positions he has on issues defined as liberal, conservative, or moderate or say whom he considers what political position, someone will come in and say that so and so position is not liberal/moderate/conservative. For example, when the article defined his positions that way, people debated about his view on global warming and whether it was a liberal or moderate position. It is better to just say his position on it and leave it at that.

Coming back to the length issue, I also recommend that anything that is duplicated in the critcism article should be removed here to keep it from blowing up. We should leave a note telling editors to check that article before adding things here. As for the Political Beliefs and Points of View section, are you saying that it should be cleaned up and then split into a new article? I'm for that or just spliting it and working on it there. Either way. MrMurph101 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about people debating the true nature of the identified person/group labeled by BOR. Maybe if the list was defined in a context, like identifying where on the political spectrum he is. This way arguing about how liberal/conservative a group/person REALLY is becomes irrelevant as the point is to illustrate O'Reilly's opinion. (I don't mean to make you feel bad about the title, I could have very well given it the same title myself.)

As for the length, I'm waiting for one of the Pro-BOR people to make the first suggestion about what to do. I don't want to come off as trying to "hide" his opinions. I imagined a brief overview here, and then moving a lot of the specifics to the new page but I'm open to other suggestions too. Anynobody 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is already a page specifically for BOR controversies, this article should conform to other wiki articles and just include a link to that article. Arzel 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way that other wiki articles do it. The standard is to include a link to the main article (Criticism of O'Reilly), and summarize the contents of the main article in the other article (Bill O'Reilly). That's what's going on here. Please don't blank the section.--HughGRex 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly what I would call a summary, and is almost half the length of the article it is linked to. I will take a crack at summarizing it. Arzel 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I'd suggest devoting only a sentence or two to all but the most noteworthy controversies.--HughGRex 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the controversy section is already in its own article, so it has been removed. Arzel 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg vs. Bill O'Reilly

It's a battle going on. Please write some about it. Here are some videos that can help: Basics, Bill 'O'Reiily discussing himNorwegianMarcus 14:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vibrator

In the article it mentions Bill O'Reilly's use of a vibrator. It doesn't mention what type of vibrator it is. Vibrators can be any number of things. I think it should be clarified as a dildo-shaped vibrator so there is no confusion. Point 66. in the sexaul harassment lawsuit mentions the object and it's use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.40.162 (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I think people know what a vibrator is, it doesn't need to be clarrified. Arzel 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters

Let the record show that Media Matters has been shown to be accurate by independent sources. They essentially contain videos, audio clips and transcripts of Bill O'Reilly's shows and little or no commentary. Therefore fairness and accuracy is no excuse to omit them as sources when quoting Bill O'Reilly.

For an illustration watch the following video of Keith Olbermann's show, where Bill O'Reilly's smearing of Media Matters is crystal-clear: [1]

Furthermore, Bill O'Reilly's transcripts on his websites and the FOX News site are frequently "sanitized" to remove and edit embarrassing or contradictory statements. So the most accurate source would be MM; or the actual videos themselves. Deepstratagem 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep, I know you don't like O'Reilly and that's all good. Just a few questions:

1. Who are these independent sources? 2. Do you think that using a partisan blog site with clips from a person who's competing with O'Reilly and chastises him on a regular basis is the best way to prove a point? That would be like having Ann Coulter using an O'Reilly clip to make a point about Keith Olberman's faults. Both examples are just fodder for idealogues who have a view of what they want to believe.

As for Media Matters, I don't have a contention toward them as a "reliable source" but more as a proper source. They are who they say they are, "monitoring conservative information." That in itself is fine. However, it seems similar to an advocacy group which is not considered acceptable on wikipedia. Just for a little comparison, I edited an article about a subject who was much less notable but notable enough, in my view, to have an article here. There was a group(which is notable enough to have an article here) that criticized him and their criticisms were put in the article that was cited in a NPOV way. Well, the subject had a fit about it and requested deletion and a bureaucrat deleted it stating it was an attack page just because the article mentioned what the group criticized him for. It was worded to let the reader make up their own mind. There were other issues for the deletion but that's another story. I asked the bureaucrat what happened and one of things s/he told me that the group mentioned was an "advocacy site" and that "we do not do that here." I believe Media Matters is used as a source in the same regard. I put in the mention of BOR's criticism in the MM article but would not have a problem if someone took it out. Someone put O'Reilly's criticism of Bill Moyers in that article and it was taken back out and maybe it should be.

Ideally, what should be used are "peer reviewed" sources that verify facts about any particular subject. Partisan sources are easy to come by on the web and use for information but it does compromise the integrity of wikipedia. We should find good, clean information for all articles, not prove how great or horrible someone or something is. MrMurph101 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Murph, One independent source is Olbermann; (1) I don't know what the rest are - they are mentioned in the video by Olbermann. Still this is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's hard to argue that a clip of O'Reilly is biased... it IS Bill O'Reilly speaking, so why can't MM be used to cite such a video. My main point was that O'Reilly continues to refer to MM as smear-merchants, when he is the one smearing them. I don't care for Olbermann in the video, I care for the super-imposition of contradictory statements made by O'Reilly illustrated in the video. (2) I don't care for the website the link goes to either... they are the medium. The target video is what is of interest. If I had found the video elsewhere, I would have used a different one instead. Deepstratagem 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Murph, "peer review" is a reasonable standard for scientific articles. It refers to the process of publiching academic journals. It is meaningless as a standard for biographical articles.--HughGRex 11:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was saying "ideally." I know realistically that it is not necessary and I guess it is kind of anal to go that far but there is a higher standard for BLP's and that should be taken into account. I don't think that MM can't be used as long as it is not used authoritatively. I wouldn't consider MM a credible source just because Olberman says it is and conversely I don't consider MM not a credible source just because O'Reilly says that. It is a source that's for sure. I just hear about not using advocacy sources and yet MM fits that description to me. As for the video, I'm stuck on a dial-up so I don't feel like sitting around waiting for it to download so all I can do is take it for the description stated and that makes for an interesting point in its own right. MrMurph101 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

MM often will splice the video or give a partial example of it. This is the "gotchya" tactic used by partisan media (as opposed to true journalism) today. They used the same tactic in the Outfoxed video by only putting part of what the person said, such as making Carl Cameron seem to be actively be promoting a Bush Administration agenda when in actuality he was quoting a Bush Administration official at the time. Michael Moron, I mean Moore, did the same thing in Fahrenheit 911 and was proven to have done this deception when Fahrenhype 911 came out. Sometimes they are true sure, but the best thing would be to get a source outside MM to collaborate what MM states so we get the whole truth.Arnabdas 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kool Aid

Did you know that on his TV show on FOX News and his radio show that IF anyone disagrees with him, he says they drink KOOL AID ? Seen and heard this myself. 205.240.144.220 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

He implies that "YOU" are a idiot or worse. 205.240.144.220 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not true. He has stated several times that he WANTS disagreement, but honest disagreement. He calls people KOOL AID drinkers if they only regurgitate what one political side believes without being an independent thinker. For example, when he called several Republicans Kool-Aid drinkers for just repeating nonsense about gas prices increasing because of supply and demand economics yet these Republicans refusing to answer when he proved that oil prices per barrel were pretty much the same as of last year with demand increasing slightly only.Arnabdas 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

High status idiot?

I don't like the part about the colbert show that says Colbert portrays him and then they go on to say Colbert portrays a high status idiot.That is a very left wing and biased

The article actually says his character is a combination of news pundents, modeled after Stone Phillips. But O'Reilly is clearly the focus point. I don't think this is a biased statement, but I also don't think it is a controversy, perhaps it should be moved and maybe reworded so it doesn't imply that he thinks O'Reilly is a "Well intentioned....idiot". Arzel 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "misinformed high status idiot". Since Colbert emulates O'Reilly it does imply that O'Reilly is a misinformed high status idiot, but since you'd arrive at that conclusion no matter who you were, it is not a "very left wing and biased"; especially since O'Reilly is not "very right wing" according to himself. Deepstratagem 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Name Calling (Part II) (Added more names to the list)

I am a fan of O'Reilly (although hate of him is also common), but as a fan of hip-hop music, I heard all the words that were said on his radio program and his show, and I contest that O'Reilly has a valid point but he also makes himself look more like a "critic" who do anything to punish those who can't survive his "no spin". As told by scholars, O'Reilly has been studied by Indiana University for the last six months. They determined that O'Reilly has been known for "name calling" at an average rate of 6.8 to 8 seconds. Thus far, O'Reilly has called out and this is an incomplete list of people, places, organizations, media outlets and cultural things. Follow the links:

• 1. George Soros
• 2. Rosie O'Donnell
• 3. ACLU
• 4. MSNBC and/or NBC
• 5. Ludacris
• 6. Media Matters for America
• 7. Hillary Clinton
• 8. George Clooney
• 9. Cindy Sheehan
• 10. Michael Moore
• 11. Snoop Dogg
• 12. Al Sharpton
• 13. Jesse Jackson
• 14. Clarence Page
• 15. Nancy Pelosi
• 16. as he would put it "Staurt Smiley"
• 17. John Edwards
• 18. Air America
• 19. Barack Obama
• 20. Michael Savage
• 21. Ann Coulter
• 22. Paris Hilton
• 23. Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and/or Comedy Central
• 24. Bill Clinton
• 25. Bill Moyers
• 26. as he would put it "elements at NBC"
• 27. Don Imus
• 28. Edward Kennedy
• 29. New York Times
• 30. Jeremy Glick
• 31. Vermont judge Edward Cashman
• 32. The infamous feud with France (although he canceled it recently)
• 33. Mexico
• 34. NAACP
• 35. Lionel Tate, the boy who is serving life in prison (again), first for killed a 6-year old and then robbing a pizza delivery man after the sentence was lifted.
• 36. The feud with Aruba after hysteria over Natalie Halloway
• 37. Joran van der Sloot
• 38. Patrick Leahy
• 39. Kathleen Blanco
• 40. Ray Nagin
• 41. San Francisco
• 42. New Orleans
• 43. John Kerry
• 44. Larry King
• 45. Harry Reid
• 46. MoveOn.org
• 47. World Can't Wait
• 48. You Tube, Myspace and The Bastard Fairies
• 49. O.J. Simpson
• 50. Akon, Jadakiss, 50 Cent, Jay-Z, and/or Hip-hop artists who are not Snoop Dogg or Ludacris.
• 51. feud with the mayor of Virginia Beach after illegal resident, a drunk driver, killed two teenagers.
• 52. Geraldo
• 53. Michael Jackson
• 54. Joy Behar
• 55. Joe Scarborough
• 56. Phil Donahue
• 57. David Letterman, Jay Leno and/or Bill Maher
• 58. Dan Rather
• 59. Tom Brokaw
• 60. Alec Baldwin

Therefore you have a list, and all the names O'Reilly has been in numerous feuds with, although some are not politicians (mostly involved in organizations or entertainers). I would think that you'll see his "anger" as a form of entertainment. He clearly knows he's becoming a part of this "new" form of nostalgia. He knows that politics is boring and he make his controversial news show a hit because he bring up topics most people use or say around the water cooler. He see this as an opportunity not to pass his conservative mentors, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, but a momenteum to get more conservative and/or liberal voices a chance to become more "new" when explaining politics. LILVOKA 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a stretch to say that he is in "numerous fueds" with everyone on that list. A feud would mean that O'Reilly and those identified would be taking continuous shots at each other. In some cases that is true but many may have been only a one or two time thing and others(Paris Hilton?) are just someone he was critical of for whatever reason. However, the last point you make does have merit IMO. MrMurph101 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It has no merit whatsoever. When you use weasel words like "as told by scholars" you need to supply a reliable source, particularly when discussing a living person. Otherwise is the same kind of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information that Jimmy Wales explicitly disapproves of. There's no need to share an unsourced laundry list of people and organizations that Bill O'Reilly doesn't like. What is this but a waste of space on the talk page? MoodyGroove 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

MoodyGroove is right. I have displayed a far too complex list of people mentioned on The O'Reilly Factor and The Radio Factor. Now about this weasel word, --As told by scholars--. Well on the other hand, let me look at list. And yes, I found that that doesn't meet that criteria. A source is stated by the Indiana University link. I am assuming (quote the weasel words), that I have obtained this not only from the sites that are devoted to despising O'Reilly, but also The Indiana University website and variable news outlets execpt Fox News.

Once again I am stating this opinion in the most decent manner, I believe (truly) that O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, The Young Turks, and Maher understand that politics is boring. They understand that in order to attract viewers, listeners, bloggers, and people who tend to stray away from poltitics: These people make controversial topics (usually about the War in Iraq, Congress, ethics, music, pop culture, social culture and society's views of America) a living. They want to stir the pot and get people angry with them. They love controversy. O'Reilly has become a mainstream name in the cable news outlet and he's only giving way to many other liberal and/or conservative pundits a chance to succeed in making a profit off of controversy. Enough said. LILVOKA 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moody, I wasn't refering to the list, but the point "politics is boring" to have merit. While I don't think it should be in the article, it is an astute observation. Maybe not a "wikifundamentalist" way to use to talk page, but some food for thought. MrMurph101 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Noted. MoodyGroove 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Thanks MrMurph101 and MoodyGroove for this great discusion. When people attack on conservative and liberal pundits, it only feeds the power that keeps them on. It's still a taboo nation of "hypocrites", "closets" and "sheeps" . Unfortunately, Americans are forced fed bad news everyday! Whether it's from the "liberal media" or Fox "news" (hint: sarcassm toward both), we as Americans have a choice to either change the channel. Or you could play into their game and start boycotting or calling for the firing of them in which sympthizing fans will backlash others in support of one. See what hip-hop music is going through....(Once again, see Don Imus controversy)! LILVOKA 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While he works at CNN News as a reporter, despite his shouting matches or disagreements with every guest, including that Puerto-Rican American, which whoever it is.

--4.188.101.110 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite viewpoints such as LILVOKA alleging that the Clinton News Network is not biased and LEFT wing outfits such as Fox News not having an effect when they almost cause Al Gore to win in 2000, we have to look at this list on a case by case basis. Most of it wasn't feuding, it was just satire. He doesn't have hatred towards much of those people like he does towards Al Franken, a person with whom O'Reilly really has feuded with. He is in fact friends with some of the people on that list, including Clarence Page, who appears on O'Reilly's programs fairly frequently and both have a very respectful, gentleman like conversation when they do talk. When has he made fun of Joe Scarborough btw? Arnabdas 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling CNN the Clinton News Network and Fox News "left wing" is a good way to rob yourself of credibility. -- Jibal 08:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment

The article on Bill 0'Reilly has been cleaned up a bit (for example it now gives his correct place of birth), however it is still basically an attack upon this man. I should point out that there are very many issues with which I do not agree with Mr 0'Reilly's political opinions (for example his opinion that high oil prices are the fault of oil companies and speculators, or his support for the war on drugs, and so on and so on) - however I do not see that as a good reason for this sort of personal attack (nor do I think a reference work is the place for one)

Either wikipedia is a reference work or it is not. If it is reference work then such attacks should not be part of it.

One might as well allow someone such as Mr O'Reilly (or me for that matter) to write the article on the A.C.L.U. - pointing out (as I would) that it was founded by socialists who were ideologically opposed to the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States and (as is documented by letters from the founder of the organization) only decided to wrap themsleves in the flag as a deception tactic.

A reference article should say things like "born in the year....." "worked in the following jobs....." and so on. Or (for an organization) - "founded in the year ....", "by .....".

For DEBATE ("O'Reilly lied about so and so" - "no he did not, you are quoting out of context" - or whatever) links should be given to general attacks or defences of a man or organization.

Paul Marks.

Wikipedia does allow you to write an article on the ACLU, but not to fill it with absurd lies. If your claim weren't a lie, then it belongs in the article, so it's not clear what your point is, other than that you don't understand what an encyclopedia is or what an attack is. -- Jibal 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons have a feud with Fox News

And there you have it, The Simpsons has a feud with Fox News. Fox News and The Simpsons are a part of 20th Century Fox. The cast of The Simpsons are now engaged with a feud with Fox News Channel. Each character made a snipe at Bill O'Reilly or Fox News with some comments directed at the channel. Ludacris, a featured guest on the 400th episode, is pretty much a shot at O'Reilly and Fox News. And Fox being the representatives of both The Simpsons and Fox News Channel, it's seems like a deadlock between them. There were comment relates to O'Reilly digging up infomation on a political opponent (usually a person who is a a member of The Democratic Party or a liberal). The most starling surprise is the characters stated that Fox News was "exposed" as a conservative media outlet. Ashame that The Simpsons can get away with this, without loosing the audience. I am guessing right wing media critics such as Michelle Malkin will get on the blow horn and attack The Simpsons. Seth MacFarlene's televisions shows Family Guy and American Dad also take shots at Fox News. It's a war between the adult cartoons and Fox News. We'll see the feud be brought out in spotlight once it hits the MSM. Note: MSM is mainstream media. LILVOKA 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this isn't a forum. I see nothing here that is about improving the article. Gdo01 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That, and it takes two to have a feud. The Simpsons has a long history of making jokes at the expense of Fox, so for now, it's not worth mentioning. Oh, there's also a huge amount of original research, there. 171.71.37.103 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the simpsons dont seem to be fans of FNC but the early shots at fox appeared to be more jokes along the lines of stabbing the hand that feeds you. Maybe they were motivated by a resentment of fox but they were funny, the more recent episodes seem more like a bad episode of the colbert report than the simpsons - they did lose audience not their political point of view is disagreeable but because they concentrated more on shoving their politics into my cartoon than making it funny. Malkin may be a bit extreme but shes not an idiot such accusations would mean big money for the simpsons.

Dead Reference Link

This paragraph:

“

O'Reilly was once again criticized for his fairness in reporting on May 2, 2007, when Indiana University released a study equating techniques used during the show's "Talking Points Memo" to propaganda devices. The study discredited the O'Reilly's claim that he provides "no-spin analysis" to his audience.[31]

”

The reference link is invalid. Also, shouldn't there be a counter view of this criticism to make it more NPOV? Jauerback 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is already a whole section regarding this issue in the BOR criticism article, it probably dosen't need to be repeated here, I am in favor of dropping it completely from this article, along with a better summarization of his criticism. Arzel 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No reference link

Re this sentence:

"While some have claimed that O'Reilly is really only "entertainment", and not "news", and therefore should not be held to a high standard for factual content, O'Reilly has been quoted as saying that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and should not be cited for hard facts, whereas O'Reilly is a commentator who opines to a journalistic standard.[26]"

Since there is no longer a reference #26 (I assume it was once there), I can't evaluate the veracity of this statement. Whatever used to be there, the part "While some have claimed. . ." is weasily and at the very least should be attributed to someone or some group. Also his dig on limbaugh is not needed in this context. I'm going to remove the short paragraph until it is both sourced and written in a way that doesn't use weasel words. R. Baley 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this article is being held to a higher journalist standard than the subject of the article is usually held to. . . over a comment supposedly from the subject about his journalistic integrity? I've heard the weasily words like "While some have claimed. . ." uttered many a time by Bill O. Good job on the integrity of the article, tho. 165.95.12.220 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation page isn't needed

Is there really a need for a disambiguatin page for bill o'reilly? I know we're not supposed to be US centric, but is the cricketeer really that prominent? Isn't it enough that there is a link to the cricketeer at the top of this article's page? In any event there's no way we need both (disambig page and the cricketeer link at top). R. Baley 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

biography by kitman -why is this here?

This section on a Bill o'Reilly biography: Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Publicity_of_biography. I am unsure as to its notability. Is it a best seller? is it here to say he's a hippocrite? I object to its inclusion in its current (and red-linked)form; I just want to know why it's important and know that ultimately we have the best and most pertinent info on it (if it is important). R. Baley 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am placing the text of the removed biography material below. There's got to be more to say about this (unauthorized) biography than O'Reilly is a hypocrite. For instance, it's unauthorized or that O'Reilly gave him 29 interviews, or that publisher's weekly says that, "Kitman's reportage . . .does a fine job in letting the reader decide."(link) As it reads now, it's sourced (a little) but wholly uninformative, and ultimately serves only to defame, we can do better. R. Baley 10:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed material:

Marvin Kitman, author of The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, says that O'Reilly suggested he would support the publicity campaign for Kitman's book. Instead, Kitman says, O'Reilly has intimidated Fox News reporters to prevent them from interviewing Kitman. Kitman said that he was surprised to find that O'Reilly was "a hypocrite" because he "wasn't in favor of telling it like it is" when it came to negative information about himself.^[1]

I started that section and here is what I wrote.

Marvin Kitman, author of The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, claims that O'Reilly, who was interviewed by Kitman 29 times, had promised to give a huge publicity send off. He claims that O'Reilly has intimated FOX News reporters from interviewing Kitman. Kitman also claims that he has written the only book that says anything positive about O'Reilly. [2]

Basically very little changed. O'Reilly did allow Kitman to interview O'Reilly 29 times according to Kitman and there are very few lengthly biographies of O'Reilly, so I think that this book is notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timothy Clemans (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

I like your paragraph better, I think it's less "attack" oriented (esp. wrt the last sentence). I would prefer to see more evidence of its notability, other than an olbermann cite. A source to show it was a best seller, or favorably comparing it with other bios of o'Reilly would really go a long way here (at least for me). R. Baley 07:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I cited it as coming from Countdown since that there were the author was interviewed. I don't know anything about the author. I was just trying to get the section started, and I don't endorse pushing much farer than Kitman wrote this book. Timothy Clemans 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't know that Kitman had been a Newday tv critic for over 30 years (and at least 2 awards Townsend Harris Medal in 1992, and the Folio Award in 1988). I couldn't find any best seller lists that the book is on yet, but how about this for a paragraph:

In January 2007, St. Martin's Press released a biography The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, written by longtime Newsday tv critic Marvin Kitman. By all appearances, O'Reilly initially authorized the book: working with Kitman and giving him 29 interviews. Kitman believes that O'Reilly was going to help promote and publicize the book, until they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter covering the sexual harrasment lawsuit filed against O'Reilly in 2004 (O'Reilly also filed an extortion countersuit and both have since been settled).^[2] But instead of promoting the book, Kitman asserts that O'Reilly intimidated FOX News reporters to keep them from giving him interviews.[3] Despite their disagreement, several critics think that Kitman presents his subject in an even handed way.^[3][4] Kitman himself claims that he has written the only book that says anything positive about O'Reilly.

Unless there are any objections, I will re-insert the info tomorrow. R. Baley 07:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a pretty good paragraph. You mention that it is believed that Kitman didn't get the press from O'Reilly he expected because of he disagreement over the sexual harassment lawsuit, but I think Kitman mentioned in the Olbermann interview that when he was collaborating with O'Reilly, O'Reilly said that he didn't need to write about Olbermann and that Olbermann wouldn't last. Kitman did write about Olbermann and Olbermann has a note on the backcover. I think Kitman didn't think he wouldn't get the sendoff until around the time the book was published. Timothy Clemans 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible they didn't discuss the particulars (chapter by chapter) presentation until the end? I can see the advantage of not focusing on the more controversial material until as much cooperation was obtained as possible. The source I found for the disagreement was Newsday link here (google cache link). how about this change:

". . .promote and publicize the book until, just prior to publication, they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter. . ." (no italics in the article of course)

I will wait to see if you think this reconciles the two accounts before inserting back in. I think we're pretty close though, so if you like it, and get the chance before I do, go ahead and put it back in (just drop a note here either way, I guess). Thanks R. Baley 07:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I like what you have done. Timothy Clemans 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Added back in just now. R. Baley 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

Regarding the appropriateness of external links critical of the subject of a BLP, do you really think that Bill Clinton, which is a good article, lacks external links that criticize him becuase somebody just forgot? That article is established enough that it represents a precedent. The purpose of linking to something like O'Reilly's official page is to allow people to see his official page. The purpose of linking to documents about the Mackris suit or his archived columns is to provide readers with documents that it is not our purview to host here. It is not the purpose of external links in a BLP to support or criticize that person. Croctotheface 19:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Military Service

Does anyone know why O'Reilly did not serve in Vietnam if he graduated high school in 1967? This is certainly a relevant topic of discussion and should be included in the article. I posted this a few days ago but someone deleted it. --Cbbs70a 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

He opposed the Vietnam war back in the day (although not fervently), but the better reason why he actually didn't go was because he went to Marist College. Arnabdas 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal removed

Per Talk:Politics of Bill O'Reilly. Anynobody 07:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reducing the Controversies and Criticism Section

We have two separate articles for this. Why don't we just put a link to them there? I dont understand why his political positions aren't listed while some of his critics are. List both sections completely here or just provide the links to both.Arnabdas 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

general comment: I didn't notice when the section on his biography was removed, but does anybody have a problem with replacing it on this page? It was (imo) well-sourced, and though I have not read the book, critics have generally said it was an even-handed criticism of O'Reilly mentioning both his good and bad points. I think the info is presented in a NPOV manner (see discussion a couple of sections up) but would be willing to re-visit the wording if other editors think otherwise. Good critiques (or at least critiques from relatively unbiased sources) are hard to find with regard to O'Reilly and so I think it would be valuable here. R. Baley 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Critiques from relatively unbiased sources are plentiful, if one is capable of distinguishing between bias and reasoned criticism. One who thinks that Jimmy Hoffa was a thug and O.J. Simpson is a liar is not "biased", and the same goes for O'Reilly (thug and liar). Sadly, most WP editors seem incapable of understanding this, and their insistence that reasoned criticism is "bias" is itself bias. -- Jibal 08:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing BOR to either seems a little biased to me. Exactly what is your point? Arzel 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Name-calling is more opinion than either bias or a reasoned criticism. The difference would be how you would come to the conclusion of that opinion. A bias would be a less in-depth drawing of a particular conclusion. However, a "reasoned criticism" would be less likely to use the terms "thug" and "liar." MrMurph101 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

reference 30 doesnt go anywhere

im not aware of how to fix this but seeing as some people wont check the sources i figured i would point it out

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

New Wikipedia Technology: Countdown with Keith Olberman

This technology can find our ISP address and see who's computer it is. It had found that Fox News did some, 'friendly' editing. Cleaning up O'Reilly's and Fox's for a better image. Trashing Al Franken and Keith Olberman's. Exon covered up the oil tracker that crashed. Isn't this nice? Lovestarvedwriter 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant? And how is it different than any other of the thousands of edits that are bias? Bytebear 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Did O'Reilly say: "He does not have a right to be in this country" on the air.

He also had a 'heated debate' with Senator Dodd(?), over the cartoon below:

Image:charl.jpg

Can we all agree he is a conservative?

This is what the intro has to say about O'Reilly's political views/ideology:

Previously a registered Republican, O'Reilly is now a registered independent, ^[5] and has used several terms to describe his views. In his book Culture Warrior, he identifies himself as a traditionalist and a populist.

Is there anyone here who disagrees that he is a conservative? Is there anyone here who disagrees that he is a neoconservative?

I would add the sentence, "However, most Americans consider him a conservative," but this style is generally avoided in Wikipedia articles. Should I cite a newspaper which calls him conservative? I guess this is a question of how do you state the obvious? Wikipediatoperfection 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We should avoid subjective labels like liberal/conservative unless the subject self-identifies with the word. I agree he leans conservative but it would be better just to include what he has said about himself for now. MrMurph101 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily Kos

I do not have a problem in general about including O'Reilly's issue with the Daily Kos and Olbermann's rebuttal for that matter. However, it was taken out of the Daily Kos article pending third party sources. The Olbermann response relied on YouTube which is a copyvio issue. Media Matters was used here but a more notable third party source might be needed. MrMurph101 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's a problem with sources, that can be sorted quite easily (by finding sources and removing unsourced stuff). However, I haven't got a feel of how important this issue is - is it given an undue amount of space in the article. Can I ask how important the issue is in comparison to other events in O'Reilly's life - how much was it picked up in the media, for example. I tagged the section {{pov-section}} while this is sorted. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this quite a bit - I think it's ok now. The only bit I'm worried about is the Nazi/KKK reference, as only Media Matters ever seems to mention it. Is there any other evidence for this? Incidentally, YouTube is a valid source for references, although text sources are greatly preferred. I've removed {{pov-section}} (please re-add if you disagree) --h2g2bob (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor contributed after you but I think the way it is now seems reasonable and the Wall St. Journal and Globe and Mail as sources help instead of just solely relying on citing blogs and/or partisan sources. As for the importance it may just be a case of recentism and if so someone will take it out in the future without much issue. I'm not sure about the determination of YouTube as a valid source but that is another issue and I could be wrong. MrMurph101 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I took this out of the main section. There is undue weight here. He has gone after many groups and has had many people criticize him. They should be written in the Criticism article and the Politics of article. Arnabdas 20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

youtube as a reliable source

Per wp:rs, it seems that youtube should not be use. Apart from copyright issues which are real, it has no peer review and just is not appropriate for this project. Can anybody else step in and advise if this isn't so or I am missing something? Thanks! --Tom 14:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues aside, youtube is one of the only reliable transcripts we have. Fox News edits out/does not make available, Bill's more glorious moments. Wikipediatoperfection 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It still should not be used as a source. I am not doubting the truth of the material, just that it should not be included per wiki's guidelines. Thanks, --Tom 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is WP:YOUTUBE which links to a subsection of WP:EL stating that youtube and the like is not banned as long as you stay within the guidelines. Also, it can not be considered a secondary source since it is a medium to view the primary one. In other words, it is better to find a secondary source to help establish the importance of what is being included. MrMurph101 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That is referring to external links which is different from reliable sources. It also notes that linking to youtube in external links has to stay within guidelines "which would be infrequent".--Tom 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct replication of a primary source. Since there is no question of it being a fraud or out-of-context (since it showed the entire context) I don't see what the problem is. Eleland 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters as source

What do folks think of using it as a source/reference? The cited article was written by A.I.?? Who is that? Sorry, I am not familar with that site. Thanks, --Tom 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When used along with other sources, or if directly addressed by the subject, I think it's OK (there are 3 other sources to establish notability in this case, including WSJ), especially as MM sometimes is the only place that will keep the media topic (whether sound or video) as a longterm link. The author of the article, after some poking around, can be found here (link -scroll down a bit, it's the only 'A.I.' listed). R. Baley 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with R. Baley. Using MM is fine for verfication and including other secondary sources to establish notabilty is the right way to go. MrMurph101 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

April Pruning

In the course of pruning the "criticism" section, people have gone a bit too far. There's absolutely no critical discussion of someone who is, after all, the most criticized man on TV. (A sexual harassment controversy is not 'criticism' per se.) This needs to be fixed, or I'm slapping an unbalanced tag on it. Hornplease 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an article all about the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. I personally think all issues should be addressed there, and only a single "see also" link in this article will suffice. Otherwise you encourage bloat. Bytebear 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the existence of that article. Obviously. It is linked from this one. However, "all issues should be addressed there" is a violation of WP's core policies. I encourage you to reconsider, or I'm afraid a large, nasty tag might appear at the top of the article. That will also encourage bloat! Hornplease 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When you say "critical discussion" do you mean what other people think of him or just anything negative you can throw in there? I think it may be good to have a section called "Reactions to O'Reilly" or something similar and maybe include things that are both positive and negative, something I think other articles could use also. Ideally, the examples would be notable and relevant and backed up by third party sources. However, I do think an unbalanced tag would be illogical based on your own premise. If he is "the most criticized man on TV," the fact that he is one of the few living person's with an entire article devoted to his criticisms, the balance issue is moot. MrMurph101 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That last statement is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We do not strive for balance within the entire encyclopaedia, but within each article with respect to the article's title. The Criticism article is, I am sure, covered with critical remarks on O'Reilly. As long as they are sourced, reflect all notable viewpoints in rough proportion to their notability, OK. The point is that this article is unbalanced. Introduce, if necessary, a more coherent summary of the child article, rather than the current content-free list of names. An alternative: read mainstream coverage of the man in major national sources: what do they believe is the most notable criticism? I do not, obviously, advocate slapping whatever I want in there. Unless these are done, tag it is. Hornplease 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on at least one thing, there does need to be a better summary of the spinoff article. As to my supposed misunderstanding of NPOV, I consider the spinoff article to be a part of the subject as a whole. We not only have the criticism spinoff, but one devoted to his opinions, his TV show, and some of his books. There was enough material about those criticisms to warrant a spinoff article and therefore plenty of discussion of critical material for the entire subject. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. Anyway, if you felt like being bold about editing that section (I know I have some idea), what would you do? MrMurph101 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease, before you get too far into your desire to have a "more fair" POV regarding this article (irony intended) you should also remember that this is a WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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.