Talk:Political views of Bill O'Reilly

STOP BEING SO LIBERAL WIKIPEDIA! Change you articles and make them neutral.

Instead of complaining, why not help contribute to make the article better. Wikipedia is not supposed to be any political platform, whether liberal, conservative, or transexual nazi eskimo. MrMurph101 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see where this article is supposedly "liberal" or anything else. It does in the main cite its sources, all of which can be verified. It doesn't come over as "liberal" or anything else come to that to me. Whisperwolf 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iraq War segment seems more like an argument against Bill O'Reilly than his actual views on the subject. Dabomb691 09:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag from the top of this article but kept the one that Dabomb691 added on the Iraq War segment. There seems to be no specific argument with the general POV of this article. There is a specific argument with the Iraq War segment. Sperril 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV problem with the Iraq War section. Everything in it is verifiable. Sweeping O'Reilly's statements about the Iraq war under the rug to protect O'Reilly would be an NPOV violation. 130.126.245.245 23:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I removed some weasel quotes, in "secular progressives" and "culture war". There is no need to have these quotes here because of the bias they entail, trying to make his vocabulary seem outlandish and stupid. Nor is it grammatically correct. Garric 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

The article should not be merged back into Bill O'Reilly. It was created and the content moved here due to that article being over twice the size of recommended length. If the article gets shrunk to a much smaller size, something unlikely to happen, then maybe a merge back could be in order. MrMurph101 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that an article this long shouldn't be in the main article, I think it should be significantly weeded down, and then merged. I think it's around the same size as Shakespeare's most notable tragedies. The Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were able to cover their respective commentators without long articles. One thing that MUST be done is to put a summary with the parent. Moving details out, but not replacing them with an overview is sloppy editing. 69.12.143.197 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, if you weed down the article, it will just build back up again, and the cycle will continue. The issue with O'Reilly, as opposed to Hannity or Limbaugh, is that he does not identify as a conservative but an independent. He's usually considered a conservative but it would be POV to just label him that like you could the others you mentioned since they would self-identify the label and it would get little dispute so we have to just put is opinions on the table and let the reader decide. I do agree with you about putting a summary in the parent article, although we need to make sure it stays concise and not allow it to bloat too much like what is happening with the criticisms section. MrMurph101 02:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not have that much problem with a merge personally, though I don't have a huge problem with the article staying as it is either. It might be good though to prune this heavily and move it into the main article. Also, if this article does stay, we should find a way to allude to O'Reilly's conservatism in an NPOV way early on (meaning in the first paragraph). I know he's an "independent" and all, but the fact that he is on the conservative end of the spectrum is simply objectively true (and I know he's kinda with the Democrats on certain issues, overall though he is clearly a conservative if that label means anything). What O'Reilly says about his own political affiliation really does not matter, however we obviously would need reliable sources that demonstrate his conservatism. This would be a good thing to look for. Anyhow, a merge might be good.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MrMurph101. If this is to be moved back to the Bill O'Reilly article, it must be trimmed down a lot. WP:SIZE dictates that the article would become, once again, too big.

Personally I think the spin off article should stay, aside from WP:SIZE another guideline becomes important when articles get this large, Wikipedia:Summary style. Anynobody 02:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New York Times

On March 15, 2007 The New York Times ran an editorial titled "Immigration Misery" that had claimed a "screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken dehydrated to an emergency room so that the nation's borders will be secure." Upon further investigation, the only two babies admitted to the hospital in the area of Bedford, Massachusetts (where the raid had taken place) were due to dehydration because of pneumonia and not as a result of being "forcibly weaned." O'Reilly has alleged that The Times made up the facts that the editorial was based on to promote a far-left agenda aimed at promoting illegal immigration in order to make the illegal immigrants into legal US citizens and register them as Democrats since the Democratic Party has traditionally promoted more entitlement programs that people in lower income classes (which most illegal immigrants are in) favor.

Shouldn't this be condensed into saying something like "O'Reilly believes that the Democrats court the low-income minority vote through social programs, and support amnesty because it would increase their voter base?" Most of that is New York Times criticism, and while it's by O'Reilly, this page seems to have become a place for people to dump anything relating to him. The criticism would probably be more useful at New York Times. 69.12.143.197 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jessica's Law

On the January 15, 2007 edition of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor", host Bill O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did." The following day, during his "Talking Points Memo" segment, O'Reilly responded to viewer mail criticizing his comments about Hornbeck. O'Reilly concluded: "I hope he did not make a conscious decision to accept his captivity because" his kidnapper "made things easy for him. No school, play all day long."

Does this really give us that much insight into O'Reilly--enough where it's encyclopedic and worth keeping? O'Reilly quotes like that are a dime a dozen. 69.12.143.197 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this fit the topic of the article?

In June 2007, Adweek Magazine sponsored a survey that asked participants who they trusted more as a source of political information between ABC News and Bill O'Reilly. According to the poll, 36% believe that O'Reilly is a better source than ABC News while 26% believe the opposite. According to the survey, 23% of Democrats believed that O'Reilly was a better source while 55% of Republicans believed the same.

Random Cleanup

I'm sure some of my cleanup will be controversial. There are things I'm trying to get rid of, like statements that were already made, waivers that explicitly state it's O'Reilly's opinion (if he said it, then this was implied), and tacked-on off-topic sentences. This article has become a dumping ground for whatever people can find, so it isn't well organized, and the quality suffers. I might reorganize it into "Political Beliefs, Social Beliefs, and Economic Beliefs." 171.71.37.103 22:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Liberal thought

What "liberal thought" does O'Reilly "draw on"? He is an extreme rightard, nothing liberal about him. Consequently, the intro section needs to be rewritten so that it says that he claims to draw on liberal thought, rather than that he actually does, which is bullshit.

O'Reilly has supported the Bush Administration's listening in on foreign calls in and out of the United States to help prevent terrorist attacks. However, he has severely criticized the Bush Administration for not going to the FISA courts to get warrants for the wire tapping and has said he would not support tapping calls made by domestic parties.[citation needed]

Assuming this is true, there are some liberal and some conservative ideas there. His stance on guns also shows both sides.

Read through the article.

It's also sloppy to use neologisms (rightard), semi-profanity (bullshit), and not sign your post. Your post seems very POV, which hurts it's credibility. 70.135.140.40 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)