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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Proposed changes to this article

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

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

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

=

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

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

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

Left, right, whatever

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

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

I think he says he's a libertarian.

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

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

Regardless of what you think of him - he's no "right winger". I doubt many "right wingers" or "left wingers" would claim him. As the other person said, he pisses everyone off at one time or another. And despite what you seem to think, O'Reilly's audience is not made up entirely of conservatives.

He's not a libertarian because he wants a strong military and troops on the border with Mexico. He's not a conservative because he's against the death penalty and believes global warming is real. He's not a liberal because he favors cutting taxes. The politician he most respects is Bobby Kennedy, a Democrat. The politician he least respects is Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

He says he's an "independent". He says he's fighting for the little guy and isn't beholden to the "established" media, although that's what he's becoming himself. Whether he's "full of shit" or not, he has the highest-rated cable talk show, and he's a voice of "reason" to many Americans, although he seems to disagree with everyone on at least something. 136.152.197.144 09:48 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

he's basically a neo nazi

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

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

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

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

Cricket Player

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

ROFL ---サチベチゴ

Pundit?

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

Took the graf out again because it still seems to be rather weak, perhaps try another quote to illustrate a typical O'Reilly debate? Fuzheado

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

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

Moving page

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

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

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

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

Ranting in article

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

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

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

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

More on left vs. right

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

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

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

Bibliography?

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

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

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

Bolding

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

Yeah, I agree I don't like it either. But we need to do something because the list is very hard to read. Some are phrases, some are sentences, some are compound sentences, some have links, some don't, some things are dbl quoted, ... yuck. How about taking a crack at parallelization of the points, because bolding was an attempt at highlighting at least keywords, but bolding links doesn't really work well. Fuzheado

I tried cleaning it up a bit. Daniel Quinlan 07:11, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

View on media bias

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

Problem with redirect

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

	which contains an old version 

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

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

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

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

POV dispute

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

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

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

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

O'Reilly has pundits and elected officials as guests and doesn't hesitate to interrupt them or to disagree, sometimes even telling guests to "shut up." He decrees on his show that it is a "no spin zone" and that "the spin stops here." O'Reilly often challenges spin from guests more aggressively when they hold views opposing his own (see below for example views).

In 1989, O'Reilly joined the nationally syndicated Inside Edition, a tabloid television program (also known as "infotainment").

Article fails to mention O'Reilly's perspective on the Polk vs. Peabody debacle.

Critics attest that O'Reilly has close ties to the Republican party and other conservative groups. (weasely -- what close ties? which groups?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maddox criticism

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

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

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

The fact that someone has a "cult following" and that you liked his/her gag does not by itself warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I'm not yet convinced that Maddox's criticisms are particularly noteworthy. --Diberri | Talk 05:01, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this section adds nothing. The article subject is Bill O'Reilly; incidents or controversies involving the subject of the article (such as the Franken and Rose incidents) are relevant. Criticisms by a third party might be worth mentioning if the third party is in itself noteworthy or clearly an example of a widespread phenomenon or opinion. This third party is neither. Jgm 12:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

Guys, whether you like it or not, Maddox is really huge, and his article about Bill has been read over 1 million times [3] so at the very least, there should be a mention of it in this Wikipedia entry.

EliasAlucard|Talk 21:29, 13 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of copyvio section

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

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

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

Liberal media?

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

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

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

I'm looking through O'Reilly's latest book, Who's looking out for you?, and he provides several illustrations of the media as both left- and right-leaning (see chapter four). Removing this bullet point from said section was the right thing to do. Thanks. --Diberri | Talk 01:59, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Since I had originally added the quote back in [8], it may seem confusing that I'm ceding this point. However, I simply added the quote back in because User:Stopthebus18 had claimed it was a POV comment (presumably by a Wikipedian editor), when it was, in fact, simply a quote from O'Reilly.

Sorry, every week O'Reilly brings up another newspaper editorial that 'proves' that "far-left secular progressives" control the print media and much of broadcast journalism.[9] He says thats why Fox News, a "traditionalist" source of news (as he puts it), is so controversial. He constantly refers to the mainstream print media as 'the liberal newspapers.'

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

Quotes section

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

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

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

Wait though, one issue of contention. Wikiquote is a part of wikipedia. The links all have the en.wikipedia.org, prefacing them. It's not enough to put them back in the article but I do disagree on this issue. StoptheBus18

From what I've read, Wikiquote is related to Wikipedia, it's not a part of Wikipedia. In particular, both WP and WQ are operated by Wikimedia, which is also the parent body to Wikibooks and Wikisource. That the URLs have "wikipedia.org" in them is rather irrelevant, IMO. --Diberri | Talk 21:20, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Glick interview

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

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

to the more accurate

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

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

Section for traditionally moderate views?

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

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

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

More stuff

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

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

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

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here. Yes, this article absolutely makes it seem as though all the man does is argue with other people, and that's not a good thing. I don't consider myself pro- or anti-O'Reilly, but I do find the guy to be interesting, and I don't learn much from this other than "people don't like him and he yells sometimes". That seems to be the bulk of the article, and I'd really like to avoid that. They're worth discussing, but not this much. At this rate, we could make a whole new article out of that stuff, you know? It's taking over the whole thing.

However, as the person who wrote probably the majority of O'Reilly's truly biographical information (his education, early career, and upbringing are concerned) before starting an actual Wiki account, I don't want to see the information on Levittown removed. Adding it in with the Franken information isn't good, in my opinion, but it is obviously important when we talk about his upbringing, and that's why I originally put it at the top of the article where his upbringing is discussed. I feel that by including the link to the deed and pointing out that there have been people who have questioned his roots, that should cover the questions at the center of the debate without having to detail each and every barb traded between the Franken and O'Reilly. (I know the article doesn't do that now, but it could get to that point.)

As far as links are concerned, news and opinion articles (such as from the Herald, the Post, etc.) should either be put under their own heading or linked within the article as sources. Looking quickly, it looks like 4 (?) of the current links are articles about him, and I get the feeling that number will keep growing unless we find a way to either seperate them from the rest or work them into the article itself. I think the latter is a good way to cut down the size of the list to keep it managable while still retaining the information.

So, to summarize: try to somehow limit the "controversies" info before it takes over the whole article, retain Levittown information but move it back to the "Personal background" section, and clean up the links. I really think that will help improve this article so that it's worth reading for more than just the fights. Beginning

Links

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

I really do think we should try to work the articles in as sources. This list is so long, it really does look like overkill. (I think part of that is that it's so categorized right now; while I like most of what you did, I think it's broken up too much and is a bit unwieldy.) Much of the information in these links is the same thing over and over again (he yells, people don't like him, Franken says he lies, etc.). We should figure out what's necessary and what's redundant, and remove whatever doesn't add anything to the article.

The big ones that need to be linked are: his official website, the Factor website, OReilly-Sucks.com, O'Reilly column, and WikiQuotes. (I should point out that I don't think the WikiQuotes article should be called "official" or "supportive", seeing as it's not an official site of his and has numerous quotes portraying him in a negative light.) That leaves you with only one anti-O'Reilly website, three self-promotional, and then his quotes, but virtually everything else is either anecdotal or articles, and that's why I'm really thinking we should cut the list down and add them into the article itself as sources. If we want to make it an even split between pro- and anti-O'Reilly sites in the final listing of external links, we can find more anti- (the Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly blog, maybe?). It's not like they aren't out there, and as long as they're rational ones (not just "O'Reilly's a jerk"), I'm fine with that, provided we move some of the articles linked into the entry itself to make room for the new additions.

Here's what I'd recommend:

1) Put the MediaMatters.org link under "Criticism from organizations". The article linked automatically pulls up a list of related anti-O'Reilly articles on the MM website, so it's almost like a directory of sorts. Although it's unorthodox, we could also simply link the search results page from their website, which gives almost 70 articles as well as a bunch about FOX News in general.

2) Put the movie file of Glick as a source at the end of the following sentence: "Guest Jeremy Glick accused O'Reilly of using 9/11 to fit his own needs, and stated that President George H. W. Bush trained the Moujahadeen in Afghanistan." (That paragraph should also clarify that O'Reilly apologized immediately after the segment; right now it just says "he".) Also, has anyone watched the movie file to see if it's been edited down at all? If it has, we should get a complete clip so that it's not seen as pro- or anti-.

3) Put "The Life of O'Reilly" as a source at the end of this sentence: "Franken and others have also claimed that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in its more affluent suburb, Westbury." Much of the article deals with his personal background, especially where he grew up, and the Post was the first major newspaper to accuse him of not being from Levittown, so it's a fitting place for it.

4) Put the "Sheer O'Reillyness" article as a source after the following sentence: "FAIR complains that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias."

5) Put the Bostonia article as a source after the following sentence: "While he tends to turn some people away from his show with his brash attitude, he has attracted millions of viewers with his self-described confrontational interviews." Much of the article deals with his attitude and appeal, so this is the perfect place for it.

6) Put the Herald article as a source at the end of this sentence: "His show is famous for its direct, combative approach, with O'Reilly often getting into heated arguments (and sometimes shouting matches) with guests."

7) Remove the Rotten.com link entirely. It's a recap of the disputes with other people already covered ad nauseum throughout this article and the pages already linked. The only sections that seperate it from other articles are the timeline, which has events already covered in the article here, and the list of quotes about the Iraq war, which are more appropriate for WikiQuotes.

Those changes allow us to keep all of the information (aside from the redundant Rotten.com article), and we're only left with 6 links for the external links section, which removes the need for subcategories. Sound good? Beginning 04:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a plan, and you've already started with Glick. As for my categorisation of links, it was only meant as an intermediate one - so after you implement the Seven Point Plan - :) - I'll review that. The wikiquote was put in the first category simply because it is more "official" than the others, I'll make it more readable once the article links move up to the body text as references. Frikle 05:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. I replaced the link to the movie file with a link to the page where the movie can be watched/downloaded, because that just seems to make more sense. "The Life of O'Reilly" was already linked as a source in the article itself (after a quote somewhere, can't recall right now), so I did not include it with the Levittown information. (I did, however, point out that they've questioned his roots, which I think is a fair compromise.) Previously, we had the first mention of FAIR as a direct link to their article on him, so I changed that link to a link to the Wikipedia article on FAIR, and used their article as a source in the next paragraph when talking about what they've accused him of. I also changed his column link, because previously it made it seem like his article is only in the Daily News, and it's actually syndicated by Creators, so linking to them made more sense.

I think it looks really good right now the way it is, and I don't think we need to break up the "External links" section at all. I'll continue to watch for anyone adding new links to the article, and if any are added that are redundant, I'll simply remove them. Also, I'll try to keep adding them in as sources, rather than leaving them in the EL section. Thanks for working on this.  :) It was really needed, and I'm glad it's out of the way now. Beginning 21:17, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Liberal/Conservative views

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

Various observations about article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've written a lot for our consideration. I'd recommend just making the changes you think are appropriate and see if they fly. Making a change will provoke more response than trying to debate it first. Just don't do them all at once, though. Make them one at a time. If you make a change and hear nothing, you know you've done good work. --Nysus 07:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Nysus. I see you're new to Wikipedia, so welcome. Sometimes, when someone wants to make some major changes to an article, it's good to mention them on the Talk page first before going ahead with them. Often, someone will make a huge change just to see it reverted a few minutes later due to no one else agreeing with it. Since the changes I'm proposing involve deleting and/or moving large pieces of content, especially almost the entire O'Reilly Factor section, I feel it's important to mention it here first. Also, since I don't know the answers to other questions I've brought up — information on the Restoration Weekend being a good example — I can't very well change anything in the article until I've gotten answers from others. Thanks for your tips, but I'm pretty comfortable here already. Beginning 22:17, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Most recent topics

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

Mention of "Outfoxed" in first paragraph

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

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

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

I agree with some of your points, but I don't think that saying he's "controversial" is specific enough; specifically, most criticisms of him are that he is conservative, and they come from people for whom "conservative" is a criticism. I mentioned Outfoxed as an example, to show that it's mainly liberals who criticize him for being too conservative. Is there a better way to phrase it? I thought it better to source the criticism, rather than simply attribute it to "critics", or "liberal critics". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:50, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

You run into a problem when you use the generalization that "most" criticism of him are that he is conservative. How do you objectively measure this?

Also, imagine if "Unfit for Command" was featured in the introductory paragraph to John Kerry. Does it really belong there? Wouldn't you think the person who put it there had an axe to grind?

And as far as "controversial" not being specific, well, it's the introductory paragraph. It's not supposed to be specific. If people want to find out why he is controversial, they can read on.

--Nysus 07:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, for example, a Google search on "Bill O'Reilly" +conservative turns up ~89,000 hits, many of which appear to be criticisms/exposés (see e.g. [11], from FAIR or [12]). Apparently, he's been featured on Democratic Underground's "Top Ten Conservative Idiots" several times, and so on. This appears to be a main vein of the criticism against him, and simply saying he's "controversial" doesn't inform. The lead section should at least sum up the "liberal vs. conservative" section of the article, which is quite long; anything less seems like trying to disguise the argument, and presents O'Reilly's view (that he's an independent) as fact, without mentioning the counter-claim. I'd be more open to editing out the Outfoxed and replacing it with a generic "liberal critics", though I think you can justify its inclusion, given that it seems to be one of the more prominent criticisms of O'Reilly. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:08, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

To bring up the John Kerry analogy again, imagine if the first paragraph said that "...many critics charge he is untrustworthy and have published a book "Unfit for Command."

It's true that many people charge he is being disingenuous when he says that he is an independent. And whether he is or isn't "independent" is completely subjective. What does "independent mean anyway? However, he does call himself an independent. That's why the "self-proclaimed" qualifier is there.

And actually, if I had it my way, none of this stuff would be in the first paragraph. It would look more like the Michael Moore article with just a quick, one-sentence blurb that talked about what he does for a living. And, yup, [John Kerry] gets the same kind of terse treatment in wikipedia. Seems like bios should have a consistent format. I prefer the straight and to the point type.

Makes sense. I've removed "He is a self-proclaimed political independent who has become a controversial figure in American politics." from the lead, keeping the rest intact--is this satisfactory? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:39, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Works for me.

Paris Business Review

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

I can certainly attest that there is no business journal of note called Paris Business Review. In any case, O'Reilly's boycott certainly has not influenced significantly France's economy. More than O'Reilly's dubious economic quotes, I find it significant about him that he pretended to seriously affect one of the world's largest economies with such a boycott. David.Monniaux 07:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's no debate over whether or not there's a publication by that name. There isn't one, he either lied or gave the wrong name (depending on who you're getting info from), and that's that. My issue was that, like so many parts of this article, his side of the argument wasn't given. Also, while your personal impression of his actions isn't one I'm going to say is wrong (it is pretty incredible to think that one man's boycott, even if he is watched by millions, would affect the economy so drastically), I'd like to keep the content based on just facts and not inferences regarding his personal character, so I'm glad you didn't include that type of content in your work. One question for you: is the figure of $1.4 trillion based on the Euro, the American dollar, or something else? It needs to be clarified which unit of currency that's based on. Any insight on that would be much appreciated. Beginning 18:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Dollar, based on 1999 CIA Factbook info (current stats are probably different, but that's not significant since the point is to contrast the real impact of the boycott with total US/France trade and the size of the French economy).

I think indeed that the reader may draw the inferences him/herself. My opinion is that O'Reilly panders to naive and nationalistic followers of his, that believe that the whole world lives off the US' largesses (as shown by his argument that the French tourism industry relied on US visitors - who are a small minority).

I've corrected your figure to have it reflect the 2003 estimate of 1.654 trillion. It is significant because we're supposed to be showing the effect of the boycott (or lack thereof), not what the French economy was like 4 years prior to it. As for readers drawing the inferences themselves, that's fine; I just don't want us including our own. I think the section on this subject is adequate now, anyway, since 4 paragraphs on one event in the man's life seems to be more than enough in many ways. Thanks for your work. Beginning 14:51, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think that an approximate quote was more than enough to show the discrepancy between the alleged impact and the total size of the economy (i.e. even if successful it would be a drop in the bucket).

I think that these incidents deserve the full paragraphs they use. Bill O'Reilly is a man whose life would be thoroughly unworthy of encyclopedic attention if he did not take highly inflammatory positions, and I find this one pretty illustrative. David.Monniaux 21:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Ludacris

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

Update Photo

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

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

External links

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

There are few things in life more annoying that writing up a long response to someone, hitting "Save page," and having your computer freeze up. Here we go again, with ever so different wording.  :)

One of the problems that we've had with this article in the past is that the "External links" section has gotten a little out of control, mainly because of the many articles about O'Reilly that have been linked. We've had people linking articles multiple times, linking outdated articles, linking articles that don't seem to have much to do with anything relevant, etc. The way we've been dealing with this problem for months now is by adding in all links to individual articles, media files, and the like as sources within the article itself, and not to the EL section. (That's why I directed you to Talk in my edit comment; there's a discussion about this somewhere up there.) The only links we add to the EL section are ones to main websites and directories.

Another reason we've been doing this is because we've had a lot of questions about sources come up in the past (Talk should give you a feel for this). People have a tendency to add in new information about him, but not show where they got that info from. Because of this, we try to keep all sources with the information we took from them. For example, I removed your link to the C-SPAN media file and placed it in the article with the information on his fight with Franken. It is a logical place for the information, since the reader can immediately go see the video file if they'd like, and it also gives a definite source for our writing. This is a method that is used at many articles on Wikipedia, and not just at this one.

Additionally, it makes very little sense to break up four links (or six, as it stands right now) into four separate sections. This actually adds to the so-called disorder, in my opinion, and isn't beneficial in any way. If you would like to clearly state that the OReilly-Sucks.com link is to criticism, a simple note of " -- criticism" after the link should suffice. The media file you have again linked to is now already linked within the article itself, so readding the link is simply redundant.

Finally, it's minor, but the BusinessWeek article you've linked to is factually inaccurate on various levels, which is something O'Reilly himself has criticized it for in a letter to their editor. It gets the genders of his children wrong, how many books Doubleday has published wrong, his yearly income wrong, the economic impact of his various enterprises wrong (according to him), etc. As such, it probably shouldn't be linked from this article to begin with. Unfortunately, BusinessWeek no longer has his letter on their website, but some of those statements are clearly wrong just from the information in our Wikipedia article.

I don't mind adding new links to the article; in fact, I love it when people do, because I like having sources. However, we've had a standard way of doing it for months now, and I think that way works best. If nothing else, the redundant link to the C-SPAN file should be removed. I'll leave my comment here for a day or two so people can weigh in if they'd like, but I'll probably end up reverting your edits again for consistency's sake. I believe they make the article more disorganized, and that the way we've been doing things for a long time is the best way.

(Also, while I realize the latter part of your comment was snark, I hope the first wasn't. Yes, I've made a lot of edits here, but it's because I try to keep the article orderly, well-sourced, and accurate, and not because I'm some Super O'Reilly Stalker or something.  ;) I don't consider myself a huge fan, but he's a lightning rod and I try to make sure the article stays — forgive me — "fair and balanced.") Beginning 15:55, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Due to no one voicing any objections to the long-standing rule of thumb, I have reverted your edits. I added in a "criticism" note next to the OReilly-Sucks.com link, and I have removed the BusinessWeek link due to it containing factual inaccuracies that would be misleading to readers. If someone can think of a good argument for adding it back in, feel free to share. Beginning 16:14, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Virginity?

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

Move

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

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

US France trade increased

I removed (temporarily)

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

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

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

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

Churchill on other Networks:

CNN: Quotes from Ward Churchill Embattled professor won't back down Columbia professors cleared of anti-Semitism	NY Times: University President Resigns At Colorado Amid Turmoil University Changes Its Focus In Investigation of Professor
ABC News Quotes from Ward Churchill Univ. of Colo. Probes Claims Against Professor University Tries to Trace Indian Ancestry	MSNBC Colo. university responds to attacks on credibility Claims of plagiarism, threat stall Churchill buyout University prof stands by 9/11 comments

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

POV nonsense

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

I agree - this should stay in - I have heard him on his radio program say something very close to this. It accurately reflects his view and is an unusual postion to take. Trödel|talk 12:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should it be in the list of traditionally conservative views, if it is unusual? Tim Ivorson 09:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point - there are a few of his views that are not clearly liberal or conservative - e.g. his view on gay marriage - he supports it if it is voted for by "the people" - though he hasn't been clear whether that means by legistlature or by ballot initiative - but opposes it if imposed by courts. In many ways this is a more principaled postion since it can have opposing results in different states. Trödel|talk 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not nonsense or POV -- that's his stated position. Revert is warranted. 66.36.130.75 00:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global warming and EPA

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

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

Sounds good, EPA will stay and ACLU will be added. 66.36.144.93 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Levittown/Al Franken/growing up controversy

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

So I move to clean it up very soon.

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

Immortal Technique who?

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

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

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

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

What, no Hypocrisy?

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

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

"Franken has also played clips from O'Reilly's audio book reading of his novel containing graphic scenes of sexual perversion, to illustrate the hypocrisy Franken finds in O'Reilly's criticisms of rap music lyrics."

• To be honest, I think something of what you are saying deserves inclusion in the article. However, I believe that a centered, uninflamatory approach has yet to be taken. Yeago 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

What, no loofah or falafel explanation?

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

Tabloid TV anchor

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

Chris Burke?

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

The whole section should be removed.

O'Reilly Has Disputes With Half the Human Race

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

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

Explanation of Removal

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

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

Obvious

I removed the word 'obvious' from the explanation of the San Francisco thing, because whether or not the satire was obvious is definitely a POV. Minor edit, but since this is a controversial page... Monkeyfacebag 05:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree

Unfortunately the liberal extremists do indeed pollute this and many other sites. If you look at the revision history there are so many acts of vandalism that take place, this is simply due to the militant mindset of the liberals extremists who instead of engaging in intelligent debate and making useful contributions express themselves through moronic vandalism.

Edit:It appears the article is getting better, and the tags could be removed soon. Although vandalism watch is still in effect.

Absurd article

This article needs to be cleaned up. Citing bush hating sites does not fit the standers Wikipedia. The part where it is alledged that Oreilly braged about serving in the military, when after 4 years of watching his show, constantly stated that he never served, is highly unlikely. That site he cited is titled "bush is an idiot"; what the hell is this? His source either made it up, or took a comment out of context; a liberal trait.

It is odd how almost every conservative/traditiobnalist personality listed in wikipedia must be cleaned up, yet liberal personalities remain untouched.

Rebuttal to above: First I am a McCain Republican, who voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. The Republican party has been hi-jacked by extreme right wing zealots. I am sure George Sr would agree. Keep in mind W's reckless fiscal policy tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are creating massive budget deficits. This seems to get lost in the W spin machine. Many economist have suggested that this fact along with massive war debt will bankrupt Social Security. Keep in mind that the general fund borrows money from the Social Security. This fact is lost on O'Really as I call him. So the criticism of Bush and O'Reilly is not only from liberals but also from highly educated successful mainstream Republicans. O'Reilly's radio program is much better because at least Bush critics get to voice an occasionally rebuttal to the W Spin. So W supporters tell us how the reckless fiscal policy isn't bad for the country. Tell us how the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. O'Reilly in his simplistic tabloid manner lumped Sadam and Bin Laden together. His shows are Jerry Springer like in their simplicity.

HOLY MOTHER OF ... -- This is an encyclopedia!

This is just plain stupid. I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site. Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense. If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded. Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.

If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game. In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic. There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations. -- Plastic Editor 12:26, 3 December 2005

(p.s. - this message repeated below, because it's important.)

I couldn't agree anymore with you. Wikipedia has gone to shit and has become a message board with a bunch of nerds trying to impose their views on others. The idea that wikipedia is somehow "neutral" is a far-fetched illusion. Almost every article is locked, or has a npov sign posted now. --65.9.101.226 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV if it's objectively true. Leaving out facts that are unfavorable to O'Reilly is itself a POV. 68.47.234.131 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The National Academy of Arts and Sciences

"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, O'Reilly was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his coverage and analysis of the events." What exactly is the National Academy of Arts and Sciences? Did the author mean the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences? I sure hope it wasn't the National Academy of Sciences. ;-)

---

Some of the information here seems wrong.

uh, like what? if you're going to put a disputed tag on a page, explain exactly why. putting a disputed tag and not actually explaining why gets noone anywhere. i'll remove it until you detail your objections. --Jamieli 16:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Proof O'Reilly is a bullshitter is PoV?

It's like Jon Stewart once said, are those reporting the news anti-Bush or is the news itself anti-Bush? In this case, the news is against Bill O'Reilly. I put on there that O'Reilly said a town in New York state was named after an "Indian" tribe when in fact no such Native American tribe exists. It isn't PoV to say he wasn't telling the truth, but it isn't apparent that he was really lying but just that he was trying to act like he knew something when he didn't. That's bullshitting, I go to college, I see it all the time. And it isn't PoV to point out objective facts, objective facts are in the NPoV tutorial under "What Not To Avoid." So if anyone wants to revert the facts away, they should here state why the facts are not worth presenting. Maprovonsha172 03:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Canandaigua" was the name of a Seneca village and was also the name of a treaty between the Iroquois tribe and the confederacy. So there is a fairly reasonable chance that this was an honest mistake. At the very least, no, it is not "apparent" what he was thinking when he made the statement. Your conjecture is not "proof" nor is it "objective facts" so to call him a "bullshitter" is baseless and POV. And without that bit, your remaining contribution is pretty worthless. There are many more well-publicized and widely scrutinized instances of O'Reilly's dishonesty as well as sources that compile them, both of which are already referenced in the article. Your edit doesn't add anything of value. To put it plainly we don't need a play-by-play of every show the guy puts out. The article references Media Matters; should we include a few sentences about each of the 200-plus items they've compiled on O'Reilly? Davetrainer 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you watched yesterday's show. I did. He said "the Indian tribe" quite confidantly and abruptly right after correcting his pronounciation. It's not an honest mistake, its bullshitting. He needed to bullshit that "the Indian tribe" stuff after correcting himself so as to save face. Some people think he is a liar, some people think he is a saint, here is an instance of him bullshitting. I think that is very important, alongside more important instances like when he said he was "in combat" and all sorts of things like that. We can reword if you like but the information is valid.

P.S.: You would do well to register as a member David.

I agree with Davetrainer. Pointing out hand-selected quotes as an example of "bullshit" is POV, as well as original research. Rhobite 19:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That he said something confidently and abruptly does not rule out the possibility that he made an honest mistake, and it certainly is not a sufficient basis for calling him a "bullshitter". Again, it isn't apparent to anyone what he was thinking when he made the statement, so for you to infer that he was "bullshitting" "to save face" is POV. And yes, it is also original research. I'm pretty certain that no amount of rewording can reconcile any of these problems. Davetrainer 21:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is original research, so I will retract it for that reason. But it is a perfect example of O'Reilly bullshitting, acting as though he were familiar with a Native American tribe that doesn't and never has existed. Anyone who caught that last night could back me up on that. Maprovonsha172 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No hard feelings, frankly I do consider O'Reilly a liar and a bullshitter, and I don't doubt he was bullshitting in this case. So it's a POV that we share, nonetheless it is a POV. Davetrainer 22:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference - and I know this is a difference that many people have difficult distinguishing these days - between being mistaken and lying. To show that he was lying, one must prove that he knew that it was not an "Indian tribe" while saying that it was. That's much bigger than simply being caught in an error - all reporters make all kinds of errors all the time. Look at the New York Times or Dan Rather. --Xinoph 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The cricketeer is nowhere near as notable as the controversial talk show host, and a disambiguation page is good enough. Google for 'Bill O'Reilly FOX News' receives 625,000 results; 'Bill O'Reilly Cricket' receives 41,200 results. I would be bold and move myself, but I'm afraid that doing so might not be possible due to page histories, etc. I am requesting this page be moved to Bill O'Reilly, and have Bill O'Reilly as it currently stands be moved to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation).

Vote here with Support or Oppose.

Support

• Support. ral315 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing request, as apparently the cricketeer is much more well-known than the commentator elsewhere. ral315 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I still support this. If he were much more well-known, he'd have more than 10 articles linking to him. Wikipedia's Aussie editors are plentiful (and I lived there this entire last year), so there's no worry of geographical bias, in my mind. Shem^(talk) 23:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Shem^(talk) 21:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)***The appalling ignorance of some Americans on here really does make me believe all those Dubya jokes must be true. We have one who thinks merit is determined by Google results and another who thinks it is determined by the number of Wikipedia articles!? The first one also says that it is only olympic participation that determines if a sport is "major"; but of course baseball and American football are "major" despite not being in the olympics. Absolutely unbelievable.
  • Baseball is (was) an Olympic sport. EAE

And yet the guy who raised the issue in the first place has done a bit of sensible research, realised that cricket worldwide is somewhat bigger than he first thought, and has withdrawn his proposal. --Jack 18:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I am going to take every opportunity I can to agree with Shem. The only Wiki issue is notability and it is not even close. I am not always a fan of Google searches, but in this case, it tells the story. --Noitall 03:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why, if you're not a fan of Google searches, that in this case you are. An American media personality is obviously going to have more Google hits than a dead Australian cricketer - but that doesn't neccessarily translate into notability. The cricketer was one of the greatest players that ever lived. The commentator will be all but forgotten a couple of years after he retires. -- Ian ≡ talk 06:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not a fan because sometimes Google searches can be misleading or discussions when close to same hits are erronious. In this case it is not even close. I don't think being one of the "greatest players" from an extremely minor sport of cricket (no offense, but its the truth) from years ago who is dead and from Australia (no offense again, but Australia just does not influence the world, especially from many years ago). --Noitall 01:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not true that cricket is an "extremely minor sport". It is followed by more people across the world than any other sport except soccer. It is a very minor sport in the USA, certainly, but worldwide it is more significant than any American sport. No offence, just correcting your "truth". -dmmaus 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No offence taken on any point :). However, I don't see what Australia's status as a world influence has to do with the notability issue. As I and others have argued, Cricket is a significant sport and "old" Bill is a highly notable individual in that sport and that this is a multi-language, international encyclopaedia. I put it to you that neither Bill is more notable than the other in that context and that that they should both be referred to from Bill O'Reilly (a disambig page). -- Ian ≡ talk 04:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to be ignorant of Bill O'Reilly's impact on politics, journalism, and media, I think. He is the most-watched political pundit of any on Earth currently. Shem^(talk) 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you back up your claim: on earth? Ian, Jguk, and I have all not heard about this commentator. I don't believe any of us are behind the times, or don't keep abreast of current events. We come from three different countries. On earth? nice claim. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Certainly, he changed cable news, changed regular television news, received ratings far higher than all others (and from all POVs), the issues he raises influences politics and political opinion. In short, he has had an enormous impact.--Noitall 01:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • He has an impact in the United States. From the international point of view he may just be a regular tv anchor. From Wikipedia's article on the commentator, the only international events that the commentator can be credited to is the coverage of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and his (really stupid IMO) edict against French goods. Please do not claim "global" impact. His realm of influence is North America. The cricketer's influence is much more widespread. Keep the dab page as both are notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • I should mention that while O'Reilly's statements are occasionally heard in Canada (e.g. when he compared the CBC to Nazi propaganda) he is not yet rebroadcast here, even on cable. I have never seen Fox News except when visiting the States. --Saforrest 21:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm completely ignorant of his impact on politics etc. I rather think that's the point, isn't it? Stephen Turner 06:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User:Bedford^(talk) 04:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Much more notable. Rangeley 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. What the hell is cricket? --66.82.9.55 05:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I've never (well hardly) heard of Bill O'Reilly the commentator. I sure that there'd be millions of people who know who the cricketer is though. A case of WP:CSB. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'd argue that millions more know who O'Reilly is, in Australia and the UK, too. Yours looks a case of cricket fandom, not countering systemic bias. "For the Australian cricketer, see: Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)" would still be on display prominently at the top of the page. Shem(talk) 02:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Your argument is based on an assumption that "millions" in Australia and GB know who your TV "personality" is. I can tell you for a fact that he is unknown in England, though Tiger O'Reilly is well known even to people with a passing interest in cricket. In Australia, Tiger O'Reilly's native land, he is an absolute legend and an Aussie pal of mine has just confirmed over the phone that he has never heard of anyone else called Bill O'Reilly. Please do not assume that the rest of the world is taken in by American hype and propaganda. Frankly, we are just not interested in America. A good example came up in my conversation with my Aussie pal when we asked each other how many baseball names we know. We both agreed we had heard of Babe Ruth and then we were really struggling. My mate says he read something about one called Strawberry Fields (unless that was a Beatles song!) and he mentioned another called Jeter(?). The only other one I can think of is Billy Bonds' namesake. Given that my friend and I are both knowledgeable people who are widely travelled and are both huge sports fans, I would say that we are a good example of the complete indifference to Americana that is common throughout the world apart from in the USA itself. --Jack 12:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neither is self-evidently more notable than the other. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not clear that one is more notable than the other - googlecounting is, as ever, pretty stupid. --Khendon 19:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Khendon - O'Reilly played fifty years ago, naturally his google count is going to be deflated. Don Bradman picked him in his all-time World XI [17] before he died, apparently. Sam Vimes 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bill O'Reilly was one of the best and most famous cricketers of his era - as evidenced by him being in the Australian Hall of Fame and in Bradman's all-time World XI. I've never heard of the American commentator, jguk 19:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are notable to different audiences. A disambiguation page is the right solution. Stephen Turner 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose: – I live in India. I don't get the Fox News Channel, and so I haven't heard of the commentator. Are you going to tell me just because he is pretty famous in the US, and his name is occasionally heard of in Australia and the UK, he gets the benefit of the title? This is nothing but systemic bias! How can it be gauged that he is anywhere less notable by those who aren't familiar with cricket history? He was one of the most famous cricketers of the Bodyline era. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Systemic bias my ass; this is a vote-bombing by Wikiproject cricket, and fandom trying to play itself off as fighting systemic bias. Shem^(talk) 08:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an American ass, of course? American as in a country led by George W Bush? There is no vote-bombing here at all. It is simply that cricket is a major worldwide sport, second only to football (played with feet, round ball, you know the one), and that people in the rest of the world, not just cricket and football fans, object to exercises in American propaganda trying to convince us that we have heard of every American "personality" when we are simply not interested in America. A pal of mine in Bangalore told me only today that he has never heard of any Bill O'Reilly other than "Tiger" and that people in India "have better things to do than be interested in American TV personalities". --Jack 12:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I will take the opportunity to remind you of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Baseless allegations of 'vote-bombing' are not in keeping with this. --Ngb 08:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You should take the opportunity to read my user page, and be reminded that I don't follow that guideline on Wikipedia. My observation is definitely not baseless; a very sensible move was proposed, and a "hey, come vote here cricket fans" notice was posted at Wikiproject Cricket. Were such a notice posted off-site, it'd be vote-bombing without question. Y'all're a bunch of cricket fans, first and foremost, using the fact that you're not Americans as leverage in a bogus allegation of systemic bias. Shem^(talk) 11:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • WP:Cricket is not vote-bombing - and there are plenty of instances of cricketers only being linked to via a disambiguation notice at the top of an article on someone completely different that I wouldn't think of changing, regardless of how many other cricket fans tried to persuade me otherwise. In this instance, however, Bill O'Reilly is one of the all-time greats and is one of the better-known cricketers of his era. I'm not convinced the American O'Reilly will be remembered 70-80 years past the peak of his career. I'm glad we've had this proposed move though - it's highlighted how inadequate the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page is, and I see it has improved a lot since it gained this attention, jguk 11:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Since you obviously have no intention of assuming good faith, and seeing as you've been needlessly and rudely confrontational from the off, I don't see that it will be profitable for either of us or for Wikipedia if we continue to debate this. --Ngb 14:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would I be a fan of old Bill? I think you're a very big fan of younger Bill :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Errrmm... do you get "Star World"? Fox News and Star World are both owned by Rupert Murdock and I'm quite sure O'Reilly is sometimes on Star World (but perhaps not recently?)... Sortan 17:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do get Star World; its an entertainment channel. They show programmes like Friends, Desperate Housewives, Buffy the Vampire Slayer etc. I fail to see how a news channel figures here. I haven't said I haven't heard of FNC, I said that it is not received here. Murdock owing the channel has nothing to do with O'R. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 00:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Regardless of which one of the more prominent, there is no hugely asymmetrical difference between the two. Having Bill O'Reilly as a dab page strikes me as the best way to go. Guettarda 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral. I was attracted here by Wikiproject cricket. Although I feel the cricketer is more famous to a wider audience than the commentator, and will have a longer lasting impact, I have no strong opinion on this particular proposed move. -dmmaus 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I believe that the commentator is a more significant figure. But, the crickiteer is probably known by several million which may pale imho to the commentators audience is still signficant that a disambiguation is reasonable as is a link from the commentators page to the cricket player. Falphin 21:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I disagree with your assertion that the commentator is any more notable than the cricketer. This is almost certainly true within the boundaries of the United States, but I would contest that the opposite is true in many other English-speaking territories (the UK, Australia, India, etc.). I would expect many people outside of the US never to have heard of Bill O'Reilly (commentator), whereas Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is widely notable in those countries as one of the best leg spinners ever. Don't forget that this is an international encyclopaedia, not just an American one. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You won't play the "American bias" card with me, sorry. I've lived abroad for well over three years now, most of it in Australia, am married to a Commonwealth girl, and Bill O'Reilly here is very noteworthy as one of Rupert Murdoch's top men. This is not a matter of systemic bias, and I'm tired of seeing Wikiproject Cricket pretend that it is. Shem^(talk) 08:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't see where I mentioned 'American bias' here. I noted that while the move proponent's assertion would be true within the US (where Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is certainly less notable, I have no reason to believe it is true internationally -- and this is an international encyclopaedia. --Ngb 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You're implying it, heavily. Or was "don't forget this is an international encyclopedia, not just an American one" just you shooting the wind? Shem^(talk)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what 'shooting the wind' means, but I assume it's derogatory. So, no, it means exactly what it says. I was reminding the move's proponent that in other parts of the world than the US -- parts of the world that this Wikipedia covers -- it's by no means a clear assertion that either of these two Bill O'Reillys is more notable than the other. --Ngb 14:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So you agree that this is an international encyclopedia? That means a dab page would be the most neutral thing here. Thank you very much. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I have never heard of the commentator, but know of the cricketer. --Q 19:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) only has 10 other articles linking to it, most of them athlete lists. His article also claims that he was known as Tiger O'Reilly -- was he known by this to the point where his article could actually be titled Tiger O'Reilly? We can also add For the Australian cricketer, see: Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) to the top of this article, once it's moved. Shem^(talk) 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he was and is mostly known as Bill O'Reilly, jguk 07:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Tiger was an affectionate nickname only. He was always called Bill. Unlike Tiger Woods, for example. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that the discussion is getting a bit too heated? Attacking the person with opposing views to yours makes your own argument look weak. I am addressing this to people on both sides. Stephen Turner 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note how many of the same WP:Cricket members voted against making Cricket a dab page, but insist of keeping Bill O'Reilly a dab page (switching reasons when it suits their purposes).... imho, both should be dab pages, but the hypocrisy demonstrated here is saddening. Sortan 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the hypocrisy there? It is a case of consistency, not hypocrisy. Cricket is a major world sport while the insect is of interest to insectologists, of whom there are far fewer than there are cricket fans. As far as an individual like Bill (Tiger) O'Reilly is concerned, there is always the possibility that he will have a namesake who is well known in some quarters and you have to be prepared to disambiguate there. I have, for example, come across a situation only this morning regarding a cricket writer called Christopher Lee and I accept that his namesake, the actor, is better known; another cricket writer is called John Ford and he is nowhere near so well known as the film director. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no hypocrisy, and no switching of reasons. I believe that Cricket is more notable than Cricket (insect), but that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is not more notable than Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). (Similarly, and also without hypocrisy, I believe that London is more notable than London, Arkansas, but that Milford, Derbyshire is not more notable than Milford, Connecticut.) Simple. My reasons for these beliefs are stated in the appropriate places. Your mileage may vary. --Ngb 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sortan, I tend to agree with you that they should both be dab pages, but let's please not start the name-calling again — it's not "hypocrisy", or even contradictory, to believe that cricket (sport) is much more prominent than cricket (insect), and that neither Bill O'Reilly is much more prominent than the other. In fact they're rather consistent views; it depends how notable you think cricket (sport) and cricketers are. So although I disagree with those people's conclusions, I think they hold a perfectly sensible point of view. Stephen Turner 18:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Sortan - it's a sockpuppet account used for trolling (see his user contributions and you'll see what I mean) and more recently following me around objecting to everything I do. He's best ignored for what he is, jguk 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was attracted here by the note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket. It is impossible for me to judge how well known and influential the commentator is in absolute terms, as I had never even heard of him before. He demonstrably does not have a high profile in many countries outside the USA. Likewise, it is impossible for people who do not know much about cricket to gauge the fame and importance of the cricketer. I suggest that either party in this disagreement making claims about the notereity of the other O'Reilly is talking about something of which they are largely ignorant. That is not a good way to come to an agreement about their relative importance, as we can see. Judging purely on the facts available to me, I conclude the following:

• The cricketer is one of the best known players of his era, in a sport of large global importance. He is of significant historical importance in the sport, and well known to many cricket followers.
• Cricket has more followers than any other sport in the world except for soccer. It is not a minor sport. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that more people in the world know of O'Reilly the cricketer than, for example, Cy Young the baseball player - a player of similar importance in baseball to O'Reilly's importance in cricket.
• However, I would not be surprised if considerably more people searching Wikipedia for "Bill O'Reilly" were looking for the commentator than for the cricketer. I base this conclusion on the fact that the cricketer is, indeed, dead and not frequently thought of by current cricket followers, whereas the commentator is clearly a contemporary figure and has a significant following in the USA. If Cy Young was the name of a significant political commentator in England, I suspect more people would be searching for Cy Young the commentator than Cy Young the baseball player, for the same reasons.

Therefore, I do not oppose the proposal to move this page. But I am unable to form a solid opinion on how notable O'Reilly the commentator really is, so I cannot vote in support either. -dmmaus 09:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The American is unknown outside his own country and, let's be honest, this is yet another baseless assumption by Americans that, if someone is well known in the USA, it follows they are internationally famous. The rest of the world is not interested in America and this TV personality is completely unknown in the real (i.e., rest of the) world. As you have said, Bill (Tiger) O'Reilly remains a famous figure in the world's second most popular sport. Oh, and by the way, thanks for telling us all about Cy Young. I can now name three baseball players: Babe Ruth; Billy Bonds' namesake; and Cy Young. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jack, you're an idiot. If you took a little less time to tell us how little you care about America, your claim might seem a little more sincere. It's pretty clear that you're bitterly jealous of a country that is much more prominent than your own. Say what you want about selection bias, but the truth is that most of the people reading this are indeed American, so when the debate is over who is "more noteable," someone who is well known to an American audience has an inherent edge.

Being the #2 sport in the West Indies and India does not make it a major sport. There are at least 100 more major sports in the world in the olympics, which cricket is not, having been removed. Also, since India is extremely tech savvy and dominant in the internet, then Google analysis is an appropriate way to find out about the cricket "Babe Ruth." The cricketer: [18] 4,430, Babe Ruth: [19] 706,000, O'Reilly Fox News: [20] 246,000. I think that says it all. --Noitall 12:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

By population it is a major sport. Conservatively speaking I would put the number of cricket fans in India at 25% the total population. Now that's about the entire population of the United States. Cricket has a presence in 90 countries. I'm sure you didn't know that. Your figures only tell us that there are more internet users in the United States than in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is interested in world-wide notability. Your analysis does not even touch on the figures I noted that address worldwide notability (removal as Olympic sport, very few Google mentions in comparison). --Noitall 13:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

That's because your figures are self-evidently ridiculous. Selection as an Olympic sport is not predicated on notability, and Googlecounting is meaningless. --Ngb 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The ICC has never really pushed cricket to be an Olympic sport. They don't get hard cash. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you know absolutely nothing about the sport of cricket. The Olympics has a fixed quota of allowed sports. I'm sure you know that. Notability has nothing to do with the Olympics. Its the global reach of the sport and the people who follow the sport. This site shows that cricket has reached your backyard. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved my talk page after diatribe regarding greatness of India and cricket:

Your being a fan of cricket and India has blinded you to the realities of Wiki, where the issue is notability. Your sport got removed from the Olympics long ago and does not even merit a write-up by the International Olympic committee,[21] being less notable than the sports of Rugby and Tug-of-War. --Noitall 14:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're getting a little too hot and personal here. I suggest you cool down. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the reason there's no writeup is because Cricket's participation in the Olympics was very ad-hoc and only recognised afterwards: see Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics. --Ngb 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I have cited the only 2 pieces of evidence (the International sport body and Google notability) here in this discussion (other than rabid fandom) and the evidence is objective and normally used in Wiki to determine such matters. --Noitall 14:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep citing Google? Its not an absolute or accurate metric. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Only a complete idiot would regard Google results as "evidence" and cricket is noted for the intelligence of its participants. Besides being the 2nd most popular sport on Earth after football, it is also the 2nd most tactical, after chess. As for the Olympics, there is no doubt whatsoever that football is the most popular sport on the planet but it treats the Olympics with utter contempt (and quite right too because the Olympics is riddled with corruption and drug abuse). In the Olympics, a handful of under-21 football teams compete for "Olympic glory". Hardly on the same level as the World Cup or the European Cup, is it? --Jack 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit, you are very passionate for your sport. But you need to take your arguments elsewhere, perhaps to some Cricket blog, if you choose to ignore the only objective evidence and argue against Wiki standards. --Noitall 18:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

WHAT Wiki standards? Do please tell us and provide some links to pages on Wikipedia which rule that Google hits and participation in the Olympics shall determine the merit or otherwise of a particular sport. Also, answer two simple questions. One, are baseball and American football "major sports"? Two, are they in the Olympics?

And finally, are you aware that the guy who raised this issue in the first place has subsequently done a bit of sensible research, has realised that cricket is a much bigger sport than he originally thought, has apologised for his error and has formally withdrawn his proposal? It's all in this page. --Jack 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Baseball is in the Olympics, believe it or not, as of 1992. But yes, participation in the Olympics and Googlecounting are not useful grounds for establishing the notability of a sport. --Ngb 19:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It is for now, and will be played in the Beijing Games. However, it's been axed, along with softball, from the London Games (and by the IOC before anyone asks), jguk 19:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest Noitall visit this club to learn more about cricket. Its in Maryland, his area of expertise. Talk about cricket's global impact! =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

A small point of fact that I can contribute. Since 1900 cricket has never been eligible to be in the Olympics. IOC rules set guidelines for number of countries in which a sport must be established to be included in the Olympics (which cricket easily passes), and also that both men's and women's versions of the sport must be administrated by a single administrative body. The International Cricket Council and International Women's Cricket Councils merged only this year. Cricket's absence from the Olympics says nothing whatsoever about its global presence, as IOC rules prohibited it from being included for a different reason. This argument is getting us nowhere, by the way. I suggest we have an admin look over what has passed, make a decision, and stop fussing over it. -dmmaus 01:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Hey Liberal Wik Editors...

Great news! I found something you might like even better than Wikipedia. It's an exciting new on-line encyclopedia inspired by Wik but...well...a better fit.

Here's the link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Main_Page

I think a lot of you would feel more comfortable there...

Just being helpful, Big Daddy 06:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, great link! But I'll still be editing Wikipedia. You, however, won't... you've been permanently banned. Awesome!!! Eleemosynary 07:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone imagine an encyclopedia writing in it's own voice "As if that was not enough to demonstrate this poor grieving woman was unhinged?" Hipocrite 16:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think since this line was inserted directly after that CHEAP SHOT quote of hers, that a little context on how deranged some of her other statements are is quite apropos.

Remember, this entry is about Bill O'Reilly. W When did it become a forum to post every hateful comment about him by fringe left elements?

This is just one of at least TWENTY examples of hateful left wing biased spin in this article.

It's hilarious if you think this nothing more than an O'Reilly hit piece masquerading as an encyclopedia entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BigDaddy777 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 September 2005.

The correct response to a bad article is to fix the article, not make it worse. If you go through, line by line, and make changes that make me think that the article is more encyclopedic, I'll defend them. If you go through and start attacking other editors in the main body of the article, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Hipocrite 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's get it on.

One of the easiest things to correct, as it's pervasive throughout the entire entry, is the cheap shot at the end.

My grandfather used to teach me that you can learn the most about someone by the way they enter and the way they leave.

There are countless paragraphs in this entry that have a pretense of objectivity, but always end with a shot at O'Reilly.

You'd think the liberals who wrote this would know better than to overplay their hand, but I guess not.

Here are just a few of the egregious examples:

NOTE: These are the last sentences of sections pertaining to subjects or people O'Reilly has confronted on the air.

CINDY SHEEHAN "Sheehan subsequently refused to appear on O'Reilly's show, calling The O'Reilly Factor "an obscenity to the truth and an obscenity to humanity."[36]."

LUDACRIS

"O'Reilly, who had voiced strong opposition towards Ludacris' alleged degradation of women, had no retort."

NEIL BOORTZ

"To this day, Boortz retains a general disdain for O'Reilly, which he shares with fellow Atlantian and occasional studio guest, Ludacris."

JEREMY GLICK

"Glick and his supporters deny O'Reilly's allegations, and maintain that the transcripts show that he said nothing of the sort."

IRAQ & TERRORISM

Actually, it seems like someone cleaned this one up already. It used to be some outright attack from MMFA. Now it just ascribes their disagreement to them. That's a step in the right direction.

But I could go on and on with these last second cheapshots.

Each taken individually by themselves MIGHT BE, by the lowest possible standards, excusable.

But taken as a whole, it paints a picture. A horribly biased picture where, in virtually every SINGLE disagreement, O'Reilly turns out to be wrong.

Even in the French boycott section, where O'Reilly's claim of a one billion dollar trade loss was confirmed, it was phrased in a way that cloaked his vindication.

All in all, it's a hatchet job... straight up.

And I can't believe no one has called Wik out on this before...

big daddy

Ps To break it apart line by line is NOT the way to correct this. I'd say begin by gutting all these unnecessary entries about Glick and Sheehan, all of which add NOTHING to understanding O'Reilly other than to help his political enemies make him out to be an ogre.

In fact, if you read the entire entry from start to scratch, the ultimate conclusion you come away with is that O'Reilly is a right wing bully who pretends to be something he isn't.

What a coincidence!

That's EXACTLY what his political ENEMIES want you to conclude.

This entry is a classic example of old school liberal bias -

Arrange the facts in such a way that no SINGLE point can be entirely disputed but ultimately leaves you with the conclusion THEY want you to have.

Sorry, that is NOT neutrality.

Big Daddy 20:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about going through that point by point, but I decided not to. Instead, I edited your comment below to a form that people would be able to discuss without getting pissed off.

I think that a critical and pervasive problem in this article is the snide remark that ends many of the paragraphs. I've found a couple examples, and feel there are many more.

CINDY SHEEHAN: "Sheehan subsequently refused to appear on O'Reilly's show, calling The O'Reilly Factor "an obscenity to the truth and an obscenity to humanity."[36]."

LUDACRIS "O'Reilly, who had voiced strong opposition towards Ludacris' alleged degradation of women, had no retort."

NEIL BOORTZ "To this day, Boortz retains a general disdain for O'Reilly, which he shares with fellow Atlantian and occasional studio guest, Ludacris."

JEREMY GLICK "Glick and his supporters deny O'Reilly's allegations, and maintain that the transcripts show that he said nothing of the sort."

While alone these seem acceptable, the pattern that emerges paints O'Reilly as turning out wrong in every conflict.

Even in the French boycott section, where O'Reilly's claim of a one billion dollar trade loss was confirmed, it was phrased in a way that made that ambigous.

Then, you follow that up with 1 or 2 concrete changes you want made. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

I still can't get past the fact that no one...I mean NO ONE. has objected to this HATCHET JOB before.

Check this little piece of the O'Reilly entry out and tell me it's not a TOTAL SMEAR -

" FAIR, a media watchdog group, published a book, The Oh Really? Factor, documenting false accusations and inaccurate statements that O'Reilly has made on his show. FAIR notes that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias.[38] For example, after the Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not test pregnant women for drugs and send the results to the police without consent, O'Reilly commented: "Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment" (O'Reilly Factor, March 23, 2001)."

Big Daddy 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that an encyclopedia with over 1,800,000 articles in over 100 languages has one article that one person things is so terribly objectionable, and is shocked, shocked that it still exists. I've made a number of encyclopedic edits to the article itself to address some of the concerns you brought up. I'm doing way too much time doing research on stuff you don't like and way to little time helping you do edits. I'm not the expert on polidrama played out on the cable news screamshows, and I certainly don't want to be one. You're the expert, so why am I doing the editing? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"You're the expert, so why am I doing the editing? ??"

Ummm...Because EVERY time I tried to edit, it was COMPLETELY erased by that other editor, so now, I'm half-afraid, that if I DO edit anything, they will ban me.

Big Daddy

ps Thanks for trying to make me out as the bad guy here. Big Daddy 21:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold. I'll back you up if you deserve it, and you're not going to get banned if you don't talk about other editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

Bold I can do.

Take care,

Big Daddy

Ps Give me a few days, I really want to be fair in approaching this. Allow me to become familiar with the entries of some of the other talking heads in here. I think it'll help in my efforts to be objective. Big Daddy 21:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Its day 3 of your wikipedia career--I'll give you a few months. You triggered a bunch of peoples "vandalalarms" with the usertalk in article space, and so the world looked harsher than it was. Conservaburnout seems reasonably prevalant - I'm not going to posit on why. Bold isn't reckless - if you write something, and you think it might piss someone off, best to write it to the talk page first, let people hack at it, and then, if you listen and incorporate the right changes into your proposed change, it's always good. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For starters, I suggest we replace this entry:

Some critics contend that O'Reilly often makes up facts and figures to support his points. FAIR, a media watchdog group, published a book, The Oh Really? Factor, documenting false accusations and inaccurate statements that O'Reilly has made on his show. FAIR notes that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias.[38] For example, after the Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not test pregnant women for drugs and send the results to the police without consent, O'Reilly commented: "Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment" (O'Reilly Factor, March 23, 2001).

With....

That's right, nothing.

Just get rid of it. It's an unredeemable hatchet job by a left wing organization not even named as such.

If some of you want to defend it's inclusion, knock yourself out. It woul then be only fair to include a section in the Al Franken entry articulating Bill O'Reilly's grievances with him...

After all, we want to remain POV neutral, right?

Big Daddy 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain what's wrong with the paragraph without talking about liberal bias or doing bad things to someone else's article? Is FAIR a liberal media watchdog group? I'm done doing research, but the change that I see to that paragraph is "FAIR, a liberal media watchdog group, accuses" Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

The answer to your question is found in your question itself. You asked "Could you explain what's wrong..without..doing bad things to someone else's article?"

Well, the only 'bad' thing I suggested doing to 'someone else's article' is what was done here to O'Reilly. So apparently we are in agreement that it's bad, right?

Ps I've read portions of 'The O'Really Factor' it's a nit picking hatchet job that only brings up tiny minutae that have no bearing on the overall theme of O'Reilly's messages.

It is true that O'Reilly, being kind of an old guy, stumbles on his words a bit and sometimes isn't too artful in expressing his views. (He has gotten a little better lately.)

But to EXPLOIT these insignificant tendencies and leverage them to an entire book is just sad.

And that's what FAIR did. They are his enemies.

Reference to this book has NO place in this article.

They do NOT document false accusations etc. They only SAY they do.

But again, if this is fair game, keep it in. I only want to be evenhanded here. I've got a few comments from O'Reilly and Limbaugh about Al Franken, Bill Maher and Bill Moyers that I'll be HAPPY to include on their pages.

Big Daddy 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't negotiate tit-for-tat. That's not how it works. Make this article better. I suggested one change to the paragraph, which you failed to comment on. What you suggested was "This article is terrible, and unless I'm able to do with it what I will, I will make this other article just as bad! I don't think this article is bad per-se, but I see areas for improvement. You should feel free to do the same. So, without talking about liberal bias or other articles, what needs to be done to fix this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, you say you "only want to be evenhanded here," but it appears that you object to almost every single criticism of Bill O'Reilly in this entry. How is it a fair and evenhanded discussion if the whole entry is candy and flowers, and fails to explain why he is such a controversial figure? The FAIR book is an excellent source for understanding this controversy, even if you don't agree with it. Bill O'Reilly isn't perfect, and as this is supposed to be an objective entry, so both his strengths and his weaknesses should be described objectively and with references. Ignoring half of the story by expunging any criticism is neither fair nor balanced, to coin a phrase. 71.242.227.80 08:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

It should be eliminated. Period.

Ps Also the Sheehan segment should go. What the hell does this have to do with Bill O'Reilly? The liberals have tried to turn this into a left wing blog. There's no long term significance to the way O'Reilly covered the Sheehan story.

I edited out that last comment from her about his show. It was TOTALLY gratutious, mean-spirited and hateful. IOW, it's completely consistent with the way non-liberals are treated here in Wikipedi! lol!

I also took out that sentence where Media Matters (of all people) tried to 'clarify her intent' regarding the discrepancy between her first and second interviews about the Bush meetings.

Now THAT is pure liberal spin. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Interview #1: Effusive praise for how Bush handled himself and posed for a photo being kissed by him and holding his hand.

Interview #2: Bush is the anti-Christ.

None of this belongs on O'Reilly's page anyway but let's all please curtail the liberal hack job on every single commentator they don't like.

This is not metafilter.

Big Daddy 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip Writes: "Conservaburnout seems reasonably prevalant - I'm not going to posit on why."

Oh, I'm starting to get an idea real fast. lol!

Hip: "You can't negotiate tit-for-tat."

Don't worry Hip. I have no plans to go to Franken's site and trash him the way liberals trash O'Reilly. It's just not in my makeup. I guess that's just a liberal thing...

Hip: "What needs to be done to fix this?"

Give me a little bit of time. I'm still busy fighting battles on the Ann Coulter and Cindy Sheehan site. So many biased articles...so little time.

Big Daddy 02:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it incredibly difficult to treat you with respect when you have such utter disrespect for an institution that I have grown to love, and the contributors that have made it what it is. Wikipedia is not about "fighting battles," or "defeating liberals." You need to STOP FOCUSING ON EDITORS AND START FOCUSING ON EDITS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip writes:

"I find it incredibly difficult to treat you with respect when you have such utter disrespect for an institution..."

Well, I hope you'll re-think that position. I would never disrespect another human being just because I disagree with them about an institution.

If you don't think that, at present, there's just a few reasonable people fighting off an ONSLAUGHT of liberal bias in the articles pertaining to non-liberal commentators, then we're just not reading the same Wikipedia. If you look at the talk page for Ann Coulter and see the nitpicking, church-lady, vicious attacks on her about why she's such a liar and makes stuff up and all the typical boilerplate liberal caluminty, it makes you wonder if you're on Wik or dailykos.com

Not to mention the countless times dailykos, democratic underground and media matters are used as SOURCES! I would never think to use lucianne.com or freerepublic.com etc as resources. It just seems too unseemly.

So, like it or not, this is what I see.

And I think it's a little disingenous of you to play the 'disrespect' card when it's blatantly obvious to any reasonable person just how tilted left these entries are.

Now, having said that, I'm encouraged by the changes that have recently been made.

Plus, I realize in my zeal to propose these changes, I violated several aspects of Wiketiquette which is why I've scaled back my work here so as to get a better feel for how the Wik community operates.

It IS very exciting to be part of something that has such great potential like Wik.

An internationally collaborative effort like this has never been attempted (or even been possible) before.

But it is biased. I'm sorry if that offends you. It's got an inherent bias because so many of the editors are liberals like yourself but somehow think a whole bunch of 'fair-minded' liberals' (which you also are) can create a bias-free encyclopedia.

But, that's just not true. Wik, in my view, needs to admit it has a problem in this regard and go out of it's way to recruit conservative editors.

I notice when I bring these points up you always try to deflect them but never counter with articles that disprove my point.

I think there's a reason for this. You probably can't.

The articles about Al Franken and Michael Moore don't have separate sections, primarily sourced by their SWORN ENEMIES, filled with endless attacks about how bogus they are. Maybe a choice quote here and there, but not complete sections.

But the articles on Coulter, O'Reilly do. (BTW, for a few laughs, go to the Sean Hannity article. It's almost got as much cheap shot criticism and far left liberal links than it does a basic bio!)

In conclusion Hip, I think an apology is more in order. An apology that Wik has been allowed to be OVERRUN by left wing editors that have allowed this stuff to go on for so long.

But, if you want to personally attack my analysis, go ahead. That's another thing that makes Wikipedia great.

Big Daddy 14:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no chance I am apologizing to you, nor am I addressing your concerns about Wikipedia at large in the talk page for Bill O'Reilly, because this is not the appropraite venue for such discussion. You have posted yet another screed about liberals owning this encyclopedia without proposing substantive encyclopedic change to the article, and thus I choose not to respond to you. More edits, less editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

HipOCRITE,

I am beginning to question your abilities as an editor here at Wikipedia.

You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension in addtion to a glaringly obvious lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack. I'm just questioning how you could write the above and consider it a serious response to my comments.

I'm not concerned about a PERSONAL apology to ME.

For one, I'm not offended. But you and all other liberal editors at Wik (and conserative ones for that matter) OWE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY an apology for positing Wikipedia as something that it is not. Neutral. At least not now. (I hope that can change.)

Secondly, if you wanted to apologize, who said you had to 'do it here.' You certainly could have left a message on the Big Daddy Talk page, right?

Anyway, I did provide a 'substantive encyclopedic change' as you put it.

I excised this statement regarding Roger Ailes of Fox News:

"(and architect of the infamous Willie Horton attack ad)"

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out why, but for those not quite as bright, let me break it down....

You liberals are insane!! You are so DRIPPING WITH HATE FOR FOX NEWS that you can't even mention Roger Ailes without cheap shotting him?

Why not just say ...'Roger Ailes of Fox News, who has a large ass boil on his right butt cheek!'???

Because that's how the inclusion of that totally out of left field Willy Horton comment in the Bill O'Reilly article appears to any REASONABLE person.

Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health...

Just trying to help,

Big Daddy 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you alienate the people who are trying to help you, you will be left with little more than the demons you are trying to fight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

I honestly think you are more of a hindrance than a help right now, but I've reserved judgement as there have been times where you've at least been thoughtful. And trust me, I have plenty of help when it comes to fighting demons. (I need it, too! :)

I edited out this section for the time being. Not because it tries to paint O'Reilly in a bad light or suggest he is a liar (God Forbid!) but because there's no substantiation for it and cable subscriber numbers are as ephemeral as Lindsay Lohan's weigh-ins.

"In actual fact, Fox News Channel is only available on digital cable in Canada, and only has a few thousand viewers; digital cable in general has less than one million subscribers across the country at present."

Does anybody have up to date info regarding Fox in Canada? And, even if you do, will it be up to date 3 months from now? Does this kind of nitpicking even belong in an encyclopedic entry?

Big Daddy 04:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the up-to-date situation for Fox News Channel in Canada. Digital cable is not growing that rapidly; particularly not to the point of O'Reilly's claimed eight million viewers. The OTA networks in Canada don't even get eight million viewers for a single program. And as for your editing of the CBC section to read "Critics dispute these numbers and claim that CBC does not have a monopoly on television news in Canada", that the CBC does not have a monopoly on Canadian TV news is not a disputable POV claim, it is an incontrovertible fact (unless you're claiming that CTV Newsnet, Global National and CablePulse 24 don't even exist, which is demonstrably false.) Bearcat 00:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the lengthy 'controversies' section?

The area is easily full of biases, where editors can insert little 'facts' where they attempt to make Bill O'Reilly look bad. While I think his show is terrible, it unsettles me to see an entire list of 'conflicts' akin to the kind of lists you'd find in the 50-Cent article. Many of these do not seem to have any long term significance. For instance, "O'Reilly briefly focused his attention on Barbara Boxer," "Most recently O'Reilly has spoken out against University of Colorado leftist professor Ward Churchill," repeated uses of the 'In X Month of Y Year O'Reilly did Z', many of which again do not have any long term significance or impact on what an encyclopedia article should present.

In fact, most of these little excerpts seem to be deliberately created to pose even more embarassment on Bill O'Reilly. While many of these are valid points that work towards discrediting O'Reilly as a TV commentator, I don't see how these pertain to the standard of quality of an informative encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. In fact, it alarms me that editors would so willfully insert such flagrant bias in these articles. While I myself am not an editor, I am merely giving one casual reader's point of view. I just found this article too ridiculous to not post a comment about this issue. Also, Iraq and Terrorism are not an 'individual', nor is 'Gangsta Rap'. Thanks.

Oh you poor misguided soul...

Don't you know that the liberal editors at Wikipedia feel it is their MISSION TO "discredit O'Reilly as a TV commentator"??

Do you know why, as you put it, "Most of these little excerpts seem to be deliberately created to pose even more embarassment on Bill O'Reilly."?

It's because THEY ARE!!!!

Perhaps, after a little re-programming at the liberal university of some Wikipedia's liberal editor's choice, you'll be able to see the light and recognize that, for many people at Wik, UNFAIRLY trashing those who refuse to tow the liberal party line is what it's all about...

Big Daddy 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ps I edited this hit piece on O'Reilly regarding Bill Moyers. It seems the editors who kept this section in were engaging in a little 'selective' editing... I know...Shocked!

Here's how it looks now:

" Moyers responded in print that he never called O'Reilly a warmonger, (but only because "It didn't occur to me") claimed that his share of distribution money from the show is minuscule, and that the Columbia Journalism Review doesn't pick the winner of the duPont-Columbia Award although the Columbia University website states it's responsibilities include "the publication of the Columbia Journalism Review" and "the administration of the ...duPont-Columbia Awards in broadcast journalism."[24] In addition Moyers admitted that his charitable organization, the Schumann Foundation, did provide a grant to the Columbia Journalism Review.

In 2003, O'Reilly criticized Bill Moyers again, saying that Moyers' position that taxes should be raised is "classic socialism" and that he "can't understand why Bill Moyers just doesn't move to Havana". "

Big Daddy 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, how much relevancy does even having the Bill Moyers specific section there in the first place? As well as the whole slew of other people/countries/organizations?

Anyway, should the Andrea Mackis incident remain somewhere lost in the sea of 'disputes' O'Reilly has instead of being its own legitimate section? This is an actual legal allegation of sexual harassment, instead of the continuing petty potshots that these pundits and personalities are taking at each other. I would suggest moving it to its own small section, much like how the O'Reilly apology about the Bush invasion in Iraq near the end of the article got its own.

I've been seeing a couple of other problems, like the BBC section. It begins with O'Reilly, like many other Fox News commentators, regularly accuses the BBC of liberal bias with regard to the war on terror. First of all, the reader has no way of knowing whether or not "many" of these Fox personalities do indeed criticize BBC. Secondly, even if this is true (and true being MANY Fox commentators, not just O'Reilly and Hannity), this has nothing to do with this whole list of disputes being made by O'Reilly and others. Is there any particular reason that this is there, or is this another attempt to surreptiously insert another POV statement for the editor's pleasure? Little things like these filling up the face of this article make me seriously question the validity of Wikipedia as a serious source of information in regards to this article and related topics.

Also, where is the source for the French Embassy document? The article states that France did indeed suffer a 10% loss in exports to the USA - down from $10 to $9 Billion. This doesn't state which year this occurred (though the 'En 2002' in the French part gives the clue, it should still be clarified). Additionally, I am not sure if this is being translated correctly, because according to the Census Bureau data from the link given in the CBC section (number 46), the US imported 30,408,000,000 US dollars worth of goods in 2001, while in 2002 this figure was 28,240,000,000. Since then, the importation of French goods has been increasing.

• • • Good points!

Note, I am NOT the author of the above comments. Though I wish I was :)

Ps Apparently, I'm not a lone voice calling out in the wilderness after all...

Big Daddy 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! So I WAS right about Wikipedia. Look at this quote from a long time Wik editor I uncovered:

"you can only edit the Wikipedia if you conform to the groupthink espoused by the Wikipedia’s core constituency; those who deviate or espouse fundamental changes ... they are persecuted. The rulers of Wikimedia claim to want volunteers to come provide them with “peer-review”; but, when people actually do suggest changes, they are generally ignored – when they ‘unilaterally’ make those changes, they are confronted by hypocrisy and ego."

Hello, hip???? LOL!!!

And listen to this quote from an actual employee: "Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger has noted, “[There is] a certain poisonous social [and] political atmosphere in the project.”"

"Politically poisoned atmosphere"...Hmmm...Wonder what kind of politics he's talking about? LOL~!!!

I hope no one turns me in to the 'District Attorney's' office for being a 'heretic.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/District_Attorney%27s_Office

LOL!!!

Big Daddy 06:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You need a wikibreak. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually you need to leave wik and start working for http://www.dkosopedia.com/. I think you'll find more like minded people there...

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger Big Daddy 13:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Puhleeze...you made a friendly suggestion. So did I.

Why is mine a 'personal attack'? I honestly think you would be more effective at http://www.dkosopedia.com/. That's being helpful, not attacking you. Try to not be so sensitive.

Since I've been here (all of 4 days) I've been called everything from an asswipe to flaccid to you name it. I can't figure out why. All I did was suggest the editors were too liberal in general. I guess trashing and marginalizing conservatives is just part of the Wik culture, huh?

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger

Big Daddy 14:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can point out the eggregious violations of NPA that you listed above, I will be happy to address complaints to the appropriate authority. You know exactly why you are rubbing people the wrong way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"You know exactly why you are rubbing people the wrong way." Hippocrite.

Of course I do. Cause liberals don't like having their little hegemony upset. I don't upset the conservative editors. They send me letters of gratitude. Hmmm....

But more seriously, with each post you make asking ME to point out what is so PAINFULLY obvious to ANY reasonable person, you add more fuel to the fire that you are just not qualified to edit this page. Nothing personal but sheesh...if you can't see the forest for the trees, then you CANNOT be considered an objective editor. Your friend, Big Daddy 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Please indent your comments so that people reading at home can follow along. You can do this by inserting 1 more ":" than the person before you.

2. That's not why you are rubbing people the wrong way - it's because you're looking for a fight, but not finding one. You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better.

3. The conservative editors have not sent you any letters of gratitude.

4. I asked you to point out diffs where you were called "an asswipe" or "flaccid." I'd very much like to report such eggregious violations of NPA. Please point out the diffs.

5. The gold standard of Wikipedia is not Truth, it's Verifiability. While it might seem obvious to you, that in no way makes it Verifiable.

6. WP:NPA

Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like Bob Dole. Quit lying about my record! lol!!

For the record, I have received letters of gratitude from conservative editors. How you would know I haven't is curious. Has your stalking of me become so obsessive that you hacked in to my email? lol!!

But I have. I did not make this up and you look very foolish asserting something you would have no knowledge of.

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for fairness. Perhaps to liberals like you, that means a fight. Not to me. But I won't back down either.

"You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better."

TRANSLATION: The other liberal editors in here, which are legion, are just hoping I'll burnout and go away like so many conservatives before me. Fat chance, sister.

"I asked you to point out diffs where you were called "an asswipe" or "flaccid." I'd very much like to report such eggregious violations of NPA. Please point out the diffs."

I'm not sure what a 'diff' is, but someone sent a letter to my Talk page calling me an asswipe. It was already reported to someone with REAL authority (in the UK) and he told me he reprimanded the person even though it was sent anonymously (apparently zey have zhere ways of finding out zeese zhings! :)

Plus, one guy (Salty Pig I think) called me LIMPdaddy on several occasions. It was either in the O'Reilly or Coulter Talk pages. While quite discerning in gathering HOW I got my nickname, he certainly was as inaccurate in his characterization as he has been with all his other edits.

Furthermore, it may have been removed, but early on someone slammed me with some obscenity. Heck, you follow me wherever I go...just look at what people say to me. You'll see what I'm talking about. (To be fair, some folks have been quite proper.)

But you know, with you being so wrong on almost all the facts here, I think this qualifies you to write an article about ME for Wikipedia.

Ps While it's been sorta fun sparring with you Hipocrite, you really are no match for me. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you now.

Perhaps you can recruit some reinforcements from this 'Silent Majority' you mentioned to make it a little fairer?

Just trying to be helpful, Big Daddy 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk/poetry/interstichia/lurkers.htm

---

LOL! My sentiments exactly!

Big Daddy

Ps Actually, I'm not doing this for the accolades. I'm here for the cash...

Big Daddy 19:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Good news! I may have found an editor I can work with to form a consensus. Sure, he's a liberal (what wik editor ISN'T? lol!) but he seems fair.

For those of you who have been following this soap opera, it should be painfully obvious by now that the liberal editor hipocrite has completely disqualified herself as any kind of objective voice. Although she first attempted to appear neutral, her most recent posts reflect a quick descent into mean-spirited and, quite frankly chilling, pettiness.

But this other guy, who's gonna first start by working with me on Ann Coulter, seems like he could be good.

One of the first things I want to propose is that if liberals are gonna continue to turn the O'Reilly article into a left wing blog, posting every negative thing about O'Reilly as quickly as they get their marchiing orders from DailyKos, Media Matters or that awful Huffington Report, then we should AT LEAST put it into context.

And here's the context -

"O'Reilly's supporters believe his critics on the left attack him because they resent the fact that a traditionalist wields as much influence in the public sector as O'Reilly."

That's it. Short and sweet.

But then going forward, every time some liberal kook decides to trash the O'Reilly article by adding yet another nitpicking cheap shot to the endless litany already included...

...at least people will understand why.

Big Daddy 07:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:NPA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? Petty vindictiveness. Pretty sad, huh?

But I agree with her that FALSELY accusing me of just "looking for a fight, but not finding one." is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Saying "You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better." is clearly a WP:NPA violation.

Flat out accusing me of lying with no evidence presented as in this instance " The conservative editors have not sent you any letters of gratitude." certainly qualifies as a MAJOR :WP:AGF violation, wouldn't you think?

Same with the implication that I was simply making up the flurry of verbal attacks I've received from liberals since arriving here.

But, though you should be BANNED for Wikipedia for your unconscionable behavior and dereliction of duty to uphold Wik articles as nPOV in this and many other articles, I'll leave that decision to others whom I've also made aware of your crusade against me.

I found a liberal editor who I think is reasonable. We, along with others, should be able to come to a concensus. It's been fun Hip (for me at least) perhaps next time you'll think twice before trashing someone's ideas and motives and then hiding behind the very violations you accuse me of as justification.

Final Score:

Big Daddy 1,543,954 Hip: 0.00666

Big Daddy 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK - Let's get started on a(n objective) clean-up

I agree that this article has gotten way, way out of control. Theres certainly something to the fact that O'Reilly has sparred with so many public figures - but that's also his gimmick, and what makes his show so entertaining. He chastizes a new politician, tv personality or newspaper columnist every single day! Right now we have a system where as soon as one of them fights back, it ends up as a sub-section in this wikipedia article.

It's simple: if somebody wants to hear about each and every O'Reilly half-truth, they can visit Media Matters or listen to the Al Franken show.

I don't think O'Reilly is much of a calculating liar, he just seems to be one of those people who will pull something out of his a** if the need arises. Which sucks for wikipedia, because everytime he does that somebody adds it to this entry.

THE SOLUTION? What we can all agree on is that O'Reilly has a lot of strained relationships in the media, due in part to his strong political views and arguementative approach to interviewing. I think we can boil that sentiment down to less than the hundreds of paragraphs currently dedicated to it.

Perhaps a (short) list of *major* disgressions, with a sentence or two for each? The Glick incident was widely reported and practically the heart of 'Outfoxed', it would surely belong. The PBS-Buster Bunny incident? Has it's place elsewhere on wikipedia, and should not take up space in O'Reilly's entry.

I may make a few major edits to this effect. Even if some of them are reversed, I hope it draws some attention to the clean-up effort.

Plastic_editor 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. -- 69.121.133.154 06:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Glick Interview Transcript

I have a problem with the lastest addition to that section stating that O'Reilly's allegation is not supported by a transcript of the interview. I read the transcript and it sounds like Glick was so close to blaming Bush for 9/11 that I don't think its appropriate to say O'Reilly's allegation is not supported by it. -- Lawyer2b 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Glick was playing the 'grieving' Sheehan card (before even Sheehan could play it) to get some airtime and then went off on this wacky sermon about the US's role in precipitating 911. I think O'Reilly's claim that he was blaming Bush is accurate. But it's mainly Bush Sr. that Glick ascribes much blame. As for O'Reilly's claim that Glick said Bush Jr. knew about 911, I don't know that he made such a claim, but if he did, I don't believe that can be backed up by just the transcript. Perhaps it was said off air. I think that's what O'Reilly would claim. Big Daddy 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• The transcript does not not support O'Reilly's recent claim that Glick said that Bush "orchestrated" 9-11. Did he say that to O'Reilly off the air? Total speculation: really grasping at straws. 68.9.184.173 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

bad day

A professional bully with an "angry regular guy" schtick employed by Fox News. His main virtue is that he actually thinks for himself, unlike many other prominent conservative personalities; unfortunately, that virtue is lost in the knee-jerk hatemongering, bullying behavior, and frequent and well-documented lying that he does.I want to respect Bill O'Reilly, I really do, but what nice things can you say about a guy who tried to browbeat the child of 9/11 dead?

I think O'Reilly is dying!

I sure hope so. Teflon Don 04:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) I fear in two more years, Bill O'Reilly, America's top leading news analysis may pass away from heart failure after all that blood pressure rising from screaming. It must affect his heart! After taking a blunt attack from Phil Donahue, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, New Hampshire, and Al Franken it seems like O'Reilly is slowly taking care of his health. He may one day loose his mind and one day say the f-word while interviewing a hard-hitter liberal or conservative that doesn't agree with his twisted views. Unfortunately I have to be the one to see this tragedy. As much as I don't like the guy, it would be a great shame to see someone of that calibar to die over some oddball nonsense. I mean, to loose O'Reilly is a big lost to the far right's mouthpiece. Not to be funny, but I am telling you the truth. I hope the man takes this vacation to relieve him of the stress of liberal media and retorts to his lies. LILVOKA.

Well, I hope O'Reilly isn't really dying, but what is dying (albeit very slowly) is the outrageous POV that's permeated this article since my arrival. And that's a good thing, right?

The latest casualty to fairness is the edit I made in the section on the French Boycott. I deleted the non-sourced and snarky cheap shot that starts out "(strangely enough, he did not call for a boycott of German products" I also labeled Media Matters as a liberal group which they are.

Now, no one should have a problem with this. I suppose, the way it's been explained to me, if you can find an impartial notable source that actually said 'strangely enough, blah, blah, blah...' you can put it back in, but why bother?

I also took out this gratuitous cheap shot: Daily Show host Jon Stewart referred to this incident as a "grandiose example of douchebaggery."

However, I withheld adding this line "Media Matters, which O'Reilly has referred to as a vicious far left wing website."

It certainly could be added as it's his personal retort to their attacks on him. But I want to get others ideas about this first. Big Daddy 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You know what I agree Big Daddy, there is a lot of bias towards him. Who could blame him! He rubs the left the wrong way! He had been very good on some issues, such as tougher laws for child rapist and the sense of immorality when it comes to American society. But here's what I want to ask you! Has big bad Bill ever been to a place he had criticized on his show? Here's a few examples:

• Aruba
• United Kingdom
• New Hampshire
• Louisiana
• France
• Canada

Has big bad Bill ever seen any of the people he's been recently criticizing. Well the list is long and of course Phil Donahue is not included on this list. This man is too afraid to take these people on literally. If he did, he would lose it and have a heart attack! And Billy does take blood pressure medicine. Wouldn't you if you dealt with the left!

• Al Franken
• Kathleen Blanco
• Ray Nagin
• The editor of the New York Times
• The chief spokeperson of the ACLU
• rappers, Ludacris, Kanye West, and 50 Cent
• anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan
• civil rights leader Jesse Jackson
• veteran anchor Bill Moyers

Now that I got that off my chest. I want to be able to let it be known that he's more like an entertainment to me! He so igoranant it's funny. His obnoxious behavior, his demeanor and his conservative bias makes him more little than his so-called 6'4" height. Yeah. The Entertainment Factor. Oh by the way, you ever wonder why Billy is never in the public eye. Does he wear a bulletproof vest or has a automatic starter similar to 50 Cent? LILVOKA

Kudos

I first decided to join the Wikipedian community after reading this O'Reilly article and being a tad peeved at the bias. (Well, actually I was in a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy, but I've since calmed down :) But, I have to say, I am truly amazed at how much fairer this article has become. Well done! Now, I'm not saying O'Reilly himself would approve of his treatment here. But that's not really the point...is it? Note to All Those Who Helped reduce POV in this article: Come to the Karl Rove article. We need your help. STAT! Big Daddy 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Westbury vs. Levittown

This accusation against O'Reilly is alleged to be false. I will remove it to here for now to prevent the use of wikipedia to spread lies any further until we can get to the bottom of this.

===Regarding His background===

Bill O'Reilly has long noted his working-class roots as his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls 'the folks'. He often points to his boyhood home in lower-middle-class Levittown, New York as a credential. As with most details surrounding the man, this has been the subject of much debate:

Al Franken, the Washington Post, and others have asserted that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in a more affluent neighboring village, Westbury. The source the Post used for their assertion was O'Reilly's mother, who at the time a profile of O'Reilly was published in 2000 still lived in O'Reilly's boyhood home. O'Reilly has indicated in interviews since the article was published, notably including his 2004 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, that his mother felt as though she was misinterpreted.

here is a very detailed if biased site on the subject: http://lyingliar.com/lies/oreilly/levittown.htm

here's a better shot of the deed: http://www.frankenlies.com/levittown.htm

We probably need a better source to be safe. I really hope that bit about "misinterpreted" was not a knowing reference to this counter evidence (apparently O'Reilly actually displayed the deed on his show at one point). Its tough to do a search with all the clueless blogs out there clogging up google. 71.128.137.211 10:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is counter-evidence to the claim, add it. Do not remove the sourced statements in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am clearly seeking discussion on this issue prior to a final version, but we can do it your way. by the way I've been around in one form or another for months and I'm not going anywhere so learn to deal with my edits and please try harder to assume good faith. 71.128.137.211 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I re-edited the personal background and the Levittown vs. Westbury segment. Basically, I think it is a semantic argument. Franken and O'Reilly critics are playing jurisdictional games as to the location of the house in relation to political boundaries on a map, while O'Reilly and his allies think that Levittown is a state of mind and a reference to the type of people that live there. Unfortunately, that copy of the deed proves nothing because it doesn't have the street address, or else I would compare the location to a map of city limits in 1951 and we would be settled. Of course, there are good reasons not to print the street address of a currently existing house. So my edit, by readding information about O'Reilly's youth in Levittown (which, by the way, should have never been deleted as it is all public information), and being "fair and balanced" about the debate at the end, should please (or at least try to please) all sides. Calwatch 05:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

we aren't required to please all sides, only to stick to verifiable facts. It is a verifiable fact for which there can be found multiple credible sources that state O'Reilly grew up in an area of tract housing built by the Levitt company and called the Westbury section of Levittown[27], exactly the answer he gave to Franken, for which Franken called him a liar. There is no burden on O'Reilly to give away his mother's address for your personal satisfaction. As for criticizing deletions, look at the article from a month ago when the section was over three paragraphs long and there were actually some arguments and references in O'Reilly's defense. Here is one of them: [28]. 67.124.200.240 12:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The article from the Levittown Tribune that you linked clearly states that O'Reilly grew up in the incorporated Village of Westbury, a functioning political jurisdiction. I think Al Franken is trying to make to imply things about Westbury based on the city he grew up in, but even the local Levittown paper doesn't deny that he grew up in the village of Westbury. And there is a burden on O'Reilly to give away information if it proves his case. If he doesn't want to (and not for my own personal satisfaction either, a cheap shot on your part), that's fine, but that stills means this is in inconclusive. Sure he grew up in Levittown, with a Levittown post office, but he was receiving municipal services from Westbury, which because of a bigger tax base might have been better that Billy Joel's municipal services in Hicksville. I don't know. Calwatch 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Unverified statement removed

This claim in the article was positioned to imply it comes from the USA Today reference but it clearly does not. I checked the other relevant sources in the article and don't see anything on the subject:

...although it is believed that O'Reilly paid Mackris several million dollars to settle the case (Mackris purchased a New York City condo for $809,000 shortly after the settlement)

71.128.137.211 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Um -- I inserted factual info on what Levittown is, and isn;t -- and someone removed it (sigh). As it was NPOV entirely, why pull it when it factually states what Levittown was? 70.152.31.61 18:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As reporter Jack Shafer noted in Slate on July 16, 2004: "O'Reilly said on the July 14 broadcast that he has the deed to his parents' house. I have no reason to doubt him. But as reader Martin J. Gaynes points out, the document on O'Reilly Web site that I linked to is a copy of a portion of his parents' mortgage. A mortgage document doesn't necessarily prove location. A copy of the deed would be more persuasive."

The document I read that O'Reilly posted was in fact a mortgage, not a deed, so I made the appropriate change to the article. --Parkerss 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the sponge?

This article covers the basics of the sex scandal, but doesn't mention the famous loofah/falafel sex talk. Why not? I think it's noteworthy -- if you saw someone make reference to Bill O'Reilly and loofah and you came to this page, you wouldn't know what they were talking about (and people do tend to make reference to it). Or whatever. --Malvolio80 19:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason is obvious, Fox news hires a flunky to sanitize Wikipedia references to their brand properties.

Incomplete Article

I have a lot of issues with the article. It seems to document many of his conservative positions and all of the disputes(which currently are out of place and should be redone in a criticism and Controversy sections) but the article fails to mention any of his libertarian/liberal positions(they do exist) in depth and it only includes four topics. Really, the biggest glaring admission is his views on Iraq and the Mexico-American border. There are many others, and it should be noted that these are just a few topics he covers indepth. Falphin 21:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a cleanup tag on this article. The article has lots of grammatical errors, some POV issues, and its incorrect in many of its statements. C clean up is more encompassing that a NPOV tag and the cleanup might get rid of all prior vandalism(I have a feeling there is much still in the article). Falphin 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup is good. I think the article, while devoting a bit more space to the controversy than to positives, like his successful book career, is still fundamentally accurate. Some facts could be condensed or be in a separate article, for instance, a separate article on the Andrea Mackris affair with more information would be a start. Calwatch 08:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist?

If we are going to have O'Reilly described as a "traditionalist" in the second paragraph, could someone please go and fill in Traditionalist with whatever that actually means. AlistairMcMillan 02:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly: "Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime." "The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox." [29]. Looks to me like "Traditional" is O'Reilly's weasel word for Conservative, same with "Populist". Funny contradiction there too, First he says Fox is "populist-traditional and pro-American", and then he turns around and says "Fox's audience is across the board". - Mr. Tibbs 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fox News is conservative. To deny that would be as big a lie as to say that the ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are not liberal. I think "traditional" probably is a euphemism for conservative but "populist" is something different. O'Reilly generally is quite conservative but after hearing his complaints recently about big oil companies making too much money recently from gouging I'd entertain the argument he's "populist" or even "authoritarian". Just as with the Michael Moore article, I really believe some kind of political description should be in his header section. -- Lawyer2b 04:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Traditionalist currently redirects to Tradition. Unless I'm missing something that doesn't explain what it means if we say Bill O'Reilly is a traditionalist. AlistairMcMillan 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Alistair, I agree. I think having O'Reilly described as Traditionalist and having it link to Tradition doesn't work. IMHO, If we put the word traditionalist in, it should link to a page that gives it some meaning and until then we should leave it out. However, I'm not in favor of having people described solely by their own choice of adjective when many would disagree. If how O'Reilly describes himself, as a moderate is going to be included perhaps something else should be referenced like, "...but many feel he is conservative in his views." -- Lawyer2b 20:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Used this: [30] as a source. If anyone finds a better source, feel free to replace. - Mr. Tibbs 21:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Neutrality Issue

I question the neutrality of this article. All controversies described there are written as actual rebuttals or justifications of O'Reilly's. 200.178.22.27 19:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Large Unexplained Deletions

Looking over the history of this article, there have been several unexplained deletions of entire sections. As such I will readd those sections from this version of this article: [31]. And here's the difference between that version and the current one: [32] - Mr. Tibbs 06:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsing Forrester

Bill O'Reilly just flat out endorsed Doug Forrester for governor of New Jersey. No "I like him better", no "make up your own minds". He said flat out "vote for Forrester" because of the whole Jessica's Law. A blatant partisan act that demands mentioning.

Homosexual?

According to several sources (including oreillygayfuel.ytmnd.com) I believe that O'Reilly is a homosexual. Is this true? 66.41.212.243 06:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it true? Who knows. Does that link count as evidence? No. — ceejayoz ^talk 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be consistent with a pattern of self-hating gays proliferating as right-wing reactionaries ever since Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover. Include Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove in the self-hating gay category.

If somebody doesn't like asians, does that make them a self-hating asian, even if they aren't asian? Food for thought. Unless you have solid proof, it doesn't belong.

O'Reilly to Al Qaeda ... please blow up San Francisco

I kid you not. "Every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."[33] Derex @ 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal without explanation

Who removed the part of the article about John Kerry, centering around how Bill O'Reilly called Kerry a "sissy" a half a dozen times on the radio factor after the election?

French Boycott

The only thing I addes to this page has been removed, and I don't understand the reason behind it: On Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, October 18, 2005, O'Reilly confirmed that the boycott is still in place, referring to the French as "our enemies".

I think it relevant that he said that the boycott is still going on, and that he called the French "our enemies". He said it, why not put it in? I've put it back now, and will follow this discussion-page.

HOLY MOTHER OF ... -- This is an encyclopedia!

This is just plain stupid. I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site. Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense and insignificant updates on whatever hateful thing he said the previous night. If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded. Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.

If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game. In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic. There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations. -- Plastic Editor 12:26, 3 December 2005

(p.s. - this message repeated above, because it's important.)

No, that message was repeated above when you pulled the same stunt of gutting the article, and then Wikipedia slowly healed itself, and now you are coming back to gut this article again. No. I don't care what you think about "flooding this article" that's no excuse to come along and rip out perfectly valid information. Ditto for kbh3rd. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Major rewrite called for

The blog analogy is right on. The article in this form does not belong here. The guy is intentionally controversial. It's enough to state that and give a couple of supporting examples. It is entirely out of place to come here every single day to add archive every single thing he says that gets your goat. -- Kbh3rd 18:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what's your suggestion on what to do? The guy literally lies about things (effects of french boycott, awards that he has won, what Jeremy Glick really said on his program) all the time. Should we just edit out all of the "disputes with" and stick in the words, "O'Reilly is a Fat Fuck. The End"? Suggestions are appreciated. -- 69.249.195.232

I would first suggest that anyone with such strong views as stated above is likely to find it very hard to hold themselves to Wikipedia's standard of maintaining a neutral point of view in their edits and should consider recusing themselves from the maintenance of this article.

Viewpoints – strong, passionate viewpoints – are legitimate and due their space, but not in Wikipedia's space. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [34] It is legitimate to document that these strong viewpoints exist on the subject, and to document why, but this is not the place to advocate, and that is what is happening here. Read the NPOV tutorial and Guidelines for controversial articles. (Go ahead. We'll wait.)

It should be adequate to say, in so many words, that he is an intentionally controversial and confrontational personality, and that the way he goes about that (with a couple of examples, not an endless litany) has caused his integrity to be questioned. End of article. (FWIW, I do not have cable, have never seen Bill O'Reilly or heard his radio program, and have no opinion on the man or his shows.) -- Kbh3rd 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please corroborate "routine interview editing" claim

Admittedly I do watch Bill O'Reilly myself, therefore I may be a bit biased in his favor, however I truely, honestly don't think he blatantly and routinely edits his interviews in order to make himself look better as somebody else had written in this wikipedia entry. If somebody believes otherwise, please corroborate that with a VERIFIABLE LEGITIMATE SOURCE and link it into the wiki page. Until that is done, I have removed that particular entry from this page.

Instead I replaced it with words stating that it is possibly edited for clarity, but I am not certain if he even makes those kinds of edits (which are common for all news shows actually.) The only edits I have known for him to make are splitting the interviews in order to accomodate commercial breaks.

This is my first ever edit to wikipedia, and I do believe I followed the NPOV guidelines to the letter while doing so.

Thank you.

I did a little bit of research into this issue and found some interesting things. Apparently there was an incident in which O'Reilly so heavily edited a statement by Joseph Biden that he not only changed Biden's meaning, but then took the words out of Biden's mouth and used them himself. Here is an article that explains in text what exactly was spliced: [35], here is an article on Biden's statement: [36], I also found a video of an Al Franken show where Al explains in video how exactly the statement was spliced: [37]. I found that video on this page: [38]. However I am unsure as to how to incorporate this into the article. And I also have yet to find evidence of splicing of actual interviews. -- Mr. Tibbs 18:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What should be done, in my oppinion is to allude to the "videogate" incident, to include brief (e.g. 1-3 sentence) synopsis about what the critics believe to have happened, as well as an equally sized synopsis of an official response from either somebody at fox, or O'Reilly himself. Do not link to any biased or one sided sources/links on this particular item (this is a bit of a pet peve of mine on wikipedia, people often link to sources that paint a completely one sided picture, treating the NPOV rules as if they absolutely do not apply to sources) and restrict the information to just the facts. Also a single sentence note about this incident being part of his political commentary (which AFAICT is intended to be Bills oppinion on the issues, and not actual facts) and not an interview would probably be merited as well.

Also, on the note of the interviews, it should be noted that even on his most publicised one with Jeremy Glick, he left the whole thing intact. Even where he told the producer to cut his mic, where he told him to shut up, and even where he was giving hand gestures to the studio crew just before the cut to the commercial. One should figure that if he does edit his interviews, that one would have been edited the most of all.

I went ahead and modified this particular section to further reflect my suggested changes, except for one thing. I created a wikipedia link to a Videogate page. Somebody should write up an unbiased description of Videogate on that particular page as I don't think any unbiased sources explaning videogate exist anywhere else on the internet.