Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 9


Acts of intimidation

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

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

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

Are you requesting or suggesting this Rosie feud be placed in the article? If so, be bold and do so yourself. But if it is just here for gossip or discussion purposes, I'm afraid it doesn't belong as it goes against the guidelines of WP:TALK. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Bill O'Reilly has become obsessed with Rosie O'Donnell. He has had five segments this week to Rosie even though The View has not been on since Friday of last week. On Monday he advised Rosie to stop the personal attack, an obvious reference to the above quote. Since Rosie posted that message Bill has gone after her like she said. I think this needs to go in the controversies section.

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

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

About controversies section...

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

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

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

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

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

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

I concur with Info999, O'Reilly is comparing himself to Rush Limbaugh and saying that Limbaugh is held to entertainment standards whereas O'Reilly himself is held to journalistic standards. Personally I see it as a nullification of Limbaugh's credibility. Essentially O'Reilly is saying Limbaugh is free to not know what he's talking about, but as a journalist O'Reilly has to "know the facts" for lack of a better term. Anynobody 10:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying the Limbaugh blurb quoting an O'Reilly opinion(which I never mentioned was Limbaugh's opinion by the way) should be completely deleted from the article. I just thought it was misplaced and misused. As it is stated now it is ok but this criticism should be elaborated more. Just stating an O'Reilly opinion as it did originally should have been put in the personal views section. I believe the gist of this criticism is how some believe he is an objective journalist when in reality he is a guy who presents his opinion with guests that may debate or concur with him. This part just should have been explained better. MrMurph101 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The new statement looks like an improvement, it started to sound like all mention of it was to be removed. Anynobody 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to understand that the Controversy & Criticisms section can have more in it than simply direct criticisms; the overwhelming majority of criticisms of O'Reilly stem from the fact that he continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false. The inclusion of the quote from O'Reilly helps to place these criticisms in context; if comedian Rush Limbaugh isn't held to a factual standard, perhaps others may be encouraged to let O'Reilly off the hook as well, telling us that we're making too much of the situation. That O'Reilly opens the door to hold himself to the "journalistic standard" is certainly relevant here. And Murph: you may not have wanted to communicate this point, but when you said "took out Limbaugh blurb, states an opinion of O'Reilly", your sentence construction means that you think Limbaugh said it about O'Reilly. If you had meant that you understood it to be an O'Reilly quote, you should have used "...states an opinion of O'Reilly's." Also, if you never meant that it should be "completely deleted from the article" - why did you in fact completely delete it from the article? Why not simply move it, and explain your reasoning? Sounds to me like you fell on the wrong side of the prevailing wisdom and then tried to scramble back and agree with us from the start. Very much like O'Reilly!  :) (just a joke, not a personal attack).--Info999 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false. If that were so there would be a lot better examples to go by here that go beyond what advocacy groups like Media Matters come up with. There are those out there that claim all his critics have been immediately proven to be false and that is POV also. People can decide which side to believe if any. As for the article, in hindsight I should have explained my intentions and that was my bad. I believe it is the goal in wikipedia to reach consensus, not have everything my way or any certain way and be inflexible. I was just trying to keep the article section from getting bloated with tangential references. For instance, I concur with Metasex's take on the Colbert reference. Until Colbert actually goes on record as saying "I do not like O'Reilly and I'm here to mock him" (the real person, not the character), it's POV and original research(connecting the dots) to consider it crticism. Colbert is just a comedian at this point. The Colbert Report is mentioned in The O'Reilly Factor article and has been for quite some time. As for my edit summary on Limbaugh, here it is: "took out Limbaugh blurb, states an opinion of O'Reilly, nothing really controversial or any criticism noted" I probably should have used "O'Reilly('s)" instead to make it more clear. The sentence in the article at the time just stated something without elaborating. However, the entry is now better so I do not have any issue with it. That is our goal, to make articles better as we go on. MrMurph101 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure to whom you're referring when you say "it is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false." I never said that, and I never even came close to saying that. What I said was that O'Reilly "continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false." This is a true statement of fact. For several years, analysts, critics and journalists have demonstrated instances where O'Reilly made a claim of fact that turned out to be false. I'm not talking about opinions, political beliefs/stances, or predictions - I'm talking about things that O'Reilly have said were facts which were proven not to be so, from the Peabody to Malmedy and so on. These are not things that "people can decide which side to believe" - they are instances where O'Reilly is demonstrably wrong. I never stated, either in this discussion or in the article, any sense of how often he does this, only that he does "continually" (meaning he has done so in the past, and despite being called on it, correctly, again and again, continues to do so) - which is true.
In terms of Colbert, if you don't think a criticisms section belongs here, you're entitled to that opinion. If it belongs, however, then the three most significant critics of O'Reilly - Media Matters, Franken and Colbert - belong. And as a side note, claiming that Colbert is "just a comedian at this point" underestimates his (and Jon Stewart's, to whom Colbert has to be seen as connected to understand his signifigance) importance to current political discourse and political/journalistic criticism. You may not like them - that seems pretty clear - but it's naive to dismiss either as "simply a comedian."--Info999 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I never mentioned anything about Jon Stewart, whom would be a much better example of a critic of O'Reilly. By the way, I enjoy both Stewart and Colbert and I do like them. However, Colbert has not engaged in any true commentary as Stewart has done on occasion. One day Colbert may get serious and say what he really feels and therefore whatever criticisms he has would certainly be credible. Right now it is a major assumption to say he is a critic of O'Reilly.
As for the statement you said, I reread it and I'll revise my statement. You stated "...the overwhelming majority of criticisms of O'Reilly stem from the fact that he continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false." To say it's the "overwhelming majority" is POV. One could counter after being on for over 10 years with somewhere over 100 airings per year, give or take, that the amount of factual errors is pretty low. Also, the New York Times had to issue a correction about his statement refering to Cindy Sheehan as a traitor. One could easily find a list of factual errors made about O'Reilly if they wanted to. I'm not here to be an O'Reilly apoligist. If pro-O'Reilly people kept taking out everything that he has criticized for and turned this into a promotional page I would revert that too. Edits should ultimately be about improving the article, not proving a point one way or the other. MrMurph101 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Satire is usually thinly veiled criticism. If you watch the show as you say you have, what Colbert is saying should be pretty clear. Deepstratagem 06:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Spouse and Children

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

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

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

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

I therefore suggest that name of his town of residence along with the names of his children be removed from this article. 14:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I did not know he was married so that part seems important. It is interesting to me that his wife's last name is not O'Reilly. Timothy Clemans 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The test is whether it is notable, not solely importance. In addition, the importance of her name, is up for debate. That being said, if there is no objection in the next few days, I will delete the name of his children per the privacy provisions of WP:BLP. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure I was just to know that he is married and has kids. Timothy Clemans 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I would note that he is married, as it affects his positions, particularly on child advocacy, but if she is not noteworthy, her name should not be mentioned. Bytebear 06:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

Ramsquire: you win. Looking over your "contributions" and your discussions not only on this article but on several others, I can see that you're a committed conservative idealogue, doing whatever you can to protect and enhance the reputations of famous conservative idealogues, while trying to make it look like you're "only following wiki policy" ("...only following orders" can't be far off for folks like you). I personally find that reprehensible, and won't spend any more energy fighting you over the trivialities of your hero Bill.--Info999 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Deepstratagem 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I am very disappointed in both Info999 and Deepstratagem's dive right into personal attacks and incivillity. Considering I explain my position, the fact that neither of you wishes to even discuss it without the PA's is very telling. Good luck to both of you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ad hominem. Amazing how some people think the legitimate political spectrum extends from liberal to moderate, with conservatism being a question of abnormal psychology. It makes no difference whatsoever what articles Ramsquire contributes to, unless there is a pattern of tendentious editing, which is not an accusation to be made lightly. If you're here to stigmatize or injure Bill O'Reilly, then you may have difficulty writing his encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view and fairness of tone. MoodyGroove 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hybrid: considering the way you addressed Anynobody up there, I'd say a small apology to them is in order (" don't deserve to be told...", snippiness, etc.). You were in the wrong, and you came on strong - stronger, in my opinion, than was warranted, even if you had been correct, which you were not.--Info999 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant it as a general statement, which is why I didn't post it underneath anynobody's statement, but if I offended anybody I apologize. -- The Hybrid 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, Info999 for caring and -- The Hybrid for apologizing. Personally I hate it when I make an error like that, the only thing worse is somebody giving me a big speech about stuff I already knew because I missed a detail somewhere. Therefore I too must apologize for getting so long winded in my explanation. I'm trying not to offend anyone and it seems to increase the size of my edits. Anynobody 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
(P.S. that's not a shot at you Info999, as soon as I posted my last edit it occurred to me that size wasn't the issue I was trying to apologize for but for use of big analogies)Anynobody 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe editors here need to keep in mind that because an editor objects to or disagrees with an edit in one form, it does not necessarily mean that said editor wants it gone from the article forever. Part of the consensus approach at Wiki is objecting, discussion, and then suggesting changes to reach a consensus version of an article. If editors refuse to assume good faith with each other, and launch right into personal attacks, then that becomes impossible. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Which is why I never engaged in any kind of personal attack; I simply stated my opinion that Ramsquire's political ideology was influencing the things that he or she took out or left in on several consevative bio articles. Whether it's correct or not, it's an opinion based on a review of the record, and isn't a personal attack. However, when Ramsquire accused me of attacking him personally (on my talk page), Ramsquire used the term "stupid" to refer to what I did. Who's engaging in personal attacks?--Info999 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NPA-- "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ... What Is Considered a Personal Attack? ... "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." (and in this case the attempting affiliation is demonstrably false). I have made almost 2,500 edits here at Wikipedia over the last two years, and less than 10 percent of those edits have been made here, at Ann Coulter (if you read the actual edits, you won't find a political bias-and I was given an NPOV barnstar for my edits), and at FoxNews (because of two RFC's--again no bias in my edits) combined which I believe is where Info is getting it's FALSE information that I am a "committed conservative idealogue". Also on your talk page, my sentence reads in its entirety "Your allusions about my ideology is absolutely wrong and stupid in this context." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If Ramsquire was referring to what you did, which he was, then he wasn't making a personal attack. If he attacked you as a person, then it would have been, but an editor's actions are fair game. In fact, we have a place for editors to tell people that what they have done sucks ;). Also, reminding someone that they were wrong when they had just said that they get why they were wrong is the kind of thing that really turns people off. It didn't bother me, but some people around here get really huge egos, and it would be best to try not to deflate them. Peace, -- The Hybrid 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
"I did miss the fact that it was a quote." Yeah, because those quote marks are so hard to see. -- Jibal 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

NBC News

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

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

Requested move redux

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

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bill O'Reilly (commentator)Bill O'Reilly — Much much more common name. Per WP:DAB, this he has the far greater frequency of usage; page should go there automatically. Also, I realize that when there are nationalistic sentiments, people will tend to vote according to their nationality (e.g., Talk: Crusaders (rugby)). I beg all not to let anti-American/pro-Australian/pro-American/etc. national sentiments get in the way of this common sense move. Part Deux 22:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support as nom. Part Deux 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Clear primary topic. I am as big of a disambiguation page fan as anyone but look at the "What links here" for both pages. It's a no contest as the Fox News Bill O'Reilly dwarfs the cricketeer several fold. More importantly look at the "What links here" for the disambiguation page and see how many articles are improperly link there that are meant to go to the commentator. That is a very clear sign of which article has already been the primary usage among Wikipedia editors and readers. 13:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Comment -- to prevent ballot stuffing, anons cannot vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Any policy to support that? Actually, I think you will find that RM discussions are not votes and anons are welcome to participate in the discussion though the closing admin is free to appropriate any degree of weight to their comments. You will also find that there is a difference between SPAs/socks and anon discrimination. 22:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    if you know so much about wiki why don't you just register? just curious.--Thugchildz 06:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    Been there, done that. Got burned by the politics. there is a bit of refreshness in anonmity because it forces people to judge the value of your words based on their own merits and the point your make-not based on your username and who you are. 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    As far as policy see: Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Other benefits The right to be heard in elections and have your vote count.. Yes, they are not votes per se, but we can't be too certain if your IP and another IP (if voted later) are coming from the same person. That's why I had said that anons cannot vote, but did not say anywhere they cannot participate in the discussion. And it is ludicrous to suggest that I am 'biting the newbies' as I have clearly stated the reason for anons not being able to exercise their franchise. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    but again, this is not a vote and thus no worry of ballot stuffing. There is no issue of franchise but rather only the strength of the argument and the relevant appeal to policy. Attempts to turn this into a vote (especially when WP:RM explicitedly says it is not a vote) is attempts to disenfranchise anons of their voice and devalue the worth of their opinon. 20:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose -- Not again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose -- two previous discussions on this at Talk:Bill O'Reilly closed in January 2006 and September 2006. Arguments will not have changed and nor should the conclusion. —Moondyne 07:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose -- As per arguments in previous discussions: both are notable and the present arrangement is the equitable way to handle it. Johnlp 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose -- per the previous arguments that have been rehearsed over and over again. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I don't see the well known primary meaning being the commentator here. →Ollie (talkcontribs) 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose -- Mostly because I don't like Bill O'Reilly. But also because I don't think he is more important that the cricketer. Deepstratagem 11:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as an American who has only incidentally heard of this commentator.--Eva bd 13:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - if there is any doubt over which article should be at the page Bill O'Reilly, then neither should be, hence the disambiguation page. As the other two discussions show - this debate will run and run, so why not just leave it as it is. MDCollins (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - no evidence the commentator is more noteable or common usage then the cricketer. Indeed "Sir Donald Bradman, the greatest batsman of all time, rated O'Reilly as the finest bowler that he had ever witnessed. In 1935, Wisden wrote of him: "O'Reilly was one of the best examples in modern cricket of what could be described as a 'hostile' bowler." Four years later, after a second successful tour of England, Wisden 1939 wrote: "He is emphatically one of the greatest bowlers of all time."". If it wasn't for the fact Sky NZ choose to show Fox News instead of Al Jazeera English and I occasionally tune into that POS I would have no idea who Bill O'Reilly the commentator is. Perhaps he's more noteable in the US, but I doubt he's more noteable in most cricket playing countries. Nil Einne 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Wikipedia guideline as quoted by Ollie below seems clear. -- Cat Whisperer 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per above arguments; also never really heard of this guy (may be because I prefer CNN over fox but still so does a lot of people). And as far as I know he's isn't that popular in here(us) either. So no real point that makes the proposition valid--Thugchildz 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose The comment about not putting nationalistic intentions in mind and this being obviously the more used one is a contradiction. The two are both sufficiently notable as to merit a disambiguation page at the name. Does there seriously have to debate about the exactness of the Fox audience versus the entire cricket playing nations of the world (which include India btw!). Ansell 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Nobody here is not arguing that the American is not notable and the cricketer is, but that they are both similar on the notability level, which is why we have disambiguation. GizzaChat © 05:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Keep the dab page as it is. One of the main reasons why we have disambiguation pages is to save us from squabbles over who is more important. --Ezeu 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Disambiguity is for, erm, disambiguation. Do we really have to do this every few months? --Dweller 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose round and round. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose If Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) were a minor player, I'd support, but the man was such a great player that he was inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame in the very first round of inductees. One of the ten best Australian cricketers ever. Too notable to sit backseat to the commentator. coelacan — 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose I personally dislike Bill O'Reilly. And I don't think changing the name of the article is necessary as he is not the only Bill O'Reilly on this earth. Chris 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Why would we have to move it or rename it? It's pretty accurtate already.


Add any additional comments:
  • I beg to differ. I fail to userstand how you classify Bill O'Reilly (commentator) as the the most logical inheritor of the article namespace, and label it as "common sense". Both persons are notable in their own right, own sphere's of excellence which are mutually independent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I suggest a speedy close to this discussion given the previous debates. —Moondyne 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Speedy close Consensus can change and looking at the previous discussions it looks like this issues needs a healthy dose of outside prospective as it seems that a click of editors have been sitting on this issue for a while. I suggest a WP:RFC. This very much seems like a redux of the Crusaders (rugby) issue. 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree there is any similarity between this and Crusaders (rugby). While I didn't vote, I would have supported the Crusaders move since it made sense. The crusades and the crusaders who took part are clearly are more noteable topic then the Crusaders, as good a team as they may be (the Blues are better anyway :-P). The Crusaders team name came from the crusades anyway. On the other hand, these are two people, with no connection to each other. One is a commentator who is perhaps fairly well known in the US. The other is a cricketer who is considered one of the best ever. They are not connected, are equally noteable (indeed I would argue the cricketer is more noteable although not enough to make him the primary) and there is no reason why someone knowing one should know the other. I.E. completely different cases, not at all comparable Nil Einne 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A pertinent quote from WP:DAB: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".Ollie (talkcontribs) 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism Abounds

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

The information that you deleted contained the precise dates of broadcasts, and was sourced. Could you explain why you consider this information to be false? -- Cat Whisperer 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The information that you deleted was not vandalism. Please see WP:VANDAL for a definition of what is considered vandalism here at Wikipedia. -- Cat Whisperer 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

O'Reilly is aggressively anti-ideological more than anything else. Which gets him in trouble, but which is very refreshing to many Americans-- which is why he has had the top-rated cable show for many years now. Many people-- Liberal and Conservative-- are tired of far-Left and far-Right politics and their associated ideologies, and O'Reilly has strongly opposed both. 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me clarify me earlier point. You appear to be ready to leave (or to not want to participate) because you feel like the job of balancing is too big for one person. However, if you contributed and stated your opinions on specific items in the talk pages, you might be surprised at the response. Sure many editors here are liberal, but most will listen to your suggestion and try to compromise with you to reach a consensus, and you will almost always find support from someone. Yes, sometimes, you will also be attacked personally and accused of stuff by some editors, but editors who do that are idiots and are outnumbered immensely on this Wiki. My point was be bold, state specific objections, make suggestions. Don't just drive-by, condemn, and move on. That is usually done by extremely biased editors who don't like their guy's article having negative information in it. From your second post, you appear more thoughtful than that, so I apologize for being off base with my initial impression. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Editors who take action in an attempt to solve a problem that they see generally receive a positive response, regardless of how those watching them feel about it. While other people may disagree with you, they will almost always be willing to talk with you in order to achieve a compromise. Those that aren't are indeed the minority, and are generally not respected. Those that name call will generally have their wiki careers ended by a community sanction down the road. If you tell them what they did in a polite manner, and request that they not repeat the action, then they will probably stop. If they don't, then they are in violation of policy, and you can begin the dispute resolution process. If you are in the right, then you will come out on top. Please consider registering an account and working to improve this article yourself. Peace, -- The Hybrid 00:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Can I ask why everyone who simply protests something without explaining, such as the sweeping statement "everyone knows there is an enormous liberal bias" doesn't bother to register? Surely if somebody has something meaningful to say they don't mind being associated with it? Would it be advisable to 'lock' this article so that only users who have bothered to create a Wikipedia account can edit it, given that many of the changes that have caused controversy here have been done by unregistered users? Whisperwolf 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Everyone knows, including liberals, that there is a huge partisan bias on wikipedia and in the media in general. To dispute this is pretty much ignorant, and Bill himself has done research on it. To suggest locking the forums is also a ridiculous statement, as anonymity is one of the best things the internet has to offer. Dabomb691 04:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha. You don't know what "everyone" knows. You give no sources or citations to back up your POV; don't expect your views to be universally agreed to, simply because you have asserted them. O'Reilly's "research" on such topics is superficial, poorly sourced, and given credibility only by like-minded people who look to him for confirmation of their own bias.
Whisperwolf didn't suggest locking the Talk Page; s/he suggested locking the article.--HughGRex 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed "DaBomb" Provides no evidence of a "liberal media bias" at all. In addition, since Mr. O'Reilly is one of the world's foremost conservative commentators, I would challenge anyone to provide examples of "liberal" viewpoints held and expressed by Bill on his show that would back up his representation on this page as a "moderate". jplatypuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplatypuss (talkcontribs) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Very Long

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

I like the idea Timothy Clemans 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea makes a lot of sense, I'm just curious as to whether there is any precedence for creating such a subpage. The minor items could be deleted as non-notable, pending discussion, of course. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list can be found here under the "opinions on other politics" discussion. It includes a few that he thinks are "far right" as well. And yeah, it wasn't the best title for an article but I could not think of any other way to word it at the time. The far left part was a huge list. The problem is if you try to define what positions he has on issues defined as liberal, conservative, or moderate or say whom he considers what political position, someone will come in and say that so and so position is not liberal/moderate/conservative. For example, when the article defined his positions that way, people debated about his view on global warming and whether it was a liberal or moderate position. It is better to just say his position on it and leave it at that.
Coming back to the length issue, I also recommend that anything that is duplicated in the critcism article should be removed here to keep it from blowing up. We should leave a note telling editors to check that article before adding things here. As for the Political Beliefs and Points of View section, are you saying that it should be cleaned up and then split into a new article? I'm for that or just spliting it and working on it there. Either way. MrMurph101 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean about people debating the true nature of the identified person/group labeled by BOR. Maybe if the list was defined in a context, like identifying where on the political spectrum he is. This way arguing about how liberal/conservative a group/person REALLY is becomes irrelevant as the point is to illustrate O'Reilly's opinion. (I don't mean to make you feel bad about the title, I could have very well given it the same title myself.)
As for the length, I'm waiting for one of the Pro-BOR people to make the first suggestion about what to do. I don't want to come off as trying to "hide" his opinions. I imagined a brief overview here, and then moving a lot of the specifics to the new page but I'm open to other suggestions too. Anynobody 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is already a page specifically for BOR controversies, this article should conform to other wiki articles and just include a link to that article. Arzel 23:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not the way that other wiki articles do it. The standard is to include a link to the main article (Criticism of O'Reilly), and summarize the contents of the main article in the other article (Bill O'Reilly). That's what's going on here. Please don't blank the section.--HughGRex 00:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is hardly what I would call a summary, and is almost half the length of the article it is linked to. I will take a crack at summarizing it. Arzel 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Your point is well taken. I'd suggest devoting only a sentence or two to all but the most noteworthy controversies.--HughGRex 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the controversy section is already in its own article, so it has been removed. Arzel 00:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg vs. Bill O'Reilly

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


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

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

Media Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murph, One independent source is Olbermann; (1) I don't know what the rest are - they are mentioned in the video by Olbermann. Still this is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's hard to argue that a clip of O'Reilly is biased... it IS Bill O'Reilly speaking, so why can't MM be used to cite such a video. My main point was that O'Reilly continues to refer to MM as smear-merchants, when he is the one smearing them. I don't care for Olbermann in the video, I care for the super-imposition of contradictory statements made by O'Reilly illustrated in the video. (2) I don't care for the website the link goes to either... they are the medium. The target video is what is of interest. If I had found the video elsewhere, I would have used a different one instead. Deepstratagem 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Murph, "peer review" is a reasonable standard for scientific articles. It refers to the process of publiching academic journals. It is meaningless as a standard for biographical articles.--HughGRex 11:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was saying "ideally." I know realistically that it is not necessary and I guess it is kind of anal to go that far but there is a higher standard for BLP's and that should be taken into account. I don't think that MM can't be used as long as it is not used authoritatively. I wouldn't consider MM a credible source just because Olberman says it is and conversely I don't consider MM not a credible source just because O'Reilly says that. It is a source that's for sure. I just hear about not using advocacy sources and yet MM fits that description to me. As for the video, I'm stuck on a dial-up so I don't feel like sitting around waiting for it to download so all I can do is take it for the description stated and that makes for an interesting point in its own right. MrMurph101 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
MM often will splice the video or give a partial example of it. This is the "gotchya" tactic used by partisan media (as opposed to true journalism) today. They used the same tactic in the Outfoxed video by only putting part of what the person said, such as making Carl Cameron seem to be actively be promoting a Bush Administration agenda when in actuality he was quoting a Bush Administration official at the time. Michael Moron, I mean Moore, did the same thing in Fahrenheit 911 and was proven to have done this deception when Fahrenhype 911 came out. Sometimes they are true sure, but the best thing would be to get a source outside MM to collaborate what MM states so we get the whole truth.Arnabdas 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kool Aid

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

He implies that "YOU" are a idiot or worse. 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not true. He has stated several times that he WANTS disagreement, but honest disagreement. He calls people KOOL AID drinkers if they only regurgitate what one political side believes without being an independent thinker. For example, when he called several Republicans Kool-Aid drinkers for just repeating nonsense about gas prices increasing because of supply and demand economics yet these Republicans refusing to answer when he proved that oil prices per barrel were pretty much the same as of last year with demand increasing slightly only.Arnabdas 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

High status idiot?

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

The article actually says his character is a combination of news pundents, modeled after Stone Phillips. But O'Reilly is clearly the focus point. I don't think this is a biased statement, but I also don't think it is a controversy, perhaps it should be moved and maybe reworded so it doesn't imply that he thinks O'Reilly is a "Well intentioned....idiot". Arzel 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, "misinformed high status idiot". Since Colbert emulates O'Reilly it does imply that O'Reilly is a misinformed high status idiot, but since you'd arrive at that conclusion no matter who you were, it is not a "very left wing and biased"; especially since O'Reilly is not "very right wing" according to himself. Deepstratagem 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It is a stretch to say that he is in "numerous fueds" with everyone on that list. A feud would mean that O'Reilly and those identified would be taking continuous shots at each other. In some cases that is true but many may have been only a one or two time thing and others(Paris Hilton?) are just someone he was critical of for whatever reason. However, the last point you make does have merit IMO. MrMurph101 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It has no merit whatsoever. When you use weasel words like "as told by scholars" you need to supply a reliable source, particularly when discussing a living person. Otherwise is the same kind of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information that Jimmy Wales explicitly disapproves of. There's no need to share an unsourced laundry list of people and organizations that Bill O'Reilly doesn't like. What is this but a waste of space on the talk page? MoodyGroove 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
MoodyGroove is right. I have displayed a far too complex list of people mentioned on The O'Reilly Factor and The Radio Factor. Now about this weasel word, --As told by scholars--. Well on the other hand, let me look at list. And yes, I found that that doesn't meet that criteria. A source is stated by the Indiana University link. I am assuming (quote the weasel words), that I have obtained this not only from the sites that are devoted to despising O'Reilly, but also The Indiana University website and variable news outlets execpt Fox News.
Once again I am stating this opinion in the most decent manner, I believe (truly) that O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Beck, The Young Turks, and Maher understand that politics is boring. They understand that in order to attract viewers, listeners, bloggers, and people who tend to stray away from poltitics: These people make controversial topics (usually about the War in Iraq, Congress, ethics, music, pop culture, social culture and society's views of America) a living. They want to stir the pot and get people angry with them. They love controversy. O'Reilly has become a mainstream name in the cable news outlet and he's only giving way to many other liberal and/or conservative pundits a chance to succeed in making a profit off of controversy. Enough said. LILVOKA 00:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Moody, I wasn't refering to the list, but the point "politics is boring" to have merit. While I don't think it should be in the article, it is an astute observation. Maybe not a "wikifundamentalist" way to use to talk page, but some food for thought. MrMurph101 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Noted. MoodyGroove 14:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

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

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

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

Despite viewpoints such as LILVOKA alleging that the Clinton News Network is not biased and LEFT wing outfits such as Fox News not having an effect when they almost cause Al Gore to win in 2000, we have to look at this list on a case by case basis. Most of it wasn't feuding, it was just satire. He doesn't have hatred towards much of those people like he does towards Al Franken, a person with whom O'Reilly really has feuded with. He is in fact friends with some of the people on that list, including Clarence Page, who appears on O'Reilly's programs fairly frequently and both have a very respectful, gentleman like conversation when they do talk. When has he made fun of Joe Scarborough btw? Arnabdas 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Calling CNN the Clinton News Network and Fox News "left wing" is a good way to rob yourself of credibility. -- Jibal 08:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anon comment

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Marks.

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

The Simpsons have a feud with Fox News

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

Uh, this isn't a forum. I see nothing here that is about improving the article. Gdo01 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That, and it takes two to have a feud. The Simpsons has a long history of making jokes at the expense of Fox, so for now, it's not worth mentioning. Oh, there's also a huge amount of original research, there. 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Dead Reference Link

This paragraph:

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

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

No reference link

Re this sentence:

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

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

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

Disambiguation page isn't needed

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

biography by kitman -why is this here?

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

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

Removed material:
Marvin Kitman, author of The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, says that O'Reilly suggested he would support the publicity campaign for Kitman's book. Instead, Kitman says, O'Reilly has intimidated Fox News reporters to prevent them from interviewing Kitman. Kitman said that he was surprised to find that O'Reilly was "a hypocrite" because he "wasn't in favor of telling it like it is" when it came to negative information about himself.[1]
I started that section and here is what I wrote.
Marvin Kitman, author of The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, claims that O'Reilly, who was interviewed by Kitman 29 times, had promised to give a huge publicity send off. He claims that O'Reilly has intimated FOX News reporters from interviewing Kitman. Kitman also claims that he has written the only book that says anything positive about O'Reilly. [2]
Basically very little changed. O'Reilly did allow Kitman to interview O'Reilly 29 times according to Kitman and there are very few lengthly biographies of O'Reilly, so I think that this book is notable.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timothy Clemans (talkcontribs) 02:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
I like your paragraph better, I think it's less "attack" oriented (esp. wrt the last sentence). I would prefer to see more evidence of its notability, other than an olbermann cite. A source to show it was a best seller, or favorably comparing it with other bios of o'Reilly would really go a long way here (at least for me). R. Baley 07:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I cited it as coming from Countdown since that there were the author was interviewed. I don't know anything about the author. I was just trying to get the section started, and I don't endorse pushing much farer than Kitman wrote this book. Timothy Clemans 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know that Kitman had been a Newday tv critic for over 30 years (and at least 2 awards Townsend Harris Medal in 1992, and the Folio Award in 1988). I couldn't find any best seller lists that the book is on yet, but how about this for a paragraph:
In January 2007, St. Martin's Press released a biography The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly, written by longtime Newsday tv critic Marvin Kitman. By all appearances, O'Reilly initially authorized the book: working with Kitman and giving him 29 interviews. Kitman believes that O'Reilly was going to help promote and publicize the book, until they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter covering the sexual harrasment lawsuit filed against O'Reilly in 2004 (O'Reilly also filed an extortion countersuit and both have since been settled).[2] But instead of promoting the book, Kitman asserts that O'Reilly intimidated FOX News reporters to keep them from giving him interviews.[3] Despite their disagreement, several critics think that Kitman presents his subject in an even handed way.[3][4] Kitman himself claims that he has written the only book that says anything positive about O'Reilly.
Unless there are any objections, I will re-insert the info tomorrow. R. Baley 07:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
That is a pretty good paragraph. You mention that it is believed that Kitman didn't get the press from O'Reilly he expected because of he disagreement over the sexual harassment lawsuit, but I think Kitman mentioned in the Olbermann interview that when he was collaborating with O'Reilly, O'Reilly said that he didn't need to write about Olbermann and that Olbermann wouldn't last. Kitman did write about Olbermann and Olbermann has a note on the backcover. I think Kitman didn't think he wouldn't get the sendoff until around the time the book was published. Timothy Clemans 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible they didn't discuss the particulars (chapter by chapter) presentation until the end? I can see the advantage of not focusing on the more controversial material until as much cooperation was obtained as possible. The source I found for the disagreement was Newsday link here (google cache link). how about this change:
". . .promote and publicize the book until, just prior to publication, they had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chapter. . ." (no italics in the article of course)
I will wait to see if you think this reconciles the two accounts before inserting back in. I think we're pretty close though, so if you like it, and get the chance before I do, go ahead and put it back in (just drop a note here either way, I guess). Thanks R. Baley 07:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I like what you have done. Timothy Clemans 09:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Added back in just now. R. Baley 10:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

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

Military Service

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

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

Merge proposal removed

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

Reducing the Controversies and Criticism Section

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

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

Critiques from relatively unbiased sources are plentiful, if one is capable of distinguishing between bias and reasoned criticism. One who thinks that Jimmy Hoffa was a thug and O.J. Simpson is a liar is not "biased", and the same goes for O'Reilly (thug and liar). Sadly, most WP editors seem incapable of understanding this, and their insistence that reasoned criticism is "bias" is itself bias. -- Jibal 08:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Comparing BOR to either seems a little biased to me. Exactly what is your point? Arzel 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Name-calling is more opinion than either bias or a reasoned criticism. The difference would be how you would come to the conclusion of that opinion. A bias would be a less in-depth drawing of a particular conclusion. However, a "reasoned criticism" would be less likely to use the terms "thug" and "liar." MrMurph101 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

reference 30 doesnt go anywhere

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

New Wikipedia Technology: Countdown with Keith Olberman

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

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

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

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


Can we all agree he is a conservative?

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Kos

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

If it's a problem with sources, that can be sorted quite easily (by finding sources and removing unsourced stuff). However, I haven't got a feel of how important this issue is - is it given an undue amount of space in the article. Can I ask how important the issue is in comparison to other events in O'Reilly's life - how much was it picked up in the media, for example. I tagged the section {{pov-section}} while this is sorted. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've edited this quite a bit - I think it's ok now. The only bit I'm worried about is the Nazi/KKK reference, as only Media Matters ever seems to mention it. Is there any other evidence for this? Incidentally, YouTube is a valid source for references, although text sources are greatly preferred. I've removed {{pov-section}} (please re-add if you disagree) --h2g2bob (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Another editor contributed after you but I think the way it is now seems reasonable and the Wall St. Journal and Globe and Mail as sources help instead of just solely relying on citing blogs and/or partisan sources. As for the importance it may just be a case of recentism and if so someone will take it out in the future without much issue. I'm not sure about the determination of YouTube as a valid source but that is another issue and I could be wrong. MrMurph101 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

youtube as a reliable source

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

Copyright issues aside, youtube is one of the only reliable transcripts we have. Fox News edits out/does not make available, Bill's more glorious moments. Wikipediatoperfection 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It still should not be used as a source. I am not doubting the truth of the material, just that it should not be included per wiki's guidelines. Thanks, --Tom 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is WP:YOUTUBE which links to a subsection of WP:EL stating that youtube and the like is not banned as long as you stay within the guidelines. Also, it can not be considered a secondary source since it is a medium to view the primary one. In other words, it is better to find a secondary source to help establish the importance of what is being included. MrMurph101 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That is referring to external links which is different from reliable sources. It also notes that linking to youtube in external links has to stay within guidelines "which would be infrequent".--Tom 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a direct replication of a primary source. Since there is no question of it being a fraud or out-of-context (since it showed the entire context) I don't see what the problem is. Eleland 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters as source

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

When used along with other sources, or if directly addressed by the subject, I think it's OK (there are 3 other sources to establish notability in this case, including WSJ), especially as MM sometimes is the only place that will keep the media topic (whether sound or video) as a longterm link. The author of the article, after some poking around, can be found here (link -scroll down a bit, it's the only 'A.I.' listed). R. Baley 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with R. Baley. Using MM is fine for verfication and including other secondary sources to establish notabilty is the right way to go. MrMurph101 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

April Pruning

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

There is an article all about the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly. I personally think all issues should be addressed there, and only a single "see also" link in this article will suffice. Otherwise you encourage bloat. Bytebear 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of the existence of that article. Obviously. It is linked from this one. However, "all issues should be addressed there" is a violation of WP's core policies. I encourage you to reconsider, or I'm afraid a large, nasty tag might appear at the top of the article. That will also encourage bloat! Hornplease 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
When you say "critical discussion" do you mean what other people think of him or just anything negative you can throw in there? I think it may be good to have a section called "Reactions to O'Reilly" or something similar and maybe include things that are both positive and negative, something I think other articles could use also. Ideally, the examples would be notable and relevant and backed up by third party sources. However, I do think an unbalanced tag would be illogical based on your own premise. If he is "the most criticized man on TV," the fact that he is one of the few living person's with an entire article devoted to his criticisms, the balance issue is moot. MrMurph101 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That last statement is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We do not strive for balance within the entire encyclopaedia, but within each article with respect to the article's title. The Criticism article is, I am sure, covered with critical remarks on O'Reilly. As long as they are sourced, reflect all notable viewpoints in rough proportion to their notability, OK. The point is that this article is unbalanced. Introduce, if necessary, a more coherent summary of the child article, rather than the current content-free list of names. An alternative: read mainstream coverage of the man in major national sources: what do they believe is the most notable criticism? I do not, obviously, advocate slapping whatever I want in there. Unless these are done, tag it is. Hornplease 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on at least one thing, there does need to be a better summary of the spinoff article. As to my supposed misunderstanding of NPOV, I consider the spinoff article to be a part of the subject as a whole. We not only have the criticism spinoff, but one devoted to his opinions, his TV show, and some of his books. There was enough material about those criticisms to warrant a spinoff article and therefore plenty of discussion of critical material for the entire subject. I guess it's all a matter of interpretation. Anyway, if you felt like being bold about editing that section (I know I have some idea), what would you do? MrMurph101 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hornplease, before you get too far into your desire to have a "more fair" POV regarding this article (irony intended) you should also remember that this is a WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talkcontribs) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

youtube video

Wasn't there a video of O'Reilly doing an episode of Inside Edition and he suddenly got angry? Should that be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Has a third party reliable source commented in the incident? If you cannot find such a reference, then the answer is no. Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Steven Colbert showed and spoofed it on his show, The Colbert Report[4]. This was in turn referenced at here [5]. If you see any relevance, now you have a source to use.Aaberg (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(youtube)-Videos are usually not accepted in WP unless they are accomplished by a (written) 3rd hand reliable source (no blogs and forums, etc.). Scripts of a news show may qualify too. If you can provide one or more it may be included. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't be mislead; youtube is not the source, just the transport medium. The primary source is the show itself (Inside Edition), but we can't go introducing it as a primary source as doing so runs afoul of the original research policy. However, there has been a substantial amount of mainstream coverage in print and broadcast that serves as ample secondary sources to which details of the event may be attributed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

yes it seems silly to exclude Youtube as a source as it is clearly OReilly and it is undisputed what happened. But then Wikipedia has an obvious right wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy that this kind of information needs to have been written about in a reliable, third party source. I'm not disputing that O'Reilly suddenly got angry because I know it is true, however if it did not gain considerable media coverage then it is of little relevance here. And IP 71, please keep your POV out of this discussion. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

````HKMadness 11/11/0819:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I know i heard coverage of this on several radio programs in southern california. O'Reilly has also mentioned that he is in the business of selling the video. Something should reference this in order to keep up with the detail, accuracy, and honor of WP. Do i understand correctly that WP is actually bias in favor of the far right? It could be argued that there was a miscommunication between the prompter and he, which lead to his over-the-top reaction. But that is the O'Reily style, hate it or love it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Views

The paragraph in this section about O'Reilly's party registration and the New York Daily News investigation doesn't seem to have a citation. If no citation can be found should it be removed? El Gato Gordo (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be cited with a {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag, so it looks like this.[citation needed]. Bytebear (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed this. If sources are provided, can they be posted here and discussed first. As it reads now, it makes BO look like he is lying about this or something, which he might be, but it should be properly sourced and worded. Hasn't this been covered before in detail? Thanks--Tom 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a synopsis. Everything is sourced on the "Politics of" page.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe leave it there then. --Tom 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe in the critisism article? --Tom 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC) - looks like it's been substantiated, if someone could re-word the old paragraph based on the content of this link. It might be suitable for this page. Bananabananabanana (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That has already been included, stating that there was a box for him to fill out independent. Arzel (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording of number of folks critical of BOR

Regarding this sentence: Over the years, O'Reilly has been criticized by or had disputes with numerous public figures including. Can we change that to some to avoid a POV over the number? This has been changed by another editor and myself. Can this be sourced? TIA --Tom 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl, you have reverted this 4 times, please stop, thank you. Also see [6]. --Tom 21:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

How old is O'Reilly?

On Mr. O'Reilly's recent interview with Barack Obama they talked about a hypothetical game of basketball, and O'Reilly said Obama had the youth advantage because he was 73 (might have misheard 63 but I'm pretty sure it was 73.) Either way, neither of those numbers mesh with the birthdate listed on the page that makes him 59 years old. I'd like to think a person knows his own birthdate, but more precisely I'm confused that there are different figures floating around at all. Is there a for-sure confirmation on this? Jadams2484 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

edit: I found a link to the interview on youtube, I don't know how long it will stay up because of copyright concerns but he does say he is 73 years old. Fast-forward to the 6:12 mark or so, its his last question: Jadams2484 (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My take, he was busting Obama's chops. Obama sort of fell for it, being good natured, saying something like. wow, really? I wouldn't have been happy if I was Obama, but he wasn't flustered really. It was silly. His age in the article is probably correct and this is not really worthy of mention, imho, --Tom 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
He was using hyperbole, and this is trivial at best. Bytebear (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't characterize what he said as "hyperbole", especially given the fact that Obama asked if he was serious and then complemented O'Reilly. I also wouldn't characterize a request for verification (one of our most core policies) as "trivial", especially given that the subject gave conflicting information about himself during an interview. In case you guys missed it, no one ever suggested this as a content addition. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why are we discussing it? Wikipedia is not a blog. Keep chatter limited to improving the article. Bytebear (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Requests for verification are certainly appropriate and welcome, as is responding to those concerns here. Dickish move trying to make it seem wrong or otherwise unwelcome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If no one ever suggested this as a content addition, then I also ask, why are we discussing it? Can we move on from this non issue? --Tom 14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Jesus, Tom... we're discussing it because someone requested verification after the subject made a conflicting statement. If you think WP:V requests are "trivial non-issues" then I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with our core policies. I don't see the request as unreasonable, and the belittling attitude you've taken towards it is absolutely inappropriate. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(redacted comment)--Tom 19:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How does this terribly uncivil comment help the encycopedia? If you want to move on, don't continue to respond to the discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, Blaxthos hasn't exactly been an angel. Bottom line, if no one is pressing for inclusion of this, then end the discussion. Bytebear (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Student of Marvin Kalb?

Notable? Relevant? Does it add anything? Who else did he study with, and should we add their names?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Kalb has his own wiki bio so I added it and appears to be a fairly notable journalist. It seems worthwhile to me to add and has encyclopedic value by adding to whom educated him in addition to where he's been educated. Also, if there were notable people he studied with there shouldn't really be a problem including those. There is already mention that he went to school with Howard Stern (although they most likely never studied together) so should that be addressed to? Anyone object to these inclusions? MrMurph101 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else support the inclusion of Marvin Kalb? Does it add anything?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly's Stances On Gays

<Anon Editor wished to discuss why some of O'reilly statement concerning the LGBT community was missing from the article> Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Controversy.2C_criticism.2C_and_parody seems to be the best place to put it. Remember, per WP:BLP, material like this needs to be carefully referenced with WP:RS, but if it's as you say, that shouldn't be too difficult. More tricky will be avoiding POV in the way you express it. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this IP user is adding unsourced defamatory info to a talk page of a WP:BLP. I'll quote, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Asher196 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
<replied at Asher's talk page> --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this isn't a BLP issue -- there is no false accusation, slander, or unverifiable claims. An editor is expressing his opinion, and as misguided as it may be, there is nothing here worthy of wholly removing his comments from this talk page. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong :) --Tom 20:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this helpful!? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
To Blaxthos (edit conflict)--I disagree. The standard "is any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." There is no loophole for editors opinions. Further it explicitly says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc)." Your edit does clean it up, but since user's usually don't do that to another person's edit, the only recourse was deletion. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ramsquire -- the statement made by the anonymous editor absolutely is directed towards the content choices for the article. There is no libel contained therein, nor are there any statements that are grossly incorrect. The only questionable statement is "Bill O'Reilly hates gays", which should be qualified as an editor's opinion with regards to those content choices. I really don't think the intent of WP:BLP is to sanction blanket removal of editors' critical questions about the content of the article. Certainly there are valid concerns raised, and removing the entire statement throws the baby out with the bathwater. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't the editors opinion in this case be a conjectural interpretation of the source (if there even is one)? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So is the issue really libelous statements that need to be removed? The editor hasn't (yet) provided any sources; he simply brought up an area which he believes the article is deficient. Surely saying "Bill O'Reilly hates gays" is synthesis of thought and editorial opinion, however I don't think this is a case worthy of removing those comments. Surely some of his questions merit discussion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The issue for me never was libel, but an unsourced neg characterization. Yes, the topic is worthy to discuss so I've added a summary of his original request without the objectionable language. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So an editor has to provide a source when raising concerns? Which statement(s) were "especially problematic"? I'd assume good faith that the events he described did in fact occur; I still fail to see how pointing them out rises to the level necessary to remove them entirely. Also, I'd say that by removing the examples referenced (even without citations) you're essentially removing any validity of his argument. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Responded on talk page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem: The current article title (Bill O'Reilly (commentator)) doesn't disambiguate very well. After he retired as a professional sportsman, another Bill O'Reilly had a thoroughly notable career as a "commentator".

Could this article be renamed more precisely to avoid confusion?

I don't know enough about this O'Reilly to suggest something. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)? --Dweller (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any opposition. I'm going to post at WP:RPM --Dweller (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me.Jimintheatl (talk) 13:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More generally, I've always wondered why this Bill O'Reilly wasn't the "main" one. I suppose the cricket player must be very famous elsewhere in the world. If he isn't, then that might be a better move to go with. Croctotheface (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)O'Reilly has an opinion on almost everything whether it is political or not. I wouldn't quibble if it was changed but I don't think it is that hard to distinquish between "cricketer" and "commentator." MrMurph101 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. claim to primary article: From his (featured) article, "O'Reilly was one of the best spin bowlers ever to play cricket. ... In 1996, he was posthumously inducted into the Australian Cricket Hall of Fame as one of the ten inaugural members." Cricket as a game is extremely popular in most parts of the world where English is used, outside North America (UK, Australia, southern Africa, Indian subcontinent, West Indies,...). I imagine to most Australians, and to followers of cricket in these countries, Bill O'Reilly would unambiguously refer to the cricketer.
Re. distinquishing between cricketer and commentator: If you're looking for a "cricket commentator", it could be pretty hard, which is the whole point behind this proposal. If using the word politics is not sufficiently accurate, how about Bill O'Reilly (TV analyst), as he describes himself [[7]], or Bill O'Reilly (news commentator), since he broadcasts on cable news? Either of these terms seems to describe him, and is clearly not a cricket commentator in my eyes. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can say that Bill O'Reilly was the Manny Ramirez of cricket then. ;) Seriously though, "news commentator" seems a good choice to me. MrMurph101 (talk) 05:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree too... Bill O'Reilly (news commentator) sounds good. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm sold on "news commentator", since most of his commenting has to do with politics, not the news. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you be happier with political commentator? Rogerb67? Mrmurph101? --Dweller (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I will support Dweller's suggestion/original RM request. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with political commentator. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
American political commentator? --- would end any confusion...Jimintheatl (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Broadcast Journalist or TV analyst? Asher196 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Support political commentator. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I could go with "commentator," "political commentator" or "news commentator" and do not have any issue with it. I just believe news commentator covers the scope better. He says his show is a "news anaylsis" show and there are a lot of segments that discuss media coverage of the headlines. Obviously, since political topics dominate the news it is easy to come to that conclusion which is fine too. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there is evidence that consensus has been reached for Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What does he comment on? Our article on The O'Reilly Factor says he "discusses current political and social issues." This move would overlook these other sides, and we simply don't need to do so. GrszX 04:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The point is, he isn't a sports (cricket) commentator. His parenthetical disambiguator needs to make that clear in order to do a good job. Preferably without being too long. Several alternative suggestions have been made, if you'd like to give your views on them, or suggest something you think may be better? --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, complaining about the consensus supported by the community without suggesting any alternative (and validating the logic behind that choice) doesn't help.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Of the choices offered I think "news commentator" is probably the best. A substantial amount of his show involves issues that are only indirectly political. "Social commentator" sounds a bit high-falutin and most of his social commentary, from what I've seen, is sparked by specific news items. Overall, I think "news commentator" best describes him. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Please move to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) per consensus reached by majority of participants, including requestor (Dweller), myself (Blaxthos), Ramsquire, Rogerb67, Jimintheatl, and moderate support from MrMurph101. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bill O'Reilly on An American Carol "beating" Religulous

On Fox News, O'Reilly said "Over the weekend An American Carol beat the Maher movie."

An American Carol opened Friday in 1,639 theaters, it grossed $3.8 million dollars, which is $2,300 per theater.

Religulous also opened on Friday, but only in 502 theaters, yet it grossed $3.5 million dollars, which is $6,900 per theater, and only $300,000 dollars less, when it was shown in 1,100 fewer theaters.

I'm not sure if this deception is worth noting in this article (or in a different article). The first source I could find on this is, but I think a more neutral one would be in order.--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you think so? Seriously; empirical micro could destroy your "deception" in a heartbeat. You might want to check on WP: POV after your first source..Wikiport (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
To caveat, I love the attempt to inject that advertisement however, I would have deleted it if I didn't find it so humorous. Wikiport (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would call the number of screens irrelevant. Movies are a business, and unless we know of some controversy or reason for limiting the number of screens, we probably should assume that the distributers are following the usual practice of putting these movies, or any movies ,into the right number of screens to make the most money, and are limiting the number of screens because if more seats were offered to the public, a higher percentage of them would be unsold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. What does any of this have to do with an article on O'Reilly that doesn't mention either movie? Especially since nobody commenting here is actually recommending that this movie dispute be made part of the article. Weird! Badmintonhist (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection Need

From the protection policy: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." -- (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Colbert said on his show tonight that O'Reilly won the Nobel Prize, and he knows its true because "I've already updated his Wikipedia page". I sense an impending need for protected status. The Clawed One (talk)

Already got there ;) Raul654 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw right after I saved my message. At least we move faster than the vandals. :p The Clawed One (talk)

Looks like all wikieditors are watching colbert just in case.....

Pre-emptive protection? I thought that was a no-no? GrszX 03:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I watch him because he's f--king hilarious. All the same, Wikipedia has enough vandalism without Colbert telling people to do it. The Clawed One (talk)

Preemptive censorship a little? I understand that it's just you doing your jobs (well), but I kinda feel like that's not the spirit of wiki.

What about our rights as vandals? No donations without representation! -- (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandals don't get rights. The Clawed One (talk)
Also, I'd like to note I find it amusing that everyone here complaining about pre-emptive protection, only proves it was right to do so. The Clawed One (talk)

Dang, y'all are like ninjas.Khaighle (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Given the fact that O'Reilly is one of the most controversial commentators on television, and the fact that he is widely accused of right-wing bias, the fact that the introduction fails to mention such is a serious deficiency in the article. WP:LEAD clearly states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist." Given the fact that his controversies warrant their own article, there is more than enough indication that the bias question is one of major significance. Of course, we shouldn't make any statement regarding the correctness of such allegations, but neither should we fail to mention it completely. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how him being accused of right-wing bias is a controversy. Although he says he is a "traditionalist" he does not make any contentions that his show is balanced or unbiased. If there was some mention that his opinions and attitudes have garnered controversy, clearly that could and should be in the lead, but as for bias I think it may lead to undue weight concerns or, more annoyingly, open the door to arguments that WP thinks being right wing is in and of itself controversial. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering that his polar opposite (KO) is not mentioned similarly I don't think that BOR should be scrutinized this way. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Keith Olberman is far more politically biased on the left than Bill O'Reilly is on the right. It is ridiculous to suggest that O'Reilly should have a political commentary without doing the same for OlbermanBenauto (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)benauto 02:15, 6 January 2009
After reading WP:LEAD, it is only a guideline not a policy. Furthermore criticism is not a controversy, any almost everything against him is simple criticism, and not neccessarily controversal. Additionally, he doesn't have any single issue that is so controversial to be listed in the lead, as WP:LEAD would suggest. Arzel (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Guidelines do carry the weight of consensus behind them and should not be discarded easily. Yes, it is sometimes appropriate to not adhere to a guideline, but I am not so sure this is the time or article to do it. I think we'd need more of a community consensus to figure that out. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Arzel. Claims of conservatism are opinion, and the lead should be about facts. Opinions can come later. Bytebear (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some policy or guideline that supports that proposition. However, lead does say that it should be concise overview of the article, and since there is a controversy section in the article, it would seem to support some mention of it in the lead. If one were to make a distinction that none of these criticisms are significant to BOR's notability to warrant mentioning in the lead, I'd be more inclined to consider it, but the facts/opinion distinction does not seem to be grounded in anything but personal taste. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see the logic in stating a criticism of ideology. In essense he is being criticized by progressive and liberal leaning groups for having an opinion when that is his job. The one aspect which could probably be incorporated into the lead is his feud with Olbermann. It is a well known issue, and significant. Arzel (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I just don't see the logic in stating a criticism of ideology.--I agree with that, and said so in my first response on this page. But the reasons given for the removal has been a) that WP:LEAD is a guideline, not policy so we don't have to follow it and b) no opinions in the lead. Those two points I disagree with strongly. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I looked for a non-biased lead by searching google for "Bill O'reilly is a", "polarizing","controversial" etc, hoping to find a good source for something npov to say about his controversial status. I haven't found one thing that wasn't an editorial, either negative (75%) or positive (25%). I think clearly his controversy is something for the lead ( not in regards to the Olbermann feud, which is a sideshow. We just need to keep looking so we can find a sourced statement that says "O'Reilly is a polarizing figure in American culture, a self-described "Culture Warrior, he often criticized or praised for his controversial right-wing statements" something to that effect. I obviously don't feel comftorable just making up my own lead so we need to find a source. Drunken Pirate (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
If you can't find anything, then chances are anything you do find will be undue weight. In any case, those types of leads are best left for historians "X was a blank blank blank in American blank" Arzel (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on, guys... Bill O'Reilly is one of the the most (if not the most) controversial political commentators that exists today. To surmise and respond to all of the comments above:
  1. WP:LEAD is a staple of article formatting, and is very clear about being a concise and thorough summery. To leave out any mention of his controversial nature is in clear violation of WP:LEAD.
  2. Please make the distinction between editorial opinion ("Bill O'Reilly is conservative") and noting that he has been the subject of considerable controversy ("Bill O'Reilly has been the subject of considerable controversy").
  3. WP:UNDUE guarantees that no individual critic or viewpoint should be given more importance than it's due. This means we don't make one criticism stand out above the rest, and that we don't give fringe views as much weight as popular ones.
  4. Policy/guidelines aren't applied to this article based on what happens in other articles.
  5. Statements don't have to be explicitly sourced in the introduction (in fact, they should not be (see #2)) as long as they're substantiated in the article.
  6. We don't have to pick any one particular controversy (lynching party, civilized blacks, etc.) to note that he is controversial... nor do we have to find a source that uses the word "controversial" to say that he is controversial. The existence of an entire article dedicated to the subject is evidence enough. Arzel tried the same tactic ("original research") unsuccessfully before; I have no doubt an RFC will end the same way if it comes to that.
I really don't see how anyone can argue that the lead should contain no mention of the fact that he's spawned dozens of controversies. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering that he has been a part of numerous controversies and feuds, and that there is a section in the article discussing some controversies (and another entire article) I would agree that a sentence or two is appropriate per WP:LEAD. However, I don't think him having a right wing bias is an appropriate subject for the lead, unless it is put into proper context. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Consider this rewrite: -- -- William James O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television/radio host, author, syndicated columnist, and self-proclaimed "traditionalist" political commentator.[2]
He is the host of the highly rated and controversial cable news program The O'Reilly Factor and has served as anchor of the entertainment program, Inside Edition.
O`reilly has commented on issues of race, religion and Americanism from a right-wing perspective which has sparked numerous controversies.
O'Reilly also hosts The Radio Factor, a talk radio program syndicated by Westwood One, and is the author of seven books. -- JusticeBlack (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly has had verbal spars also with Ludacris and Neal Boortz. He called Neal Boortz a vicious son of a bitch.


Why the Colbert reference was deleted from this article? Is a fact that O'Reilly is the primary inspiration for Colbert. [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Impressive. This page was protected before a single person edited it to claim that O'Reilly is Pope Pius XIII. --MQDuck 08:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually like Colbert it is a shame he so consistently works to hurt something I find valuable. (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up. He only does it for the lulz. (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
He also makes some pretty good points about it. And besides, it's pretty funny. SergioGeorgini (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I was genuinely shocked that only one vandal took a swing at the "Pope Pius XIII" disambiguation page and further shocked that it didn't get any semi-protection love. - Dravecky (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is related, but if you search "O'Rielly wiki" on Google it links to Pius_XIII even though the text of the link and the description are from Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)

(As such, it took me awhile to find this talk page) --Ynohtina (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside Edition meltdown

Should this be mentioned in the article when he got angry at the teleprompter because it kept screwing up and he blurted out the f-word on tv? Crazyconan (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It isn't noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah a man that attacks vulgarity any chance he gets loses his cool and says "fuck" on national television isn't noteworthy in the least bit. /sarcasm The Real Stucco (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The section about O'Reilly's political views states "He has coined the term "traditionalist" when describing his points of view on various topics, saying the term is not limited to the normal party lines, although his commentary generally supports conservative viewpoints." The reference does not say that his commentary supports conservative viewpoints. Rather, it simply says he is conservative. This sentence is biased and should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj11hd19 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tj11hd19, you might have posted in the wrong place. As for the meltdown, I don't think that happened on national TV, it was taped and then leaked by someone. I don't think it's really notable. /no sarcasm Belasted (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing for the "moved to Levittown" sentence as a source? CloutierFan02 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your objection was duly noted, and the source was changed. Yet you once again removed the information. Care to explain why? Or is this just random edit-warring? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The new "source" ( gives me a 404.CloutierFan02 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a friendly reminder, you are getting close to 3rr... please allow me the opportunity to work out the kinks before reverting again. Thanks. No need to edit war when better sources for the same information is available. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) exists. Algebraist 01:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it. I screwed up my copying and pasting of the url. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. If you read the 3RR policy, you'd see it permits multiple reverts of information included in biography pages from sources that clearly do not meet standards. And in any event, you're not an administrator so you can't threaten me, and you're doing something superbad by assuming bad faith. I removed information twice that was not backed up by the source. Why do you automatically ascribe that to some nefarious liberal motives? The sources were bad so I removed the information. What's so hard about this to understand? If I went to the Barack Obama article, wrote in that he's a terrorist muslim who feasts on the flesh of live babies, and then my source was or something, do you think it would be vandalism/edit warring if someone removed the "information"? Also, the new source doesn't contain any information that O'Reilly actually lived in Levittown, just repeated his claims to have, so I've edited that sentence to reflect this. Thanks, have a nice day, and please consider switching to decaf. CloutierFan02 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I find this post rather confusing. There is absolutely no evidence here of "threats" or assuming bad faith from Ramsquire, and accusing him of doing those could be construed as a personal attack. The 3RR is different for BLP articles to protect them against defamatory statements, not to provide you with a license to revert changes for the flimsiest of reasons. If you have issues with the sourcing here, then the best practice would be to look for sources that say what you want the article to say, and then submit them for consideration by the other editors here. Your practice seems to be to not conduct any research yourself and instead to just revert any change you don't like. As to the merits of this disagreement--and I can only assume that this is part of your issue, as you haven't really made much of an effort to explain yourself--I don't think there's really much dispute about the notion that, for a time, O'Reilly's parents' house was located in Levittown. The issue is whether it could properly be considered Levittown when O'Reilly himself was growing up, and beyond that, whether O'Reilly was presenting a false or misleading picture of his upbringing. All of this is discussed in the "Criticism" article. Croctotheface (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
For those interested in the actual truth here, you may look at the following image from the 1958 Nassau County phone book: which shows that O'Reilly's dad lived in Westbury in 1958. The zip code story seems to be a clever and compelling fantasy. Also, the "Levittown" in the "deed" is a dozen lines down from the street address and in a different type face.


The photo at the top of the aricle violates NPOV, as very few other people have such a negative picture used to depict them. It should be changed to a better picture or taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In what way is that a negative picture? It certainly isn't the most ideal, but a violation of NPOV? That's a bit of a stretch. Nufy8 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Stretch is an understatement. That being said, if the commenter has a suitable public domain picture of the subject he'd like to upload for consideration as a replacement I'm sure we'd be glad to take a look.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingofhearts inserted a photo identical to Image:Billrr5.jpg and claimed that he "took it himself." That is belied by the fair use rationale he appended to the identical image the first time around, where he said it was a screenshot or promotional image from the show. Copyright issues are very serious here, and we need to be vigilant about stuff like this. Croctotheface (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Military Service?

O'Reilly was of draft age during the Vietnam War, but there's no mention of military service here. Did he serve in uniform but it's missed in this bio? Did he have a draft deferment? Has his draft lottery number been mentioned in public? -- Davidkevin (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mackris again

From the Washington Post source:

Bill O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by his former producer last night, ending what he called a "brutal ordeal" without an apology. The Fox News talk show host also agreed to drop his extortion suit against Andrea Mackris and her attorney, Benedict Morelli, according to a statement by O'Reilly's lawyer. The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism tag

Just leaving a note here that I intend to remove the {{criticism-section}} template. I believe that the major criticism is covered in the article (most notability the sexual harassment case) and the section itself is a good lead-in to the criticism article. Please undo this if I'm going against the general consensus. Regards, Aiuw 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

TV Ratings

The statement that his show is the "the most-watched program on cable television" should be followed by "in the United States" - unless this can be proven otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Political beliefs and public perception (correction)

The second sentence is missing the word 'not' and should read:

O'Reilly has long said that he does not identify with any political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsplit an article?

I believe that, because THIS article is so small, there's no need to split two of the articles. I believe there's a need to split one of them, but not both. So, my question is if we do decide to merge one of them back, which will it be? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're begging the question. I think the consensus has been that including a lengthy criticism section in the main article doesn't constitute due weight and a neutral point of view. Content inclusion in the criticism article is guided by consensus there. Given that he is such a polarizing figure, there's ample meat for the stew. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Then do the Political positions article. There isn't undue weight to be found there, as well there shouldn't be. Simply put, the Bill O'Reilly article is not very big, while the two split articles are fairly huge. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I can see your point, and I'd agree it's a better starting point for such a proposal. I am interested in hearing others' ideas about (1) the utility of such a merge, and (2) what impact this move will have on the content being merged. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed as such to merging the "politics" article into here. There may be so much content there that it would overwhelm the biography, but if we'd get a better presentation from merging, then we should do it. Croctotheface (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why has the picture with this article been photoshopped?

The image has been cleaned up to make him look a little better. Is this policy on Wikipedia nowadays? (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to the original and the photoshopped versions? I may be overlooking something obvious, but it seems at this moment the file is the same one it's been for at least a year... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i honestly not sure if this photo has been photoshopped but i honestly never seen him on tv look that healthy lookin pink before he looks a really unhealthy yellow like he has liver disease or some kind disease of some sort guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Books and other media

How about a mention about his cameo appearance in "An American Carol"? (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't it be Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? he does more than just politics. Nicholas.tan (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree. But given the nature of the subject matter I suspect there was a long, drawn-out debate about where to put the page. Recognizance (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a pretty thorough discussion involving a fair number of editors that can be found in the archives of this page. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead

The claim in the lead that O'Reilly is widely viewed as a conservative gives WP:UNDUE to clearly hostile to O'Reilly organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Media and Media Matters. The San Diego Union article shows that it regards BillO as a conservative, but it would be a leap of faith and thus a WP:SYNTHESIS of thought to parlay that into a contention that BillO is generally viewed that way. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
After considerable discussion there was consensus on the wording, see thread immediately above. Let's at least leave it a week before discussion resumes. Dean B (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Brit Hume of Fox said this: "...these are subjective matters. You can make an argument that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative or a Republican, and he certainly, I think, lines up that way on some issues but not on all. Bill's kind of unpredictable." So he doesn't agree with the label, but he acknowledges its currency. He also acknowledges that his media colleagues think Fox is right-wing, although he disagrees: [9]. The Register calls him a "conservative commentator":[10]. The Kansas City Star calls him a "conservative host":[11]. Time refers to "O'Reilly's grumpy social conservatism"[12]. New York Times calls him a "conservative commentator":[13]. And as 64 percent of The O'Reilly Factor's regular viewers identify as conservative [14], I don't see how a minority POV is being pushed here. Fences and windows (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. The "consensus" for adding that BOR is "widely considered a conservative" in the lead section was brought up by an ip and then discussed by a few editors over a few days. Hopefully this will not turn into some fantasy about the "18 editors" that reached this consensus and that consensus is not like bread that becomes stale so it should not be changed back to the last stable version ect. Anyways, time will tell, Tom (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I also changed removed the "widely", but this still doesn't make sense without attribution, ect. Maybe a "real" consensus can be worked out about this "material" and how it is worded and where it belongs if at all in the article. Tom (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Tom, those scare quotes make it sound like you're not happy with the sources. We've got six sources now. I can add them all into the lead if I have to, and keep finding more sources. Not my favourite pastime though. Fences and windows (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure that I am not happy with the sources. I am sure that there are sources that call him something else as well, besides conservative. It seems that more input is needed as to how to handle the lead section. Tom (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very happy with the sources, and I'm not very happy with the new wording either. I'll elaborate tomorrow. Happyme22 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Happy. Additionally, three of the four sources being used in the lead are liberal sources which criticize BOR on a regular basis. This whole issue boils down to a long standing attempt to lable him a conservative and a republican by proxy. Arzel (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "lable[sic] him a conservative and a republican by proxy". There is a fundamental difference between "foo is conservative" (1) and "bar considers foo to be conservative" (2), or even "foo is considered important among the conservative movement" (3). If you're implying we're doing #1, you're willfully misrepresenting the facts. #2 and #3 are both acceptable, and #3 doesn't even go so far as to say that foo even is conservative (only that he is considered influential within the conservative movement). Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

More sources, mainly calling him a "conservative commentator". MSNBC Chicago:[15]; USA Today:[16]; Washington Post:[17][18]; Country Music Television:[19]; CNN:[20]; LA Times:[21]; NY Daily News:[22]; Ocala Star-Banner:[23]; TheRockRadio:[24]; Commercial Appeal:[25]; Salon:[26]; CBS News:[27]; Globe and Mail:[28]; Business Week:[29]. That's 20 sources now, if I didn't lose count. Surely you can't continue arguing that he's not widely referred to as a conservative? If so, I will keep going. Maybe I'll break some kind of record for sourcing for a single statement on Wikipedia. Fences and windows (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is not the time or place for sarcasm. Consensus can, does, and will most likely change in this case because four editors (including myself) have expressed concern over fences and windows' version of the lead, especially regarding WP:WEIGHT. He is a registered independent -- that is the established, neutral description we should use in the lead. Other descriptions of him leaning to the right or being conservative can go in the body article; I don't think anyone is objecting to that. Editors will see that when I copyedited and cleaned up the article a few weeks ago, I added the paragraph dealing with his very topic in the public perception section.

Tom had a good point too, in that the lead was stable until an IP with an edit count of four (4) came in and tried to twist O'Reilly's words around. The lead did need some work for flow, but not a major overhaul including the disputed claim that he is a conservative. I say we go back to my compromise version, which is include the established, neutral facts in the lead and put the public perception (conservative claims) in the, well, public perception section. [30] Happyme22 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the word "widely" keeps getting taken out, the wording on which there was consensus was "widely considered a conservative" which I quite like as it implies not everyone agrees. But I think that a large part of what makes O'Reilly important is that he is an influential player in conservative thinking/politics, however you like to put it. He's not just another talk host, he's a big force in shaping conservative viewpoints. I think, however it's worded, that that needs to be put in some way into the lead para, or we are not really being true to why he is so important. It doesn't need to say explicitly he is conservative - just that he is a major influence on current conservative thinking. Dean B (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, is a real consensus reached by a few editords over a few days? Do you have sources that say he is a major influence on current conservative thinking? Also conservative commentator is different than saying he is considered a conservative. Also, should attribution be given to who is calling him such? --Tom (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also feel that it would be disingenuous to remove any mention of the fact that O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative. Fences And Windows provided a ton of sources, I don't think we need any more do we? Also Tom I don't understand what you mean by "conservative commentator is different than saying he is considered a conservative," a conservative commentator still is conservative. Dionyseus (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom is dead on. There are too many unanswered questions in the vague and controversially-worded version by fences and windows. It is almost like O'Reilly is being accused of something in the lead, and he is quickly denying it. That is the implication that I get from the wording. Dean, do you have a source that O'Reilly is a "big force in shaping conservative viewpoints"? Last I checked, he hasn't donated to conservative causes or undertaken any projects to further conservative causes and ideals, in the way that William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan did.
Dionyseus, I don't think anyone is disputing that Bill O'Reilly has been labeled as a conservative. As I said above, if you read it, I was the one who put in the public perception section that many consider him to be a conservative. This is a question of undue weight in the lead, which it clearly is. That is why I am saying that we take out the controversial material from the lead to avoid further problems like this, adhere to the neutral "just the facts, ma'am" approach, and include public perception or labels in the public perception section.
So you agree that he is widely considered a conservative, correct? If so, then what exactly is it that you want removed from the lead? Dionyseus (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The April 9 version was not a consensus agreed-upon version. It was a rough proposal which was put in the article very quickly. If it truly was set in stone and agreed upon, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the edit warring continues in article space, as an administrator I will not hesitate to fully protect the article until a true consensus can be reached. --Happyme22 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the April 9 version was indeed the consensus agreed-upon version, tt wasn't rushed the discussion was lengthy and took about ten days. Dionyseus (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Repeating the same falsehood doesn't make it true. An ip introduced a very bold change to a pretty stable lead, no less, and a few folks commented. To say this is the new consensus version of this article is beyond a stretch. Just a point of order. --Tom (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This is factual wrong. The article had no anonymous IP change since the start of this discussion (except one vandalism which was reverted immediately). I was the one who brought up the issue, but I never changed the article at all! I just proposed a change in this discussion page with the intention to restore NPOV, and I backed up my change proposal by references. (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no due weight concern here -- there is more evidence showing that he is considered "conservative" than there is referencing his claims of "traditionalist" (by a geometric factor!). Tom, stop the ad hominem argument -- it doesn't matter who introduced the suggestion... The lead serves as a summary of the article as a whole. As far as I can tell, no one disputes the fact that O'Reilly is an influential conservative figure, despite what label he chooses for himself. I have always advocated that we will give deference to his chosen self-descriptor, however there is ample evidence that he is indeed a strong influence on American conservatism and trying to keep such information from the lead is absurd. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am just pointing out thst this whole "issue" or suggestion as you call it, was brought up by an SPA ip with an axe to grind. I understand that you are in total agreement with him. Thats all. --Tom (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am confused as to why Blaxthos feels it is fine for BOR to be identified as conservative when BOR does not claim to be conservative. Yet it is not fine for KO to identified as liberal under the same circumstances. Arzel (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I am confused as to why you believe that Wikipedia is a battleground and this is some sort of "tit-for-tat" situation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Who is KO, and what does their description have to do with O'Reilly? Arzel, are you trying to make a WP:POINT?
Please don't revert the lead. I did more than adding in that he's viewed as a conservative (and rejects it, mind), I also tidied it for flow, and added his self-descriptor as a traditionalist. How exactly is my version of the lead "vague"? It doesn't matter if an IP editor introduced the idea of O'Reilly being seen as a conservative - nobody has to register to edit Wikipedia, and out of their (fairly disruptive) behaviour came a good suggestion. My response was not to blindly follow the IP's suggestion, but to find reliable sources on the issue. Those arguing against including conservative in the lead should find some sources too.
The argument against including the term "conservative" in the lead keeps shifting. Before, it was because the sources were attack sources. Now, it's because he doesn't call himself that (a fact noted in the lead), because he isn't a donor to the republicans or the founder of conservative projects (irrelevant, and original research), and because it gives "undue weight" to a minority view. But the minority view is that O'Reilly isn't often viewed as a conservative, because a large number of mainstream sources refer to him as such. O'Reilly is not the final authority on how O'Reilly is viewed! If you're not happy with the two sources used to note that O'Reilly does not consider himself a conservative, then can you find better ones? They report O'Reilly's own words. Please note that "notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm"; I think my version attains that medium.
In summary, those arguing against including "conservative" in the lead seem to think it is some kind of smear against O'Reilly, whereas I view the term "conservative" simply as a commonly used and notable description, not a pejorative. Fences and windows (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It is a bit of a smear, because it is a label he has strongly and continuously rejected, yet some here are still attempting to label him as it. Take Ronald Reagan -- he was called conservative by every news outlet in the world, and he gladly accepted it and thus that is the description of him. Or take Paul Krugman, called a liberal by every news outlet; he's accepted it so that is the term we use. O'Reilly has strongly denied being a conservative so to include this in the lead because, according to Blaxthos, "O'Reilly is an influential conservative figure" (which I still have not seen citations for, from Blaxthos or Dean), is somewhat of a smear tactic. It introduces controversy into the article immediately. He has not furthered conservative causes or ideals in the way that Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley, or President Reagan did.
That is why, as I repeat myself for the third or fourth time, we need to stick with a "just the facts, ma'am" approach. Fences and windows is right that O'Reilly is not the final authority on how he is viewed; I am not saying that at all. I am saying that because it is such a controversial subject, we should put the public perception of him (the stories referring to him as being conservative) in the public perception section where they rightfully belong, generating a WP:NPOV lead without undue weight. Happyme22 (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it "just a fact, ma'am" that O'Reilly is considered a conservative by more sources than he is a traditionalist? At the end of the day you can't really make a coherent argument for excluding others' widely documented statements on the matter simply because he claims it isn't so (especially when he's often called out for making dubious/misleading statements). Also, "conservative" isn't a "smear" (at least, objectively speaking). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's be real here. What we have here is a display of bad faith on the part of any editor who is perfectly aware of, took part in, and approved of, the prior agreement not to put political labels such as "conservative" and "liberal" on commentators who don't describe themselves that way. I personally didn't like the "self-description" standard but adhered to it afterward. To use the device of saying something like "he is widely considered a conservative" violates the spirit, if not the letter, of that agreement. Moreover, to then fight to keep others from being similarly described as "liberal" when the shoe obviously fits, is hypocrisy pure and simple.
However, to then chide others, yes others, for treating Wikipedia as a battleground goes beyond bad faith and hypocrisy to the realm of ... I'll let the reader decide. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What prior agreements? Links please! Agreements among groups of editors don't amount to policy, surely? I'm not keen on that apparent agreement; the self-descriptions of subjects of BLP should not be the last word on how the world views them for the lead. If there are others such as Keith Olbermann (I worked out who KO was) who are often given a descriptor they disagree with (in Olbermann's case, "liberal"), it's not up to Wikipedia to change the view of the media.
I don't see the descriptor of "conservative" as a smear on O'Reilly, even if he prefers "traditionalist". I'm not attempting to label O'Reilly as anything; I'm interested in reporting the widely reported view of him. By way of balance to the 20 sources I found before, according to the blurb of Marvin Kitman's biog of O'Reilly he concludes that O'Reilly isn't a "knee-jerk conservative".
My view is that we should call a widely-reported spade a widely-reported spade. O'Reilly is seen as a conservative; Olbermann is seen as a liberal. This is important to their notability and is verifiable, so we should include it in the lead. Fences and windows (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Peruse this archived page [[31]] and notice the attitude taken toward "ideological labeling" by the editor Blaxthos a mere seven months ago. Funny how things can change so quickly. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
That's one editor, your previous statement made it seem like you were accusing all of us of switching our stances. I agree with Fences And Windows, I don't see labels such as conservative and liberal as negative, they're just sets of political and social beliefs. Dionyseus (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I now realise that this is a spillover of a debate on the Olbermann page, found here:[32]. There, Badmintonhist is arguing for saying that Olbermann is "widely viewed as a liberal advocate" in the lead [33], and Blaxthos is arguing against. Here, the exact mirror is happening with O'Reilly and "conservative".
Sigh. Badmintonhist, Blaxthos, I'd suggest you both take a Wikibreak from these two articles. The inversion of the logic of both of you between the Olbermann and O'Reilly page makes it look like there's a lot of pointy editing and debating going on. Fences and windows (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was hoping someone might notice the "mirror happening" but that was in response to Blaxthos's 360 on "ideological labeling" which he viewed as "poisoning the wells" when applied to Olbermann a few months ago (and which he apparently still views unfavorably when applied to Olbermann but not to O'Reilly ). As far as I'm concerned one can make a good case either way as to whether well earned, well sourced, ideological labels should be used for folks like O'Reilly and Olbermann but we should consistent and not ideologically partisan ourselves in applying them. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree fully with Fences and windows that Badmintonhist and Blaxthos should both take a Wikibreak -- those diffs Badmintonhist presented are very interesting.
This discussion seems to be getting us nowhere, so, in the interest of reaching a solution, I will present a compromise as soon as I can, which will probably be tomorrow. It seems the "just the facts, ma'am" approach isn't getting much support from anyone other than myself, so I will go about reaching a compromise through a different direction. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
After following this discussion for a couple days now, I think the the reason that the conversation is going nowhere, is that it appears that there never was any consensus to change the lead in the first place. For the record, I also agree with your approach. How other's view O'Reilly belongs in a public perception section, not the lead. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have attempted to characterize this as some sort of vendetta-based discussion. Let's clear the air...

  1. There is no policy or guideline that indicates that Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) must be treated the same. Each article is an island, and arguments for/against inclusion of material must stand on their own without the luxury of saying "well that's not fair! you did it differently at article foo".
  2. If you believe I'm applying separate judgment to articles based on an ideological stance, read the next point...
  3. Even if number one were true, for every one reliable source you can show me that calls Olbermann liberal, I can show you ten that call O'Reilly conservative. No one has yet presented a reliable source that states "Olbermann is widely considered conservative"; I'm pretty sure at least two of the sources F&W presented do make mention of BOR being "widely considered conservative"
  4. If we went and asked 100 random people "who is Bill O'Reilly", I'd bet you any amount of money more than 75 of them would mention "conservative." If you ask 100 random people "who is Keith Olbermann", at least half of them will either say "Sports Center" or "who?"... Olbermann may be "widely considered liberal" within the conservative ranks, but O'Reilly is known for being conservative!
  5. Before someone starts with the "original research" wolf-cry, this is a talk page. Such notions are germane in the discussion of what content should be appropriate to the article. I don't think anyone contests that O'Reilly is widely seen as a conservative figure, do they?
  6. So, if we grant Ramsquire's "How other's view O'Reilly belongs in a public perception section, not the lead" suggestion... only the article subjects themselves get to dictate how they are presented in the article summary, right?

Please, dissect point-by-point.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not rush into a "consensus" without properly discussing the issues and principles. I cannot agree with this idea that subjects of BLPs have any priority in how they are described. The lead needed editing anyway, so to be clear all I'm discussing is whether to include that he's "widely seen as a conservative, a label he rejects", not a reversion.
Badmintonhist, I don't care who started it, you still did make a pointy edit; please try to avoid it in future. To reply to Blaxthos:
There is no policy that all articles should be treated the same, absolutely. I was just noting the apparent mirror argument on the Olbermann talk page.
Vox pop polls or common knowledge aren't how we decide on Wikipedia edits; we'd better stick to reliable sources.
A totally non-controversial way to describe Olbermann would be as a "consistent critic of the Bush administration" or something along those lines (and that he really doesn't like Bill O'Reilly...). Anyhow, some sources for Keith Olbermann being a "liberal". CNN calls him a "liberal hero" in an interview with Olbermann which is probably the definitive on how he views himself, e.g. "I'm frequently accused of being a liberal or a flack for the Democratic Party. And it's true that the vast majority of my commentary over these past few years has targeted Republicans":[34]. Salon denies it: "far more a Bush critic than he is a doctrinaire liberal"[35] and "it is actually far from clear that Keith Olbermann is a "liberal" at all; what "liberal" policies specifically does Olbermann advocate?"[36]; that was in response to an AP story calling him a "liberal icon":[37]; same AP author called him a "liberal hero":[38]; a Houston Chronicle interview has his reply to whether he is a conservative or a liberal as "A lot of my personal world view is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal play book, but honest to God, I have been called a reactionary by some on the far left, a liberal by some on the far right and I'm insulted by both terms. My point of view is about delivering information and context. It has nothing to do with a political point of view":[39]; Washington Post says he's a "fire-breathing liberal"[40], that "He positions his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to the "O'Reilly Factor":[41], and reports him saying ""I find myself currently aligned, not in the sense of having membership, but being in the same part of the ballpark as a lot of liberals"[42]; St. Louis Post Dispatch calls him a "liberal commentator":[43]; The Independent (London) assumes he's a liberal commentator, as it uses those words to explain who Obama meant in a quote:[44]; USA Today calls him a "liberal commentator":[45], which US News reports in quote marks without comment:[46]; NPR calls Countdown with Olbermann "liberal-leaning":[47]; Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports him saying "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American" (are the two mutually exclusive?!), and says he's a "hero to liberals":[48]; Media Matters allows, for the sake of argument, that he's "progressive":[49]; Salon calls him a "liberal" voice, using scare quotes to indicate that's what others think: [50]; Seattle Times calls him a liberal commentator: [51]; Bill Moyer on PBS said to Olbermann in an interview that "They think you've taken sides with the progressive or liberal story":[52]; The Pittsburgh Tribune says "The recovering sportscaster is openly liberal":[53]; an excerpt from Olbermann's book accounts a drunk dismissing him because "he's a liberal":[54]; Buffalo News thought he had a "liberal anti-McCain agenda"[55]; The Philadelphia Inquirer says he's a "liberal provocateur":[56].
That'll do for now. Fences and windows (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Blax, were I you, I would have quit while I was behind and not dug myself into a deeper hole with the above pleadings. I'm going to hold off responding substantively for now, in part because I've grown tired of shooting fish in a barrel (as Olbermann might have put it), and in part because it's possible (not likely, but possible) that other editors might have more influence with you. The suggestion that the two of us take a rest from the discussion was probably a good one. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Woo-ha, you both missed the point completely. Of the points I made above, please re-read #1 and #6, and feel free to try again. Many thanks to Happyme22, who seems to be trying to move this forward. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Blaxthos... with all due respect, please do not stretch my comment to something I had not intended. Unlike some of you, I do not come into this article with residues of scars of other battles. As you said in point 1 each article is its own island, and on this island, based on how the article currently reads, I agree with Happy that it is better suited to have it in the public perception article. So yes, in this case, where the subject has come up with his own term to describe himself, and vehemently denies how other characterize him, it may be best to simply give his self description in the lead, and have further discussion of the issue in an appropriate section. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to have intended to limit the lead section only to what the subject would agree... should we do the same for, say, criminals Terry Nichols, Son of Sam, or Jeffrey Dahmer? How about politicians -- do we only use information they have sanctioned in the lead? As others have noted, Bill O'Reilly is not the final (or only) authority on what he is, how he is significant, or how he should be presented. Our own policy insists that the lead section is a summarization of the article -- wouldn't you agree that understanding that O'Reilly carries significant weight within the conservative community is crucial in understanding his significance? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, I'm starting to get annoyed. I could understand the confusion after the first post, but I'm on record now (more than once) that my position is based solely on this article and my support for Happyme22 approach is based on this article alone. If there are other articles you would like to discuss, then we can discuss it on the respective talk pages of those articles. There are several factors that go in to how the article develop: the positions, the reliability of the sources, the actual words of the sources, etc. It would be foolish of me to try to take this debate and expand it into a general policy covering several articles. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you know I was being rhetorical... to focus: I'm just trying to comprehend exactly why we should make the exception here:

  1. Why does O'Reilly get to be the authority on what is presented in the article summary?
  2. Doesn't this necessarily mean we're sidestepping what many consider to be the most significant detail about the man?

It's not a fringe view... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this article contained a pre-existent public perception section and how others view him fits perfectly in it. Also, I have yet to see any sources that say or even imply that his conservatism is the most significant detail about him or that he is even influential in conservative circles. Although, I think there is an argument to be made about duplicity if he claims to be one thing, and is actually perceived to be another (a la the FNC debate), this debate has not centered around that aspect of the labeling. His self-labelling as traditional does not in any way seem to be at odds with conservative. For the record, I'll close by saying that I never made any assertion that comes anywhere close to 1, and I suspect many will argue with you about 2. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


I've drawn this up as a compromise:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. He hosts the cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, which is the most-watched program on cable television.[6] O'Reilly's views vary on a number of issues; many of his views lean toward the right,[7][8] though he describes himself as a "traditionalist"[9] and he is a registered independent.[10] He previously anchored the entertainment program, Inside Edition and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program.[11] He is the author of eight books.

I think it is quite good. --Happyme22 (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we have some attempts at compromise here, but I still think there is a mischaracterization of the term "conservative" as pejorative. Doesn't this still ignore the influence O'Reilly has amongst conservatives, which I again point out is his most defining characteristic? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback :) No, I don't think it does because it is not his most definining characteristic. That would need a couple of citations because it is purely one's own opinion. I again point out that O'Reilly has not influenced the conservative movement in the way that Reagan, Goldwater, and Buckley did. Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
One need not be a Reagan to be widely considered an influence upon contemporary conservatives. So, to be clear, if we can provide some reliable sources that indicate that O'Reilly is a significant conservative influence, you won't be opposed to incorporating such? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Some external description of his political stance other than his own (obscure) use of "traditionalist" is welcome. Happyme22's wording is fine with me. I will look at if and how I can work some of the sources I found into the rest of the article. Fences and windows (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can live with it ;). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The above formulation offered by Happyme22 is basically fine. The only quibble I have with it is that I would take out the "though" before the words "he describes himself as a traditionalist", and make it the start of a new sentence. Describing oneself as a "traditionalist" is certainly not at odds with "leaning toward the right". Badmintonhist (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What I meant to imply by including though is that O'Reilly does not see himself as a man of the right, thus although many of his views lean that way, he describes himself as a traditionalist, not a Republican or conservative. Happyme22 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm ... on second look saying that "O'Reilly's views vary on a number of issues" is rather nebulous. They vary from what exactly? See my point? How's this assuming that it squares with the sources?
O'Reilly's views on most, but not on all, issues lean toward the right. He describes himself as a "traditionalist" and he is a registered independent. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The point isn't the slant towards which his views lean, the point is that he is viewed by others as being an influential conservative voice. The significance of the issue is that he is almost universally seen as a "conservative commentator", regardless of what word he invents to describe himself. It's not (just) about his positions, and it's not (just) about how he describes himself -- it's also about why O'Reilly is significant. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Happyme22's formulation already states that O'Reilly's program is the most-watched one on cable news television. That's objective information (NO SPIN,BABY!) that tends to indicate that his political views have some influence. Why use labels such as "conservative", especially in the lead and especially when the article's subject doesn't self-identify that way, which in the words of Blaxthos 9/16/2008 "inflame passions, are subjective in nature, and poison the well? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

He is a self-described conservative, not traditionalist

Wikipedia is accurate to describe Mr. O'Reily as not being a self-described conservative. He has denied being a conservative time and time again on his show and often ridiculed Bush and supports Obama if what they are doing disagrees with or agrees with his stance. Good job Wiki, in not allowing people's opinions to dominate the facts.--Ic2705 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In an interview he said recently: "My program, I think, is the least skeptical of the so-called conservative programs", see I suggest updating the first sentence and the section about his political views. (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That gives some weight to the (contentious) debate between what he calls himself, and what others call him (har har). Then again, he qualified it as "so-called" (possibly meaning he's referring to others' descriptions). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Plainly and simply put, he is not a self-described conservative. That link was referring to his program. He is indeed a self-described traditionalist and a registered independent. Happyme22 (talk) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously it makes no sense to say that his show - which centers around him - is conservative, but claiming that heself isn't. To be on the safe side, Wikipedia could write that he describes himself as "so-called conservative" ;-). "so-called" means that it is commonly named in that way (which may include him or not). But whatever exactly he wanted to express by "so-called": obviously he thinks and accepts that he is commonly seen as conservative (I don't know a source where he describes himself as "traditionalist"). So obviously it would be more precise for Wikipedia describing him as conservative, not traditionalist. (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The core point is: The article contains no reference showing that he calls himself traditionalist. (The link on the article just cites a description of Fox news, but not a description of himself.) But the cited reference shows that he considers himself as conservative. That's quite simple. (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The answer is not to delete "traditionalist", but to source it. According to Culture Warrior, O'Reilly defines a traditionalist as "someone who believes that the United States is, more often than not, a noble country that has made some mistakes... Traditionalists believe in the family unit and place emphasis on spirituality, selflessness, and charitable causes". It is a term he invented. Here's a quote from the preface: "On one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically: mold it in the image of Western Europe." [57]
It is original research on my part without a source, but he fits well in the tradition of Traditionalist conservatism. Fences and windows (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, if "traditionalist" can be sourced, then it should be kept. If it cannot be sourced then it should be deleted. "Conservative" is already sourced, so it should be added. At the end, the only thing which should matter is whether it can be sourced, not "the article always said traditionalist, therefore we keep it". My impression is that the ideological fight is shadowing reason and facts (for example just claiming "he is ..." without citing any reference as if this would be self-evident). Summary of my point of view: Claims should be sourced. Sourced claims (like he being conservative) should be added. Other claims (like being a tradiionalist) should be either sourced or deleted. (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have sourced it. It was in a book he wrote. Of course claims should be sourced, and I had no trouble finding one. If you can find O'Reilly calling himself a conservative, directly, put it in the article that he calls himself a conservative. If you can only find others calling him a conservative, report that this is what others call him. No need to discuss it any further, unless the sources seem ambiguous. Fences and windows (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, beging registered as independent does only mean that he does not be associated with some particular party. This is no contradiction of being conservative. (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) IP 87, your source [58] does not say that Bill O'Reilly is a conservative. That is misconstruing what he said. In the article, he describes is his show as a "so-called conservative program" -- thus your judgement and claim hold little water.

First, "so-called" is very important. By including that, O'Reilly does not necessarily/affirmatively acknowledge that the Factor is a conservative program, rather he is acknowledging that some call it a conservative program. Second, he is referring simply to his program rather than to he himself. You said above "Obviously it makes no sense to say that his show - which centers around him - is conservative, but claiming that heself isn't" -- we at Wikipedia call it original research to take one fact or statement and infer something from it, which is what you are doing. And original research is strictly prohibited.

Come on, be serious! Then no-body can be called conservative or liberal or whatever, even if the person acts in such a way, and even if many call that person in such way, and even if that person itself acknowledges that many call him/her in such way. You want to say, "being conservative" depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is? ;-) (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. O'Reilly explicitly denies being a conservative, while others think he is. See [59] [60]. Time to put this thread to bed. Fences and windows (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree -- deference should be given to his self-description first; others' descriptions must be attributed and noted as such. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the core point: If the self-description is highly disputed by many, than NPOV really requires to at least also mention relevant other descriptions. And in this case, there is no doubt that a significant number of people consider him as conservative - Fences's link is just another source for this. And as Happyme22 said, even O'Reilly himself acknowledges that "some" say that his show is conservative. So at the moment the article is definitely POV by just relying O'Reilly's own perspective. Just write-protecting the article and keeping quite obvious POV descriptions is not the way to go. (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It is verifiable that he does not describe himself as a "conservative"; he calls himself a "traditionalist". If you can find multiple, reliable sources that refer to Bill O'Reilly as a "conservative", then please note them here and we can also add that to the article, appropriately worded. It is semi-protected because of vandalism, not to censor. Fences and windows (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all saying the same thing here. To pointlessly repeat: deference should be given to his self-description first; others' descriptions must be attributed and noted as such.  :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


Ok, all in all I suggest changing the first paragraph to the following:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television/radio host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. While many say he is conservative[12] as acknowledged by himself[13], he describes himself as "traditionalist"[14].

He is the host of the most-watched[15] cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel. Prior to hosting The O'Reilly Factor, he served as anchor of the entertainment program, Inside Edition. O'Reilly is the author of eight books, and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program syndicated by Westwood One, until early 2009.[16]
  1. ^ Olbermann, Keith (2007-03-02). "Countdown with Keith Olbermann for March 1". MSNBC. Retrieved 2007-03-21.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Lovece, Frank (January 18, 2007). "O'Reilly bio may surprise fans and foes". Retrieved June 22, 2007. Accesed via Google cache
  3. ^ Eshleman, Michael (December 15, 2006). Library Journal Retrieved June 22, 2007.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ . Publishers Weekly. November 6, 2006 Retrieved June 22, 2007.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Paul Farhi, The Washington Post, The Life of O'Reilly, December 13, 2000. Retrieved May 21, 2007.
  6. ^ "Audience". The Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved 2009-03-27. 
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference sandiego was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference fair was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ O'Reilly, Bill (September 2006). Culture Warrior. Broadway Books. p. 240. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9. 
  10. ^ Gross, Terry (8 October 2003). "Bill O'Reilly". Fresh Air from WHYY (npr). Retrieved 2009-04-09. 
  11. ^ Hinckley, David (December 5, 2008). "BIll O'Reilly is really quitting radio gig". The New York Daily News. Retrieved 2009-04-04. 
  12. ^ "Media Matters - O'Reilly: "I'm not a conservative" ... he just plays one on TV". Retrieved 2009-04-04. 
  13. ^ "Media Matters - O'Reilly: We Want Obama to Succeed". Retrieved 2009-04-04. 
  14. ^ O'Reilly, Bill (September 2006). Culture Warrior. Broadway Books. p. 240. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9. 
  15. ^ "Audience". The Project for Excellence in Journalism. Retrieved 2009-03-27. 
  16. ^

The intention is to describe both sides: His own view and a common public perception. (I don't want to start a discussion if "common" means 10% or 90% ;-) - but I think nobody disagrees that a significant number of people label him as conservative.) I explicitly put his own description as "final word", giving his view deference. And both views are sourced properly, so that the article gets more NPOV. Furthermore I hope and think that all aspects mentioned above are reflected in the proposal: For example, it does not contain the claim that he "is" conservative.

Any objection to this proposal? (talk)

If it's going in, it should be reworded:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television/radio host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. O'Reilly describes himself as a "traditionalist",[1] but acknowledges[2] that others consider him to be conservative.[3] He is the host of the most-watched[4] cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel. Prior to hosting The O'Reilly Factor, he served as anchor of the entertainment program, Inside Edition. O'Reilly is the author of eight books, and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program syndicated by Westwood One, until early 2009.[5]

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I will get into this more in a little bit (I have to go out for a little while), but I am opposed to both of the above per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. The lead is a generalization of all major points in the article, and should not be bogged down with minor details. Secondly, undue weight is no doubt being placed on this matter. Again, I will elaborate later tonight... please be patient. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note that I share some of the same concerns, and I wasn't giving my endorsement. My only intent thus far is to re-word the anonymous editor's suggestion to be more concise and clear, and devoid of weasel words. I haven't been convinced this belongs in the lead -- there are weight and summary style concerns, but then again... O'Reilly is recognized almost universally as a staunchly conservative figure, and certainly wields significant influence within the conservative movement. Omitting it from the lead may be ignoring what some may believe is his most defining quality. I'm interested to see what other editors think. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Well thank you for your clarification Blaxthos. I have three very good reasons why not to include information such as this in the lead:
  1. WP:WEIGHT. There is way too much weight being placed on this by putting it in the lead. O'Reilly is a registered independent and self-described traditionalist -- period. That is what belongs in the lead. What others believe belongs in a public perception section in the body article or something of the like.
  2. WP:NPOV. Being conservative cannot be a defining quality of his if it is not a definite fact and cannot be definitively sourced unless he acknowledges himself as such (he hasn't and probably never will).
  3. WP:LEAD. So much detail about one single matter is not smiled upon at all by this guideline.
Bottom line: stick with what we have in the lead. Place other opinions in a public perception section, in the section on the Factor, or something such as that. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure your logic is completely sound. To quote: "Being conservative cannot be a defining quality of his if it is not a definite fact and cannot be definitively sourced unless he acknowledges himself as such" -- One, there is no "definitive" anything with regards to being "conservative"; two, Bill doesn't have to "acknowledge" that he is a conservative figure to be considered one by most of the world. Regarding due weight, there are thousands of sources that describe O'Reilly as a significant conservative influence, and I'm sure at least a few dozen of those are reliable. Regarding WP:LEAD, to quote: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." -- wouldn't you agree that Bill O'Reilly's position and influence amongst conservatives is an "important aspect" of his significance? There are many people who absolutely consider it the most defining characteristic of O'Reilly. I don't see how anyone could argue against any of that, honestly... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Though you make some good points, with all due respect, I disagree that one of O'Reilly's defining qualities is that he is a leader in the conservative movement. As far as I know, he has not undertaken any projects or anything of the like to further conservative causes and ideals, in the way that William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan did. Please check out the changes I've just made to the article. First, I added that some view him as a conservative in the public perception section, then presented poll numbers of viewership. I then changed the lead slightly to take on a "just the facts, ma'am" approach, which is fair to both sides and neutral. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make strawman arguments -- I never said anything about him being a "leader in the conservative movement". What I said was he is widely regarded as an influential conservative voice, and omitting mention of such in the introduction would be ignoring what many consider to be his most defining quality. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

POV versus NPOV

I think it is absolutely obvious that the fact that O'Reilly is widely considered as conservative has much more weight than the fact that he invents a new word "traditionalist" for his own self-description. I cannot understand how someone seriously can see it vice versa around, this just makes no sense. I get more and more the impression that this article is in strong hands of editors who think O'Reilly's own view is more important than a NPOV. I only added "traditionalist" to my proposal to make O'Reilly fans happy (at the cost of NPOV), and even then the editors are not satisfied - that is crazy! "Giving his view deference" is one of the most obvious ways of prefering POV to NPOV. If WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT really is a concern and not just a cheap excuse, then obviously "traditionalist" should be removed. Which would be more NPOV anyway. What is going on here? My new proposal:

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. He is the host of the cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel. O'Reilly is a registered independent, but widely considered as conservative[6][7], and his show is the most-watched program on cable television.[8] Prior to hosting The O'Reilly Factor, he served as anchor of the entertainment program, Inside Edition. O'Reilly is the author of eight books, and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program syndicated by Westwood One, until early 2009.[9] (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please close this thread? The lead seems to have been stable after much consesus building and back forth. An ip with 4 or 5 edits wants to dramtically change to the lead(no less) of a highly contentious bio like this and state how obvious it is and talk about the "strong hands" at work here? How much criticism is included? How about the "spin off" article? Hopefully even BillOs biggest fan in here, Blaxthos, :) will shut this down now rather than indulging this. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism has nothing to do with this thread or discussion. The anonymous editor raises some valid points, as do I. Neglecting to mention O'Reilly's association with conservatism in the lead would be a glaring omission of a critically significant detail. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I was responding to the "strong hands" comment from the SPA ip. Now can we close this thread? Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Negative, let's allow discussion to run its course. You conveniently sidestepped answering the points made. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What, that he is widely considered a conservative? And that point should be included in the lead? Didn't I address that above or is there something else? Anyways, Tom (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there some sort of deadline that is driving you to want to "close threads" so quickly? Regarding the rest... I must have missed your explanation as to why the lead should omit such a significant detail. Could you please re-iterate it for me? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to have lunch later, so I wanted this closed :) j/k. It was more of a "are we done here?" type request/question/comment. I don't care if this stays "open" forever. I don't think I have ever "closed" a thread myself. As far as the lead, my point was it seems like it has been stable for quite awhile, no reason in itself not to change, but there should be strong consensus to do so, and I just don't see that. Anyways, I really don't care what happens here at this point. Good editing. --Tom (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
How about this lead?

William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr. (born September 10, 1949) is an American television host, author, syndicated columnist and political commentator. He hosts the cable news program The O'Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, the most-watched program on cable television.[10] He is a self-described "traditionalist"[11] and a registered independent,[citation needed] who is widely seen as a "conservative",[citation needed] a label he rejects.[citation needed] He previously anchored the entertainment program, Inside Edition and hosted The Radio Factor, a talk radio program.[12]. He has written eight books.

Fences and windows (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cite & insert. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, done and sourced. Fences and windows (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support Happyme22's formulation. I don't find any of Blaxthos's points especially compelling. Collectively, they remind me of what Robert Bork once said about Laurence Tribe's constitutional theory: that it was protean in that it took whatever form was needed to reach the desired political result. I would also suggest that Blaxthos and I have had more than our say in this teapot tempest and should give way to fresh voices which is part of the purpose of an RFC. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's funny that somebody thinks "traditionalist" is a new word O'Reilly invented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talkcontribs) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)