Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 2

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

Contents

2 Disclaimers Now

In addition to the NPOV warning at the top of this article, I've tagged it for clean-up. I think both are warrented, though if we only wanted to have one, I'd stick with the clean-up. It's a sprawling mess even more than it is a biased one. --Plastic Editor

Concur. This article exhibits neither NPOV nor good formatting. (The formatting may actually be a more significant issue than the vandalism/POV at this point.) To be honest, it would be really great if we could just blast it and start anew. --DolphinCompSci

anti-semitism?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412100002

'War on Christmas' picture

Somebody from Dailykos added a picture of a screenshot showing O'Reilly online store using the word 'holiday' rather than Christmas - something O'Reilly has criticized other businesses for. I removed the picture from the article, but not because I felt it was dishonest - just redundant. The person explains the situation in the 'War on Christmas' section and links to the Dailykos article that displays this screenshot. If somebody is genuinely curious about this, they can see it all by clicking the link. Repeating the picture in the actual article is a bit much, and gives this little squable too great an emphasis. -- Plastic Editor Dec. 6 2005

Cleanup tag

Why exactly is there a cleanup tag here? If it is just POV issues that are the problem, then it goes without saying that we don't need the cleanup tag...also, moving the page is a super idea. Paul 14:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost as big a problem as the tone of the article is the size and structure - it's not encyclopedic. Visitors come from Media Matters for America or Dailykos, which monitor O'Reilly for bonehead statements, and add them to the Wikipedia article. As a result, the article is too long and filled with silly squabbles - O'Reilly's public persona is all about creating controversy, so this article is likely screwed until he retires in 2007. Still, I would recommend that the cleanup tag remains, to encourage people to purge the unnecessary as well as the biased. Plastic Editor 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommend removing entire sections

This article is full of many items that really don't belong. I recommend removing the following sections entirely:

- Campaigns and recurring themes
- Highly publicized disputes
- Public controversies

The fact of the matter is that almost all of these things either haven't fully developed, are taken out of context, or simply don't belong in an encyclopedia. Many of these items are introduced by people who frequent websites that are either biased in favor or against Bill O'Reilly, and are more or less spurr of the moment that somebody just thought they would "add" because it furthers their oppinion of the guy. IMO these sections should be removed and not even be considered to be re-added until at least a year after Bill retires, at about which time these stories will have fully matured. -- 24.251.111.200

Removing these sections completely would be a bit harsh - I would say reducing each section to a small paragraph is more like it. For instance, 'Highly Publicized Disputes' could be boiled down to a paragraph regarding his contentious nature. There should at the very least be mention of his longstanding rivalry with Al Franken and his interview with Jeremy Glick, as he's never been able to escape those issues. But the Al Franken thing could be a sentence or two, maybe more for Glick. His trash-talking of John Kerry, Jack Murtha and Cindy Sheehan is pretty irrelevent to an encyclopedia article though, and wouldn't be missed.

I am against deleting Campaigns and Recurring themes - again, it could all be boiled down to far fewer senteces, but the section should remain to summarize these things he spends most of his time criticising.

Public Controversies, though - thats mostly ridiculous. I'd just retain mention of his public apology on Good Morning America, brush on the sex scandal, and purge everything else.

(oh, and a reminder ... sign your messages.) -- Plastic Editor December 8 2005 14:58 ET

Picture caption

Can someone explain why they are putting the "posed publicity photo" caption next to O'Reilly? Does it even matter that the picture is posed? Do we put that caption on anyone else's picture, like George Bush? No. Calwatch 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between a news photo or "actuality" photo taken of someone working and a posed portrait or publicity photograph. If a shot is clearly a publicity photo or an official portrait (as exists of G. W. Bush from his days as Governor of Texas on his page) then it is not inappropriate to label the shot as such. There is no negative or pejorative associated with it. It simply makes underscores the origin of the photo. One could remove the word "posed" if it truly troubles someone (though it really shouldn't) but identifying it as a "publicity photograph" is factual Davidpatrick 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is. First off, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to strive for conciseness. Secondly, placing this treatment on O'Reilly doesn't conform to standard wikipedia practice. Finally, those that want to find the status of the photo can click through and the source of the photo should be in the notes attached to the picture page. Putting that just lends to the tone that the article is anti-O'Reilly, when it should be NPOV. Calwatch 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Affirmed. Almost every photo of an individual seen on wikipedia is posed and intended for publicity. You'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't, especially when it comes to paintings of people who lived before any kind of photograph technology even existed. Furthermore, it does not help anybody to know whether or not a photo was for publicity. The purpose of the photo is so that somebody who doesn't know anything about the guy can see his face along with his biography. Pointing out that the photo is for publicity can only serve the purpose of bias in that you leave the reader with an impression that this pleasant side of Bill can only be seen in a staged setting, which is simply not true of any person. The name, and the name only, will work just fine.

Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly

It seems that a little bit of a fued is developing between these two. Stewart just tore O'Reilly a new asshole on his show tonight, specifically over the fact that O'Reilly pulled out a clip of Stewart mocking Christmas a federal holiday, from a full YEAR AGO and attempting to make it look like he said it recently. Stewart was visibly agitated, he said something along the lines of "Apparently we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central hate Christmas".

It wasn't even Jon Stewart...it was Samantha Bee who said "December 25th is the only Federal holiday that coincides with a religious holiday. That way, Christians can attend religious services and everyone else can stay at home pondering the true meaning of the separation of church and state." (Or something to that affect.) I just re-watched that segment of the Daily Show this morning, and I would say that Stewart was probably *acting* when he was visibly agitated. *shrug* DolphinCompSci 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(Amended the War on Christmas section to point out Bee's old joke.) DolphinCompSci 07:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Move request removed

Going by the number of people opposing moving the article, I am removing the move request.


Next up on the chopping block...

Anybody second my motion to delete the final paragraph/subsection, "On Brown University"? This is not a very public controversy - or a very controversial controversy, as far as O'Reilly is concerned. Worse, the writing has POV issues, with the author having outlined the "subtext" of the segment. I don't know how this one managed to stay on the page for almost a month. Plastic Editor December 11 2005 03:06 ET

I second the deletion. While I'm a big O'Reilly fan, I try to listen for whatever the liberal scuttlebutt is about him and I haven't heard anything about this being controversial. Lawyer2b 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Bibliography

Sorry, but the following references were contained at the bottom of the page. I am inclined to delete them all, but if any one wants them, please move them over to the External Links. Steven McCrary 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Request move (again)

OK, I, Steven McCrary call for a vote again on the idea of moving the page to Bill O'Reilly (journalist). I make this request with a great deal of circumspection realizing this was voted on once before, but I believe the title assigned to this page is not encyclopedic. I will only add this one more thing, this page should be about Bill O'Reilly (journalist) and not just Bill O'Reilly (commentator). Most of the material here is about The O'Reilly Factor, and may need to be moved. In any case, there is a great deal more to the man than just this program. Eventually, I hope, someone is going to add material here about the rest of his life, his other accomplishments, his family life, etc.

There is additional details on this debate in the above text. Especially I note the many examples that are given of other Wikipedia-described journalists engaged in work similar to Mr. O'Reilly.

Before voting, I ask that each person attempt to remove, as much as is possible anyway, their bias regarding Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor from their minds. Given the disdain held by many, I realize this is a real challenge. Nevertheless I request that the voting be based on carefully considered views that are consistent, not biased.

Your humble servant, Steven McCrary 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) updated Steven McCrary 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support-As explained above, Mr. O'Reilly is a journalist by profession; The O'Reilly Factor is op-ed, debate, and interviews, all news for television; the name "commentator" is consistent with sports broadcasters, not news broadcasters. Steven McCrary 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think its most important to categorize O'Reilly by his best known CURRENT occupation, and for the last several years he has been a political commentator. He is famous for his political commentary and controversial opinions, not for his journalistic career years ago. I really can't understand why the word "commentator" is considered by some to be negative or biased terminology.Hal Raglan 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Hal Raglan. I do, in fact, see his show as treating the news as a sport, and his job is exactly the same when talking about those issues as when a sports commentator talks about which football players are the best. One who presents the news is a journalist. One who comments on the news is a commentator. It should be noted that I don't consider op-ed writers to be "journalists" either, regardless of their party affiliation. They, too, are commentators. And O'Reilly is one of them. --Ilyag 17:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - See what I already said the LAST time we tried to move this. DolphinCompSci 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - O'Reilly makes no bones about the fact that he now primarily provides commentary and 'no-spin' analysis. The incidents of original reporting on his program can be counted on one hand, and came from investigations into opinion pieces he had done that stirred up controversy. True, O'Reilly was once a journalist, but thats not what made him famous and has made this article so significant. It's his role as a commentator, which is not an insult at all. --relaxathon 17:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag-other concerns

Sexual harassment

resolved Steven McCrary 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC) I believe that the "sexual harassment lawsuit" section of the article is too long, but portions of it go only to further aggrevate POV. Consider, for example, the statement "One consequence of the settlement is that O'Reilly must have a 'minder', or third party, in person when he is being interviewed in person or on the telephone." Though factual (I assume) what good is it? What do we know about the details of the settlement? This statement does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia.

  • Sexual harassment. If you truly believe that one line adds POV problems, then I have no problem with it being removed. The section itself will still contain enough information regarding this issue. Hal Raglan 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Hal the sexual harassment section has a few such comments that need consideration. That section was edited twice, once by me, but was reverted to include deleted content. Steven McCrary 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It should be removed. That entire section should be made more concise, rather than detailing each and every step both parties have taken. --Ilyag 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you should really keep it. It's factual, and it's significant. I know it makes BO'R look bad, but that's not the point; it's an unusual condition that I don't believe any other journalist is subject to. You can change the word "minder" to something else if you think it sounds infantalizing. Sdedeo (tips) 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    Are you OK with the page as is now (change made by Hal)? I am not sure about the factuality of the "minder" statement. If the details of the settlement are private, how do we know about the "minder." And even if it is true, why is it relevant? Taken out of the context of the settlement, it seems inflamatory. BTW I am not worried about O'Reilly appearing badly in Wikipedia. Steven McCrary 14:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    Haven't looked at the most recent edits carefully, but if you have any doubt about the "minder" question (as I remember it was sourced? but perhaps not) then definitely try to find a source and if you can't, take it out. Sdedeo (tips) 23:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Saving Christmas

resolved Steven McCrary 20:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Has saving Christmas been a recurring theme of O'Reilly? I think not, as I recall (and I could be wrong here), he only brought it up this year. I do not think it warrants space on the page.

  • Saving Christmas. O'Reilly is one of few proponents of the alleged "War on Christmas". His relentless discussion of the subject has unfortunately made his millions of viewers aware of what was previously a non-issue. I believe this section should remain here.Hal Raglan 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It has been his most noted controversial topic of the last two months or so. It's highly notable to the article. However, I would agree to a compromise where the "Saving Christmas" topic is renamed to make reference to his coninued debates against so-called secularists instead, which the War on Christmas is a subset of. --Ilyag 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, he sparked the Christmas campaign in 2004 as well, and he's promised to do it again in 2006. The nonsense about his website store seems kind of silly, though.--72.224.182.201 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to keep it, although "Saving Christmas" should probably be titled "the War on Christmas" (BO'R doesn't claim to be "saving" it?) Anyway, the anon IP is correct. If it becomes less important in later years, people will probably take the info out again, which is fine, articles evolve with their subjects. Sdedeo (tips) 21:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Doug Forrester

resolved. Steven McCrary 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) What about this statement, what does it do for the article? "On the Thursday, November 3rd, 2005, edition of the O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly endorsed unsuccessful Republican candidate Doug Forrester for governor of New Jersey a week ahead of the 2005 New Jersey Gubernatorial Election, suggesting that Forrester had a policy of stricter penalties for sex offenders than his rival Jon Corzine."

  • Doug Forrester: Probably this statement was inserted to help add ammunition to the argument that O'Reilly is overall supportive of the Republican agenda. But there's probably enough such info in the article already.Hal Raglan 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • O'Reilly's recurring theme on his show is criticising government officials of not doing enough to punish sex offenders. You are right, that paragraph should be cleaned up to reflect this crusade of his more than just give one example. --Ilyag 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Question is, how often does BO'R endorse candidates for office? My guess is rarely, I don't believe he endorsed anybody for the presidency? So I would say we need more facts and someone needs to do research: how often does BO'R endorse candidates, and is this the only time? Sdedeo (tips) 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    I notice that User:Plastic editor reverted some previous deletion, on this topic, without discussion. Why was this deleletion reverted? Steven McCrary 23:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The O'Reilly Factor.

This page is becoming increasingly about the show and not the man. It is difficult to separate the two, but shouldn't some of these issues be on The O'Reilly Factor page? Regards, Steven McCrary 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC) updated Steven McCrary 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The O'Reilly Factor. I agree with you on this. Most of the details regarding the show itself should be shifted to The O'Reilly Factor page. Hal Raglan 17:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You are very correct. I believe only personal information on O'Reilly, and his own personal opinions (and perhaps things like the sexual harassment lawsuit, which happen outside of the show) belong in this article. Things relating to his show's controversies, recurring themes, and other events on his show that have become newsworthy, belong on The O'Reilly Factor. They should be moved there as soon as possible, with perhaps just leaving a brief run-down of his more well-known controversies with a prominent link to the show's article. --Ilyag 17:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: I should correct my previous opinion. Many of these same recurring themes have appeared in both his op-ed columns and on his radio show. One must be careful to only remove the topics from this article which ONLY take places on his show (for example, specific debates that go on, or specific guests, etc). --Ilyag 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to oppose moving the recurring campaigns over to the O'Reilly Factor article because they aren't exclusive to the Factor - they carry over to his books, his radio show and his newspaper column. Disputes too; after all, the one with San Fransciso began on the radio. --72.224.182.201 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that stuff will be repeated between pages, and you'll have to do some coordination. It's fine to duplicate info. The Factor page can contain more of the Factor "scandals" and "high points", while the BO'R page can contain more general material on BO'R's personal views and their development over time.Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality and Clean-Up

I have to say, I'm quite surprised to see the two disclaimer tags on this article. Although it has a number of grammatical errors and some poorly constructed sentences, these are no more prevalent than on many other pages. I certainly think that it seems to give a reasonably balanced point of view (again, especially compared to some other pages), although I'm not an American and have only a dim awareness of this gentleman. In fact, it seems to me to a bit of a triumph- an example of a collaborative wikipedia article regarding an obviously controversial figure that gives (at least to my (uninformed) reading) a fair go to both sides of the coin. He certainly seems to be an interesting character anyway. Just a comment.

San Fransisco

I don't understand why this section was removed, as it was highly relevant, as calling for a terrorist attack on a city simply because they disagree with your opinion is not exactly regular political rhetoric. No leftists ever call for the bombing and destruction of Houston because of Souther conservative fanaticism. What O'Reilly said is a major issue. It was poisonous and has to be mentioned. In John Kerry's article there's a mention of the fact that he joked that the secret service had orders to shoot Dan Quail if Bush Senior died while in office, yet this is removed? Give me a break. This warrants definite inclusion. If you're going to remove it again, give a reason.

--- Reason was given in the history log - a more succinct and less editorialized account of the incident is under 'Highly Publicized Disputes' in the article. You should really register with Wikipedia and log in to make changes and participate on the Talk page, so people can let you know personally why they are modifying any addition you've made. Also, then you could sign your posts. --relaxathon 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No he/she shouldn't if they don't want to. Refusing to countenance anonymity is anti-wiki. Nothing in the rules (including recent changes) bars editors from maintaining anonymity. See FAQ's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ and the discussion at [[1]] . It annoys me when registered users imply that all editors must be registered (I should say however that your comment was at least sensible and well-meaning, unlike some I have seen). (I am not the above contributor by the way).


Cutting to the Truth

O'Reilly's willingness to cut through rehearsed lines and get through to the truth has resulted in conflict with a number of public figures in the public disputes section is definitely POV. O'reilly has been known to make up facts. someone change it im too lazy. 66.41.59.162 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That line and many others are a problem standing in the way of this being a good article. A biographical article shouldn't be so hostile in tone unless they attacked Poland in 1939 or something really bad. Seems to me, those who disagree with O'Reilly have turned this into a virtual punching bag for the guy. Very ugly. Fluterst 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And it seems that you, Fluterst, have gone on an editing crusade to turn as much of this article into a pro-O'Reilly one, eliminating well-known (and therefore relevant) criticism of the show, and sanitizing it into what might as well be an officially sanctioned O'Reilly biography. For this article to be accurate, you must allow both pro- and anti-O'Reilly comments, ESPECIALLY when they are well known and researched. ALL relevant criticisms as well as supporting statements about this individual must remain in the article. --Ilyag 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it shouldn't contain Pro OR Anti- O'Reilly comments, and it doesn't need to discuss, in detail, every single stupid thing he's said. And I'm wondering if you're referring to a number of the edits I've made to the article, because I've sanded it down quite a bit. I wasn't looking to 'sanitize' or make it glowing, just read like an informative encyclopedia article and not a repetitive tract. People can very easily visit Media Matters for America if they want a closer look at how many factually innacurate things he's said recently. --relaxathon 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, sorry Ilyag, I just caught a glimpse of Fluterst's edits, and yes - they've definitely made some dubious ones. Flute, seriously, this article needs to be cut down, but you can't just cut the things that aren't particularly flattering to O'Reilly. You removed the paragraph on O'Reilly's voter registration, when it's actually one of the rare cases where we had valid sourcing for the entire thing, and the underlying issue is very important to O'Reilly's image as an "independent" commentator. I restored that, and somebody should probably comb over Fluterst's other edits to make sure they're square. --relaxathon 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
It's going to be difficult (but not impossible) to make this a factually accurate and nonbiased article. Let's face it: O'Reilly is a very, very controversial character, with very, very controversial attitudes and sentiments. I'd like to blast the whole article and start anew, to be honest, as I've said above: it's tagged both NPOV and cleanup. --DolphinCompSci
I'm with Relaxathon, no positive or negative comments are necessary, it should be an encylopedia article. It isn't. It's a leftist diatribe against a TV commentator who has offended them. This is the Wikipedia they warned us about. Fluterst 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd almost give the typical leftist response and ask "The Wikipedia that O'Reilly warned you about?" But that's not particularly nice or appropriate. On the subject, With the exception of minor edits, no editing should be performed on this article without substantial discussion and without consensus. Regardless of your political orientation, there's a process to follow here. DolphinCompSci 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is one long denunciation of Bill O'Reilly as many have acknowledged. It ought not stand. Just because 100 leftists agree doesn't change the fact that the first obligation of an encylopedia article is to the truth, verified facts and to a neutral approach to the subject matter. My edits address that, if there any specifically you have a problem with, let me know, I'll stand by each one and discuss. Fluterst 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags still necessary?

Having just read over the article I was at a loss to discover any overt bias in any passage, and what incidental bias there was tended to no political viewpoint (some was supportive, some was negative, none was significant enough to remove). Are the tags still necessary? Better to be safe than sorry, to be sure; but tagging a good article is not much better than failing to tag a bad one. Wally 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The cleanup tag should remain, but I certainly don't understand why the neutrality of the article is being questioned. Unless someone can specifically state why the article is biased, the tags should be removed. 200.122.158.40 13:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This talk page extensively documents why the neutrality of the article is in question. It has good weeks and bad, with people constantly adding a ton of useless info to reflect negatively on O'Reilly, people adding a bunch of overly positive stuff about him, people coming in and deleting anything at all unflattering, people deleting anything mildly positive...and of course, every now and then somebody comes in to try to neutralize things. But given the fact that it is a constant struggle, with biased edits not always being caught for some time, I think the NPOV tag needs to remain - nobody has the time to monitor this page enough (nor should they), so the least we can do is warn readers to take the article with a grain of salt. I would guess things will remain that way until O'Reilly's planned retirement in '07. --relaxathon 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup should stay still. The POV tag could go, since the total bias is < abs(.5). Mayhaps we need a new tag that warns "This page is extremely volatile, and may not always conform to NPOV standards for Wikipedia. See the Talk Page for discussion." DolphinCompSci 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
That would actually be an excellent solution. Do you think there'd be any chance of us getting a tag like that added to Wikipedia? --72.224.182.201 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We shall see. I'd sure be in favor of it, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly whom to talk to on that. *prods nearest experienced Wikier* DolphinCompSci 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is always going to be the victim of the left-wing majority in Wikipedia. That's a fact. I have changed what I could. Indeed the only reason I came was to look into the whole Wikipedia thing after seeing it on Fox News defaming people about the Kennedy assassination. My concerns have not been allayed from what I've seen here or on the Ward Churchill page. It's a topsy turvy world when Bill O'Reilly is condemned and Ward Churchill presented as a misunderstood freedom fighter. This is all going to end in one big lawsuit, is my belief. The idea that you can anonymously lie about people - even if public figures - is fine probably on a site no one visits but it's not going to last now that Wikipedia gets many visitors. I don't know how this will be addressed, all I know is what I see. A very active and swift left-wing majority pushing its views very hard on every conceivable area of Wikipedia. I'll stick it out over Christmas but won't bother much after that. Just one lawsuit is going to sink this whole encyclopedia. Just one. Who among you is going to be responsible for that? Fluterst 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't know whom that's aimed at and that's almost personally offensive. I think that instead of throwing up our hands and saying "Well, gosh, this is the end!" we should instead do the wiki-thing and innovate a solution for it. While a volatile page flag would not fully shake off the responsibility of this community to present an as objective-as-possible encyclopaedia, it would at the very least provide a warning that someone can't possibly be expected to babysit the O'Reilly page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Innovate, collaborate. (As an off-topic side note, it's very difficult to actually prove allegations of libel, especially for public figures. But you already knew that.) DolphinCompSci 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not aimed at anyone personally, but to those responsible for the left-wing nature of many of the articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean this disrespectfully, I think it's a widely held view. I have no idea what the solution is, I might add. There are more leftists here than others, so how do you fix it? I don't know, what I do know is when an article claims someone falsified their hometown, infers they are sexual perverts, liars, intolerant of the views of others then it is probably not as hard as you might think to file a viable libel claim, EVEN against a public figure like O'Reily. The real point is, who would pay if he did win. The Wikipedia Foundation? Jimmy Wales? The authors, whose anonymity would be removed by the legal process. Free speech belongs to everyone but what goes on here in its name would have the founding fathers spinning in their dusty graves. Don't let Wikipedia become a defamation manufacturing facility, or continue to be. I won't be around here for long as I have better things to do after my vacation but I hope someone who cares about it is reading. Fluterst 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Fluterst

Fluterst: Please post your proposals for your numerous edits in a bulleted list below. As this is a collaborative editorial process, and because this article is of a decidedly controversial nature, we should all look at your proposals individually and discuss their inclusion or exclusion in the article, as your edits are quite significant and shift the tone of the whole article. If you have questions about the purpose of this request, please see the Wikipedia guideline article on reaching a Concensus. --Ilyag 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My proposals are in the article and a merely an attempt to moderate the rather obvious bias in this article. Please post your objections to my changes in a bulleted list below. Fluterst 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Neutrality - Obviously a biased article, at least once my changes are auto-reverted. In at least one case, this has led to the restoration of spelling errors, demonstrating how little attention those doing the reverting are paying to the content.

Factual errors - Unsourced and erroneous assertions riddle this article. I invite all to read the article and see how few of its claims are sourced or verifiable.

If the article can't be improved because of the weight of left-wing opinion here, fair enough, but the tags should stay so no one is mistaken into believing the article has any foundation in fact or a neutral stance to its subject. It is an unfair and putrid hatchet job on someone - just like everyone else - deserves neutrality in an encyclopedia article. Compare the left-wing editors' preferred version with Britannica as one example and you'll see what I mean. It reads like an undergraduate student newspaper rant against O'Reilly, which is probably where it has come from. Fluterst 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst, you have already been asked very nicely to list your proposed changes in a bulleted list. Please do so before making any additional "improvements." If you have any problems with what you consider to be a "left-wing" bias in the article , please detail them here so others can consider whether they are legitimate concerns. So far, all you've done is make vague comments about "erroneous assertions" and "putrid hatchet jobs." Thanks. Hal Raglan 16:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Great Hal, why don't you try comparing the two different versions of the article. That will certainly reveal the problem areas, erroneous assertions, putrid hatchet jobs, innuendo, libel, smear and sneer that I think should be corrected. If you like you can list them here in bullet points, or not. It's up to you. But meanwhile please do not remove the marker until the matters are resolved. No wonder Wikipedia is getting such a bad name, with articles of this quality. Fluterst 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
vdiffing the articles does show some (large) changes in verbage. Changes should STILL nonetheless be discussed on this page in bullet-point form before they are committed. I do agree there's a POV/Neutrality/... problem with this article, but that doesn't mean that one person in himself should go off making edits to the page that significantly change the page. We 'putrid left-wing angry undergraduate hacks' are very interested in making Wikipedia a credible source, so if you have suggestions, make them in accordance with our collaborative attitudes. This is one 'hack' who's willing to listen. DolphinCompSci 06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Dolphin, I won't be cataloging the changes needed because of the sheer volume although I stand by all the changes I've made and am happy to discuss any one or all of them. Consider the reluctance to call this journalist a journalist as a start. And also the restoration of spelling errors by this who don't even bother reading the article. I am free to edit this article, as I understand Wikipedia's ostensible doctrine, in any way I see fit and have done so. I don't doubt that any attempts to delouse this vile and obnoxious diatribe will be savagely resisted by those pushing a left-wing character assassination agenda. They can do their worst and I'll do my best to remedy it. The real scandal is that this is just one of thousands of articles with similar levels of salaciousness. Unless the subject matter is about physics or Esperanto, it seems Wikipedia's content has largely become corrupt, partisan, vindictive and erroneous. I'm glad someone is listening but the best way forward is to take action to remedy it. I would certainly support any such initiative. Fluterst 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's editorial process works by Concensus. Many of your edits don't have it. This is the reason they're not being permitted and are repeatedly reverted, and will continue to be reverted until a concensus is reached. THIS is the place to get concensus from your fellow Wikipedia editors and contributors, so I suggest you use this discussion accordingly, and not to lash out at Wikipedia's editing guidelines (which you aren't following to begin with by refusing to reach a concensus, so your moral authority on the topic ends before it has begun)
I say Wikipedia's editorial process is not working at all whether by consensus or otherwise. I have no doubt my changes to minimize bias will be reverted by those pushing their agenda of character assassination. I don't claim moral authority, I just want the facts to be included in the article without left-wing opinion. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You did cite one example, however: "Consider the reluctance to call this journalist a journalist as a start." One who practices journalism is a person who presents news. Bill O'Reilly's television and radio shows are ENTIRELY centered on presenting DISCUSSION of the news, not the news itself.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I watch it regularly and disagree. I think it's very clearly a news program. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, in the middle of his television show, the Fox News Channel frequently runs news alerts where an actual journalist does present the latest news.

An 'actual journalist' in contrast to a 'former news journalist.' He's still a journalist. Trust me. I know. I asked him. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is a former news journalist. He is currently a host of a debate show. There is, in fact, a difference.

Your opinion. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is currently no more a journalist than is Al Franken. Do you consider HIM a journalist?

No I consider Franken a political candidate. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I certainly don't, despite him hosting an almost identical show on the Air America radio station. --Ilyag 07:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have requested for informal arbitration from the Mediation Cabal. Please do not edit the article for now. --Ilyag 08:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ilyag has been asked to substantiate his authority for imposing a stop to editing. Until he does so, I think all should feel free to edit away. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works if this is your problem here. It seems to me like you're doing nothing but lashing out against Wikipedia as a concept. According to your edit history, you've vandilized other pages as well, with similar results (and have gotten stricter warnings in those cases). You can't be allowed to use this, or any other article, as a soap box to air your grievances which aren't so much about the article itself as they are about the overall concept of Wikipedia.
Most of the things you've taken out of this specific article is noteworthy criticism of O'Reilly. Your reason for taking those things out is that they hurt his image. How can you possibly maintain that these weren't biased edit attempts on your part to do this? Likewise, most things you've put in have changed many neutral statements about O'Reilly and turned them into flowery praises. Again, how can you claim that these aren't biased edits? Even if I personally stop reverting your edits, other people have and will continue to do this themselves. That should be your clue that what you're doing isn't acceptable here. It has nothing to do with me specificailly. I'm just the one person who keeps commenting about this in this Talk page because I'm more vocal about my opposition to your edits than others. --Ilyag 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You assert rules and then decline to reference them. Then you tell me I don't know how Wikipedia works. I have not "vandilized" a single article. I have no problem with the concept of Wikipedia, just the hijacking of it of the kind demonstrated by this article.
I have removed unsourced, defamatory material certainly and considerably reduced its length as suggested by Wikipedia. I know that a non-defamatory article is not possible here. This is my experiment proving that point. I'll be passing the details of this whole incident to Bill O'Reilly's producer and the Wikipediaclassaction.org. Hopefully they can bring you all to account in a way I know I cannot. Fluterst 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I step away for sixty seconds and all of you start trying to kill the other through your keyboards...sigh...would all the involved parties please read WP:NLT, WP:NPA, and WP:DR. There are far better ways of settling things. DolphinCompSci 06:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Greetings, What is going on with the references on this page? They do not match the numbers in the article. Let's all review Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and begin cleaning this up. Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference also don't support the claims they are associated with. They are used it seems to give the article a veneer of respectability despite its obvious flaws. Fluterst 20:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted many of the references. Many more to go, I could sure use some help here. I suggest that any references be placed at the end of the document. In the text use {{ref harvard}} and in the reference section use {{note label}} . Thanks. Also, I deleted a bunch of external references that seem irrelevant to me. At best, they are bibliographic, but Wikipedia tends not to list referenced sources in a bibliography. Steven McCrary 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we use Harvard citation formats, or those of the Modern Language Association? DolphinCompSci 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the Harvard format would be better here. Users are not keeping the reference numbers (for MLA) up to date. I have been using {{ref harvard}} with {{note label}} and {{Web reference}}. With regards, Steven McCrary 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do my best, am seriouly confused by the format. Fluterst 01:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's response

Please see the [Mediator's response] for my response to the disputes on this page. Thanks, Steven McCrary 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Filed amicus curae response. DolphinCompSci 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Bill O'Reilly a journalist or an opinionist?

I think he's a journalist. Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather would probably agree, as much as they would disagree with his opinions. For they two frequently expressed their opinion on air and would probably both resist being called an opinionist or commentator or whatever terms of abuse Wikipedia has in store for O'Reilly? Fluterst 01:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinionist is such a nasty term, but commentator would fit O'Reilly perfectly. (Disclosure: In the interest of getting all the opinions I can get, I watch the Factor, simply to see what other people think.) He does very little actual jouranlism (in the sense of investigating and looking for the story) and tends to comment more on the work others have done. Commentator, yes. Jouranlist, maybe. Opinionist, quite possibly, but that term carries a more negative connotation than commentator. DolphinCompSci 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on calling him a commentator. He was a journalist in his previous job at Inside Edition and his various stints at newspapers prior to his television career, so I think it's fair to refer to him as a journalist when discussing his professional past, and refer to him as a commentator in the present. --Ilyag 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree on calling him a commentator I also agree fully with Ilyag --Kylehamilton 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I too agree that he should be called a commentator, though inclusion of reference to journalist is appropriate. He is primarily know for the Factor, which is a commentary program. Merriam Webster's suggests that a journalist is one that investigates/presents news for distribution, whereas a commentator is one that primarily comments on the news. O'Reilly does the latter. Cronkite and Rather were anchors who were reponsible for reporting the news, and they partook in investigative journalism. Srcastic 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment? where is choice three? mildly amusing rabid circus clown?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Jonathon Stuart Leibowitz perfectly represents the problem here. Dolphin, your opinion that he does little actual journalism could easily have been applied to newsreaders Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather but look at their articles. What are they called? American journalists. I find it very strange that journalists liked by liberals are called journalists but others are 'commentators' or 'opinionists.' Not even the first sentence of the article is encyclopedic without an accurate description of this 30 year journalist's career. No wonder the rest of the article is so appalling. Fluterst 06:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs - What Happened?

Okay, I agree with a lot of the edits made here recently, but what happened to the first two paragraphs? As much of a mess this article has been in the past, the opening was pretty right-on. Now it reads like an official bio from billoreilly.com, inflating achievements and deflating popular criticism.

Before, it listed his occupations, mentioned his top-rated status, his claims to the political center, and finally noted that he's quite controversial and criticised for conservatism. That was a fair overview. Now it's a little too glowing, plus the consistent charges of conservative bias have been evened out with criticism that he's too liberal - I really don't think these claims have equal footing. There are multiple websites and even widely-published books that accuse him of conservative/Republican bias; while certainly some of his centerfield opinions can irk hardcore conservatives, it's hardly as notable. His show may enjoy highlighting letters accusing him of both liberal and conservative bias, but clearly his major battles come from, as he would say, "the far-left" and progressives. Even he frequently admits to this.

I'm restoring them as they were before Christmas, and had been for quite some time. I will include some of that new award info, though. --relaxathon 05:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He is a journalist and deleting that is Orwellian spin. It ought to be a neutral exposition of his achievements and criticism of him. Even what I have edited does not really do that, it is still a very negative critique where an encyclopedia article is meant to be. Fluterst 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't say he is conservative, or make a judgement about his technique. It states that he is widely criticized for conservative bias, because he IS. It's a huge reason for the amount of publicity he recieves. He spends many, many of his 'talking points memos' and hours of his radio show defending himself from liberal criticism of his political slant.

Also, what is your justification for taking the controversy out of the San Francisco paragraph? I've had to keep restoring that too. It's fully sourced, unless you feel that the San Francisco Gate isn't worthy.

Stop being a wiki-goalie flute. You have to let articles evolve, you have to make major edits slowly and do so with input from the Talk page! --relaxathon 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what a wiki-goalie is. He is also criticized for liberal bias, almost every night on the show. The rest of your interpretation is with respect just that. You are entitled to it but your opinion isn't needed in an encyclopedia article, however well-informed and wise. I think the San Francisco yarn goes on and on, let's just have the facts and let the op-ed pages discuss the rest. I found originally a overly long, poorly structured, biased article and have greatly improved it. Those responsible for the original muck won't concede he's a journalist despite a thirty year career as one. No wonder Wikipedia is attracting class action lawsuits now, of the kind we can see at wikipediaclassaction.org. Very sad indeed. Fluterst 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The key is that the accusations of liberal bias are featured on his show, where he prides himself on being a moderate. That is content he hand-picks for his program, which is fine. The original article summary was more accurate to reflect the accusations of conservative bias as being far more widespread, because they are. Again, multiple books, websites, newspaper articles ... much more substantial than a few angry letters he reads at the end of his program. No? --relaxathon 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Voter Registration

I assume I'm addressing Flute with this one - again, some of your edits are great, but come on - the battle about his voter registration is pretty notable. It was part of an investigative report by a major newspaper, was addressed several times on television by O'Reilly himself, and his statements were contradicted by a published copy of the forms in question. Couple that with the fact that O'Reilly's 'independent' political status is a main selling point for his commentary -- how can you dispute the paragraph that existed previously?

First, you deleted mention of it entirely. Then, after it was restored, you reduced it down to the following sentence:

Now a registered Independent (after being a ticket-splitting registered Republican for six years), he is independent of both major political parties and engages in criticism of both from time to time.

Sorry, but this is spin. Nobody knows how O'Reilly split his ticket, but we do know that he quickly changed his affiation as it was about to be revealed in print. We do know he denied that there was any option for registering independent of a political party, but that the since-unearthed form says that indeed there was. I don't care how you feel about O'Reilly, these are just facts, and it's the kind of sourcable, highly-publicized story that people come to Wikipedia to read about.

Anyone who feels as strongly about Bill O'Reilly as you do needs to take a break from this article. --relaxathon 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel no more strong about Bill O'Reilly than I do George Soros, two articles I've edited quite sensibly. He says he is a ticket-splitter, I am comfortable with that as a source. Do you propose another? I deleted it initially because it was unsourced, the references meant to prove it did not. I am no expert but the warning just below where I'm typing says content must not violate copyright and must be verifiable. Sources are needed and they need to be checked, if Wikipedia's rules are applied here there will be a much improved article. If not then the article will continue to smear O'Reilly in a manner outside that of any encyclopedia published outside of Nazi Germany. Fluterst 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Arbitration

I do not believe that discussions with Fluterst resulted in any fruitful resolutions to any of the issues that this user has been involved with relating to the article. I have already tried for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal. I believe the Fluterst issue requires formal Arbitration, as not only has this user not complied with NPOV policy (among other things, which I now consider to be pure vandalism despite my initial reaction that the user may have had valid complaints), she has also engaged in prohibited activities, not the least of which is threatening legal action, a definite no-no on Wikipedia. I have not made the request for Arbitration yet, however. I would like this to function as a survey over whether or not you believe arbitration is necessary in this case (see the article's edit history and some of the above discussion for a detailed account of reasons for this request). If the majority agrees, this will also serve as notification for Fluterst that this issue will be submitted for arbitration, as is Wikipedia's policy. If not, I will not attempt to submit this anywhere, even though I believe this user will continue to twist and spin factual information, unilaterally white-wash the article with biased statements, and remove as many items critical of O'Reilly as she can get away with (whether those items are themselves biased against O'Reilly, or are merely factual statements that just happen to say negative things about him), all the while ignoring all the lengthy attempts to get a compromise and build concensus. --Ilyag 08:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the vote you support, possibly adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

  • Submit request for arbitration
    • Ilyag
    • Fluterst 08:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Good idea, this article is a disgrace and requires a formal review by people in charge of Wikipedia so someone can stand by the article in public view. wikipediaclassaction.org shows what's coming as a response to articles of this kind, as is much more public attention to these issues.
    • relaxathon
    • Horace Walpole 13:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Good idea, I'm new to Wikipedia but this is the first article I've seen that can be considered a disgrace, purely due to the unrelenting vandalism by user Fluterst. Looking back in the history for the article, it definitely used to conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, all of this user's edits/changes have been attempts to insert a right-wing extremist bias into the article. His/her repeated threats of legal action against other users, as well as against Wikipedia in general, clearly show extreme bad faith.
    • DolphinCompSci 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) See also WP:NLT
  • Do not submit request for arbitration

Discussion

Comment I support this request since Fluterst has violated WP:NLT and Assume Good Faith on this Talk page. His edits are attempts to induce a right-wing bias and are made unilaterally. I would like to be able to assume good faith, but I can't with someone threatening a class-action suit. I support this request. DolphinCompSci 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not threatened any lawsuit, I hope pointed out that a class action lawsuit is in train at wikipediaclassaction.org. I am not involved in it, although like many I am interested to see whether it can diminish the publication of libel on Wikipedia. Fluterst 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that the vote has passed (including a 'yes' vote from Fluterst herself), and I have therefore submitted this issue for arbitration[2]. It would be helpful if other users contribute to the submission by including their opinions (in 500 words or less) and submitting their names. Please follow the template on that page to do this. Fluterst, please submit your own opinion on the matter on that page as well (I left a space for you to do this). --Ilyag 18:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

Fluterst has been banned. Perhaps this is a warning for those who disagree with a concensus: Don't try to make references to legal retribution just because you've been outvoted, and instead try your best to work with other contributors to reach middle ground.

Article title change

As O'Reilly is more accurately described as a journalist, I propose changing the title's name to Bill O'Reilly (journalist), I think this will be clearer, the current title makes him sound like a sports broadcaster. Fluterst 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Add his name to the list then? Mithridates 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure this change came to a consensus before it was made. I'm not going to revert quite yet, but who all was involved in the decision making process to make this change? Thanks. -Scm83x 10:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
For reference, these are the wiki definitions of each of the two terms:
  • A commentator is an individual who discusses social, political or cultural issues or events, typically in a public context; synonyms include pundit.
  • A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people
I would like to see a public open debate about which category O'Reilly fits into before this page move becomes final. -Scm83x 10:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, though we should all bear in mind O'Reilly calls himself a journalist (after 30 years of being one) and Wikipedia calls news anchors like Cronkite and Rather journalists. Clearly all are/were involved in disseminating the news. Fluterst 11:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Rather and Cronkite are journalists (that is an issue for their articles), journalism is defined by the gathering AND dissemination of news. O'Reilly cites FOXnews reporters or other sources or in his commentary. He does not gather the news; he simply disseminates and comments on it. -Scm83x 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that the issue is to be considered in a vacuum. There needs to be consistency across Wikipedia on this subject. News anchors are basically all journalists and I think to with-hold the category from journalists one disagrees with is probably not encyclopedic. There are many journalists not involved directly in news gathering, but in its dissemination. They are all journalists by any objective measure. Fluterst 11:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
So, as a hypothetical, can I be called a journalist if i read Reuters news feeds for a podcast everyweek? I think that role is more of a conduit role. Every network has them; Bill O'Reilly is one of the commentators for FOX. He reviews news that has already been reported, and then comments on it. -Scm83x 11:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Some might say if you were paid to do so, others might think you'd qualify with or without payment. It's journalism, reporting the news, there are many different roles within journalism, especially as people get more senior within it. My issue and I think the very serious issue for the integrity of Wikipedia is that Walter Cronkite can go unmolested as a described journalist but Bill O'Reilly cannot. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, otherwise the cynical might assume that there is some unfair treatment going on. Fluterst 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The basic point I am making though, regardless of all these arguments, is that this decision was not a consensus. It is getting very late for me. Perhaps, as a gentleman's agreement, you should wait until morning (in America) to continue making changes, when other have had time to weigh in on the move. Would you be willing to do this? -Scm83x 11:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Folks considered 'journalists' by Wikipedia:
and finally, the final proof


What I don't get is why it's a fair description for them but not for O'Reilly? Fluterst 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) What changes do you mean?
I'm referring to changes to pages that link to the O'Reilly article. I'm not really even sure if I want to participate in this debate. I am just letting you know that there was no consensus when you made this change and therefore people are going to be upset. Being bold has its limits, especially when in the context of controversial articles. Please also consider that other users are considered arbitration and RfCs against you and this will only add fuel to that fire. Thanks. -Scm83x 12:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Can you explain this. I have one editor encouraging these changes and one against. I'm confused. Fluterst 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
On the Wiki, decision are made by consensus. You should have placed a {{move}} template at the top of the article before making the change. The problem is that this is a controversial article and decisions require consensus. The template would have allowed proper debate. Please consider reverting your changes and placing the template. Just making changes without considering the views of others is never the best way to edit Wiki. Thanks. -Scm83x 12:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverting which changes? I notified the change on the Talk page and have put I think a pretty compelling argument supporting it in light of the other journalists who play a very similar role to O'Reilly. Doesn't it puzzle you that Anderson Cooper is described as a journalist but Bill O'Reilly is a commentator? It certainly concerns me and reveals a lack of consistency and common sense in this article as it has been previously constituted. Fluterst 12:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Reverting the move. I know nothing about the guy (I'm Canadian and I live in Korea) but a move tag is what is needed. People reading the article will be able to see right away that there are those that believe journalist to be a better title than a commentator (think that's what it was) and they'll keep that in mind. In the meantime people will talk here, come to a consensus, and there will be fewer problems. That is actually a more effective method to get something done here. Mithridates 12:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I also see that there was already a discussion on what to call him. See the archive and you can see why people came to use the title that they did. That's one reason why sudden moves are not a good idea because every once in a while a new user will come along and decide to change something that has already been discussed and settled upon from a few months or even years back. Mithridates 12:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I mean reverting the changes you have made (commentator -> journalist) on other pages. The problem here is that you notified on the talk page in the dead of night and then almost instantly made the change, without allowing for discussion. I do not want to debate you on the validity of your argument, as I said earlier. I am telling you that your method is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community in general. You will be able to assert your argument for the change in the page move debate in the proper venue. -Scm83x 12:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The pure weight of those doing the same kind of work on television as O'Reilly who are described as journalists persuades me that restoring a plainly wrong title would the wrong thing to do. There should be a consistent approach to these kinds of terms and I still haven't got an answer to the question why he's a commentator and others doing the same kind of work (even retired ones!) are called journalists. I think we are all grown up enough to know why this is, the article was a comprehensive attack on O'Reilly in the manner of an undergraduate political screed. I will be happy to move the title back if there's one person who can provide one legitimate reason why some journalists are called journalists and others doing exactly the same work are referred to as commentators. Fluterst 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a requirement that certain changes be only made during certain times. Can you point me to the page which details these, sorry I'm new to all this although I see while I was writing this comment the change was made without my consensus support. The inconsistency of the application of these rules is striking. Is there a place where these rules are noted down or are they just passed on by word of mouth? Fluterst 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The previous version (commentator) that you changed was the consensus version. Do not make page moves without requesting community consensus. In this case, Mithridates was reverting your change because you didn't acquire consensus before making the change. Now, we are trying to have a debate about the change. Do not move the page make to journalist again. You will have the opportunity to express your views in the page move debate Don't worry. Thanks. -Scm83x 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
He complied with your request to change the page, yes I've figured out how to watch people's comments on talk pages. No doubt the consensus will decree him to be a commentator or perhaps even some more negative term. Either way, the fact this debate happens at all shows the extent of the corrupt cancer of bias that is eating at Wikipedia. It is very sad indeed. Fluterst 13:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I thanked Mith for making the change. I didn't ask him to do it. Please heed the wordsWoohookitty (talk · contribs) left on your user talk page. Guns blazin' is always a bad idea. Thanks. -Scm83x 13:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. Fluterst 13:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a detailed debate on this on the Talk page, which sets out many examples of where people engaged in identical work to O'Reilly are described as journalists. Characterizing him as a commentator is meant as a pejorative, it seems. Fluterst 12:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support He's a journalist, under any definition. Anderson Cooper of CNN is described as a journalist so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples above of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called journalists. The fact that this even has to be debated shows a pretty serious problem on Wikipedia... I encourage those voting in opposition to address in particular the inconsistency of the application of the word 'journalist' in this article compared with those I've listed above. Fluterst 13:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose He's a commentator, not a journalist. Michael Savage is described as a commentator, so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called commentators. The fact that this has been opened to debate shows a pretty serious problem of bias on the part of one specific Wikipedian...Horace Walpole 13:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that Horace has emerged to vote on this issue but seems not to have ever edited an article before. A quick learner perhaps? Fluterst 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, is there a rule in wikipedia stating that new users cannot vote? Interesting that Fluterest would take the time away from inserting his right-wing extremist views into wikipedia articles to make such a sarcastic comment. Thanks for the welcome...Horace Walpole 14:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's cool, your vote doesn't count anyway. I'll be disregarding it. Would be interesting to see if you are linked with another user who will presumably come and vote as well. Vote early, vote often as Ted Kennedy says. Or was that Tom DeLay? Fluterst 14:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Here is another debate on the same thing and it looks like Reilly refers to himself as a journalist. I'm not a journalist, nor American, nor do I live in North America so I'm going to abstain but it looks like he is often referred to as a journalist and an anchor as well. Mithridates 13:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've decided to oppose the move after finding out about the Paris Business Review bit. If there is no accountability regarding statements like that then his job at present obviously is not as a journalist. Beforehand yes, but I used to work at Dairy Queen back in high school too. Mithridates 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
A journalist who makes a mistake is a commentator, is that the logic? Dan Rather is described as a journalist and yet he is retired and was forced to resign after broadcasting a story about President Bush based on forgeries. Fluterst 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather was forced to resign his high post for the error. Hence the high price for inaccuracies when you're an actual journalist. Anchors like Rather, Brokaw and Jennings helped to oversee their network's newsrooms, broke major news stories regularly, and frequently went out into the field. O'Reilly makes no bones about the fact that he now primarily provides commentary and 'no-spin' analysis. The incidents of original reporting on his program can be counted on one hand, and came from investigations into opinion pieces he had done that stirred up controversy. True, O'Reilly was once a journalist, but thats not what made him famous and has made this article so significant. It's his role as a commentator, which is not an insult at all.
  • Oppose - Two reasons for vote: 1) O'Reilly's current role is a host of a television debate show, in which he himself is one of the debaters. The show's entire point is that O'Reilly himself debates against his guests, rather than ask them questions and follow-ups. This separates him from the likes of Tim Russert, who conduct interviews and moderate debates, rather than participate in the debates themselves. 2) O'Reilly does not present news. His job is to mention a news story that has been covered elsewhere, and then present his personal opinion on it. This is how he differs from the likes of Dan Rather, who actually do present the news (as per the dictionary definition of the term journalist). --Ilyag 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He is a commentator, not a journalist. The requested move and rename would not be indicative of fact. DolphinCompSci 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The man is currently a commentator and thats what has made him famous. It's how even he describes his work. Let's not let one noisy user define this article. --Plastic Editor 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - O'Reilly is most famous for his editorial commentary, not his journalism. BTW, I was draw to this page to see why Fluterst had been hopping around to some pages I watch making the (commentator) -> (journalist) change in anticipation. Fluterst, please wait until you get some kind of consensus before doing that. It appears that very few (right now, none) agree with your proposal. Sdedeo (tips) 19:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per Ilyag; furthermore O'Reilly is mostly notable for his commentary; rather than his journalistic past. Mr. Rather and others brought up for comparison were notable for journalism before they took high paying TV gigs which have them still reading the news; rather than offering their unsourced opinions on the issues. If anything we should examine the list brought up, and see if indeed any of those "journalists" are better known for their commentary; and if so change the articles accordingly. - RoyBoy 800 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia This is my final post to commemorate the propaganda and shameful vote-rigging that clearly goes on here. As I contemplate a choice between lazing around and gathering more evidence to pass on to wikipediaclassaction.org, I cannot help but reflect that snoozing over my vacation may be better than losing a battle clearly fought and lost by many others. Maybe I'll return but probably not. Wikipedia is flying awfully close to the sun at the moment and a crash is imminent. Fluterst 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Looks like the vote tally may have already ended but just in case I thought I'd make my opposition known. See above reasons already listed by other users.Hal Raglan 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Though I too am likely too late, I would like to be on record as well. I'm not opposed to it mentioning in the article that he is sometimes called a journalist. Srcastic 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A new suggestion

  • Comment. Perhaps we can move this page to simply "Bill O'Reilly" and put a comment at the top that reads something similar to some other pages: Bill O'Reilly is also an Australian cricketer. I am unaware how notable the cricketer is and would appreciate comment on what everyone thinks of this (hopefully) simple solution. -Scm83x 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, this suggestion (I just noticed) was subject to a previous move request. Is there any change in opinion now? I just wanted to bring it up as a possible way to diffuse this situation. -Scm83x 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Fine by me. Fluterst 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me too. I don't even see a talk page on the other Bill O'Reilly so it's probably safe to assume that this one here is more prominent. Mithridates 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh-oh, look here...we're repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Mithridates 14:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. The more things change, the more they remain the same. DolphinCompSci 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As one of the people who suggested a move to Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer is apparently extremely notable to cricket fans. So there's no way that you're going to get that move done successfully :) Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it time for just a controversial remarks section?

I think it's time to stop with all of the "controversy" subsections and just make a controversial remarks section?


Discussion

Add any additional comments

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition of NPOV tag

I want to know why everyone keeps deleting my VAILD ARTICLE POSTING. Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed he did not have option to register as an independent, correct? The article is from a vaild source in MediaMatters.org, correct? It is not an article from a small third-party news source, correct? Bill O'Reilly was not being honest, so why can I not post this article on here? If you like Bill, then fine. If you agree with him, then fine. But not everyone views him as being completely honest with his viewers. So why can I not post a vaild article listing such a case? It is a realy article, not slander. I think others on here have nothing else better to do then sit around deleting things they do not like. If I am posting it in the wrong way, then tell me how to correct it. Or you can make the changes yourself. But I am sick of seeing the listing deleted because some people want to act like little, power hungry children. Enough already! The article is vaild, so just leave it be. _________


The source of most of the controversies surrounding O'Reilly or criticisms of him is Media Matters, a known left-wing political website. Is it unfair to call the article neutral if the source of the controversies is itself a questionable or neutral source. Other sources are needed (non left-wing).


Who says it is a known Left-Wing web site? That is your opinion, show me proof. If you do not agree that is one thing, but I posted a vaild article. Here is another article pointing this out. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml

But I don't think it will matter to those conservative people in here. They will keep looking at Bill as being 100% honest, and an independent. Show me proof that Bill did not registered as an independent. Until then, there is still articles claiming that he did.


SJ7700

I feel that the Political Beliefs and Point of View (renamed from "bias" - isn't a commentator supposed to have a point of view? O'Reilly constantly points out that he does not do "straight" news, but rather "news analysis") is somewhat fair, but the "bias" in the heading was just too much.

Also, the controversies section seems unfair. Of thousands of shows, it seems stacked in favor of O'Reilly's most negative moments.

As someone who is ambivalent about the guy, overall I think this is a negative article. He's the most-watched personality in cable news, yet the article has an unfairly negative bias.

I feel some of the article editors have allowed their obvious dislike of the guy to creep in here.

TIA, Uclajd 09:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC) UCLAJD

Addendum - Alleged liberal bias at the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, BBC, CBC? Surely you guys jest. They are all at the political left of the United States. Uclajd 09:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, but ANYTHING is to the left of Fox News. Why people insist on labeling newspapers which aren't myopically "conservative" as "liberal" is beyond me. Let's not get into this argument here, in any case. Let's deal with what's said by O'Reilly, what others say about him (relevant quotes, please), and facts. For example, can you back up "the most watched personality in cable news"? I agree that we must be very watchful of this article, but a balanced view of the man's professional career is the way this article should be. Your criticism of the article based upon a dislike of the balanced view given seems somewhat ironic. --ABQCat 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Second what ABQCat said -- except for first sentence. (While I *personally* am a centrist, AND have a similar viewpoint to ABQCat's as to Fox News' clear and demonstrated bias (and allowing for hyperbole) -- that is ALSO not the point.) I DO think a case can be made that, as a group and individually, the journalistic standards and guidelines of the {NY Times, LA Times, WashPost, BBC, CBC} regarding objectivity is EASILY defended as being far more stringent than that of Fox News, which has been quite well documented as having a conservative agenda from Murdoch & Ailes on down. This is not Red-Said-Blue-Said -- it's clearly documented and on record, beyond dispute, that Fox News instructs its reporters to express a particular (conservative) viewpoint, down to prescribing particular phrases. Former Fox News reporters, staff, producers, and more have testified to this, on camera. NO comparable allegations involving this "liberal media cabal" are documented, on record, or known. (And, the recent Jayson Blair and Judith Miller affairs show the NY Times, e.g., has NO problem airing its own dirty laundry.) --A Doon


I believe the neutrality of the article is in question because the bulk of the text is a debate of where people believe O'Reilly stands on issues; rather than sticking to factual information, the article focuses more on controversy and interpretation of O'Reilly's beliefs. It goes without saying that all journalists/commentators have opinions - but I don't see the same scrutiny given to other pundits who some argue have a liberal bias. In a sense, this wikipedia entry is doing exactly what the article/authors are accusing O'Reilly of - letting their perspective on events become the news story, rather than simply providing an account of facts. -- Jedunc 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

Hello all -- I have removed the NPOV (actually "totallydisputed") tag from the article because I have been unable to find specific discussion of the issues on the talk page.

Please, it is OK to replace the tag, but you are expected to discuss your reasons for doing so, with particular examples of facts or statements you find POV or untrue. I encourage others who find the tag replaced without discussion here on the talk page to go ahead and remove it.

Note that the possibility that the page may become NPOV later is not an acceptable use of the tag. The tag should only be on the article when the actual text of the article is POV. If you find someone has stuck in a chunk of POV, the best thing to do is go over the edits to regain NPOV.

Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll get no opposition from anybody on this, as the only person who insisted on the tag being there was Fluterst.Hal Raglan 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed tag

OK, um, again -- someone just put in the "disputed" tag, questioning factual statements in the article. Again, I've gone ahead and removed it because no discussion has occured on the talk page regarding factual inaccuracies in the article. If you find a factual problem, best thing to do is just fix it yourself -- either remove the statement, or find a source to prove it. Second best is to complain on the talk page.

Please use tags sparingly, and find ways to do things without them!

OK, Sdedeo (tips) 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly the cricketer

I reverted the removal of the disambiguation of Bill O'Reilly the cricketer may by user:Ilyag. It seems very reasonable to have it here. Steven McCrary 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it again for one reason: That comment was added as per Fluterst's attempt to rename article from Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to Bill O'Reilly. That attempt failed in a vote, and the article was returned to normal. The mere fact that the article's name says "(commentator)" means that this is NOT an ambiguous article. The article where this disambiguation statement belongs is in Bill O'Reilly, which is currently an article on the cricket player. A statement linking to THIS article is needed THERE for disambiguation purposes, not the other way around. Bill O'Reilly is ambiguous (and therefore needs disambiguation). Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is NOT ambiguous (and therefore does not need disambiguation). --Ilyag 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If no one else objects, I will persue this no further, as my objection is minor, and I tend to agree anyway. There really is no need to capitalize (it is considered shouting), bold or italics would be a better choice. Happy New Year. Steven McCrary 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was capitalizing for emphasis, not to shout. I think that capitalizing the whole sentence is considered shouting, not individual words. But, sorry again. --Ilyag 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow

I'm so glad I'm Canadian.

That's an interesting take on all this. :) DolphinCompSci 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality/Factual Error: The Ongoing Scandal of Wikipedia Libel

  • The title - he's a journalist first and foremost, most of his colleagues are called journalists including Chris Wallace (journalist) and Anderson Cooper but not Bill because we at Wikipedia don't like Bill. And anyone we don't like cannot be called a journalist but a commentator or opinionist or some other term of abuse.
I believe Mr. O'Reilly himself states on a fairly regular basis that he is not doing "hard news," but rather "news commentary". He may have done hard news reporting in the past, but The Factor is the equivalent of the op-ed page in the newspaper (again, his words, not mine). Severoon 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you've already requested a vote, and a concensus has been reached on this matter. You should drop this issue now since you have been decidedly out-voted, but you're more than welcome to bring up other points. --Ilyag 06:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
If four hundred people came along and said it should Bill O'Reilly (Fascist) then it wouldn't make the description any more valid or sensible. Not calling a journalist a journalist and the failure of Wikipedia to correct it is a disgrace and I believe goes a long way to demonstrating the complete absence of neutrality and respect for facts that goes on here. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Stop talking utter shit and get with the program. Journalism is defined as "The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.". Having an opinion about your topic is all well and good, its NOT JOURNALISM.--Dem 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


First paragraph

  • The O'Reilly Factor is not among the most popular news programs on cable news, it is number one by a long distance. To omit that fact is clear evidence of bias.
I believe that listing exact viewership numbers is sufficiently less biased than saying how awesomely popular his show is. The article currently does, in fact, list his exact viewership in the opening paragraph. As you are a fan of "encyclopedic" content, I'm surprised that you don't think that an exact number is more encyclopedic than a verbal description of those numbers. HOWEVER, I will say that I would not object to apending those numbers with the statement along the lines of "...this makes it the top rated show of all the cable news stations." --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't say it should be called awesomely popular but again I say that explaining it is top rating program on cable news is a vital fact that explains why we're all interested in him in the first place. Popular may be the wrong desciption, highest rating is probably the more neutral term. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think this issue is settled then, by appending the statement per Ilyag. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • O'Reilly is 'confrontational' but if called 'no-nonsense' that must be preceded by 'self-described.' Who says he's confrontational. No source. Just opinion from an anonymous person.
I believe 'confrontational' is a poor choice here. I agree with you in replacing it, but only if the replacing terminology refers to his particular style (whatever you choose to call it), because it is quite noteworthy and significantly important for the article. His style is what separates him from the likes of Larry King and Tim Russert, and this needs to be noted. --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen Russert, King, Anderson Cooper, all of them, slice and dice guests on occasional, interrupt and other things. A word I have used which fits is 'direct' but of course that was deleted 33 edits ago. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think "confrontational" or "provocational" is the best term here, as it accurately describes how O'Reilly deals with guests: he does his best to "push buttons". Perhaps the best NPOV to do this is to note (with sources) descriptions of O'Reilly's style. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • O'Reilly is regularly criticized for being too liberal by people writing into the show, is that mentioned? No, nor his liberal views on many subjects. Instead a very liberal Harvard publication and a generally liberal CBS News report are mentioned as sources for O'Reilly 'promoting a conservative agenda'. As it happens the sources don't even claim that but they look the part so perhaps no one will notice.
These "people" who write into Bill O'Reilly's show calling him liberal could be just as credible as the "Paris Business Gazette" that backed up his claim that his boycot of French goods was crippling the French economy despite the fact that trading between the US and France increased during that time. Stats shown on The O'Reilly Factor are just as debateable as the opinions shown on it. The majority of people who watch the O'Reilly Factor are not liberals,just because his viewers have a more far right wing view then Bill O'Reilly does not make him liberal by any stretch.
So you're saying the multiple books, websites, documentaries, and newspaper articles that have dogged the man about a conservative bias are just as noteworthy as a few angry letters he gets alleging he's too liberal? The wikipedia article header doesn't even grant these claims any creedence, it just mentions their existence, as does O'Reilly on many broadcasts. --72.224.182.201 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with 72.224.182.201. Widespread commentary on O'Reilly's alleged conservative bias is noteworthy, but nearly non-existant commentary on his alleged liberal bias is not (unless you have citations to prove that it exists). --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
He gets letters on the show very regularly accusing him of being a liberal. A CBS interview[3] of him expressed surprise at his liberal views on the death penalty and other issues. His views are not easily categorized and I think attempts to characterize him by liberals (or conservatives) are merely an attempt to attack him for whatever reason. None of it is encyclopedic. None of it is interesting. Elsewhere the issue of his political beliefs is examined (albeit in a hamfisted way) and even that analysis makes more sense the above. I have no doubt he is to the left on many issues than Joe Lieberman and to the right of Pat Buchanan on others. The bottom line is that you're on very dangerous territory accusing someone of being a conservative or a leftist when they deny it and when the truth is a complex mix of views. He is a populist by his own description and I think the desire to paint him as something else using unambiguously left-wing sources proves my case that this article is not fact-based and not neutral. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the best way to go from here is for Fluterst to provide some sources; the CBS interview would be a good one, as it will almost certaintly describe what Ilyag is talking about, i.e., that O'Reilly is uncontroversially regarded by most as holding mostly conservative views. We should be aware of NPOV issues here because O'Reilly definitely wishes to avoid being called conservative. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks for providing the CBS interview. Go ahead and integrate the info there into the article. Sdedeo (tips) 13:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ...or I'll just do it myself. Sdedeo (tips) 13:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Fluterst article, The major 'controversy' between Bill O'Reilly and the majority of people is that neither Bill O'Reilly or Fox News will ever claim to be biased. No matter how many stats, opinions or anything get thrown in their faces they will deny any bias no matter what. An analogy to this would be trying to argue with somebody who never thinks they're wrong. You could have the entire world agreeing with you but if that other party you are arguing with does not believe it what can you do? It doesn't matter if the entire world sees the faults, the only perspective that you are concerned with wont ever change. If Bill O'Reilly and the people at Fox News really believe that they are unbiased and concerned with letting the viewer decide there is pretty much nothing anybody can do about it except complain about the biases as they see them.

Second paragraph

  • The fact that 420 stations carry O'Reilly's radio show might be significant but we can't leave it in lest we undermine our attempt to besmirch and disparage this non-journalist. I think this has been deleted nearly ten times.
If you want "420 stations" to be included instead of a general statement like "his radio show is syndicated nationwide", then please accept a similar position relating to his television ratings, as per your first complaint. --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it is important to explain why he's in Wikipedia in the first place. A neutral fact-based article will record the fact that he's a journalist, hosting the most watched program on cable news with a radio program syndicated across the country on 420 stations (a lot I think although that might need further examination). The guy is (for now) a success as a journalist and refusing to acknowledge it makes this article more than a little stupid. It's why we're here is it not? Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
420 stations (with sourcing) is fine, not worth arguing about. More facts are better. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall I continue on to third paragraph? Perhaps later but meanwhile do not delete the TotallyDisputed marker, it stands as does my valid criticism. I won't be editing the article as that is clearly a waste of time but I will be pointing out its smear and lack of sourcing and verifiability. Right here. Fluterst 03:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please continue with your other grievances. Debating them here is far more constructive than debating them through edit wars on the article itself. Don't you agree? --

Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The assumption that the muck that's up there is valid and that any change needs to be agreed by a group of anonymous leftists is a deeply flawed process in my view. I am quite a reasonable person most of the time. I compromise in my job every single day, every hour. I negotiate for a living. But this is not a negotiation, look at the 'commentator' issue. A no-brainer issue really, he is a journalist, calls himself one, is called one even by foes, his colleagues doing the same work are journalists and yet he will not be called on Wikipedia because it's a hoot to stick it to the man. I just wonder how long all of this can last. A day of reckoning must surely approach, as it does all of us. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst, please try to stick to the particular issues in the article. In particular, please let Ilyag and others know if his suggestions are acceptable, and if not, why; further, please continue either to edit the article directly to achieve NPOV, or discuss your problems here on the talk page.

The "commentator" issue is considered generally settled by the other editors, but if you wish to dispute it further there is nothing to stop you. However, you should be aware that name-calling is unlikely to get people to come around to your side. You will find most people here are open to compromise when confronted with someone polite and reasonable. The best way to get people to agree on that particular issue is to cite major media organizations (New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, National Review) using the term "journalist" to describe O'Reilly.

Please also remember to assume good faith in your dealings with others here, even if you think you shouldn't have to. If you believe that wikipedia is solely and forever, as you put it "a smear machine where anonymous people could besmirch and defame public figures they didn't like", it may be best if you leave the project. However, if you feel that you can change that, and you put in a constructive, good faith effort to deal with people, you may be surprised.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 11:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

intro

The first two paragraphs (now) do not improve the quality of the content of the introduction. As it was, the introduction was succinct and fair. The introduction does not need the long discourse about the CBS News piece. Take it out! Steven McCrary 13:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you think is unfair about the new introduction? I note someone else has reverted my changes without discussion, which I find somewhat rude. I don't mind moving that stuff somewhere else in the article, but please note that it is in my opinion the only substantial discussion of O'Reilly's broad political positions as viewed by a reasonably "mainstream" source (not that other sources cited in the article are bad, only that CBS is a big deal.)

I explained what I thought (and I did not say that it was unfair): the discourse about CBS News is too long for an introduction.Steven McCrary 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure -- push it somewhere else as you see fit. It's not necessary (IMO) to discuss good-faith edits like that on the talk page first. Sdedeo (tips) 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank-you. I will consider it. Steven McCrary 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please people, do not just revert changes. Work with what others bring to the article. I don't claim, and don't want, the final word on an article, but it's not OK to simply delete good faith contributions, let alone contributions that add and expand on information in the article. Sdedeo (tips) 14:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree it was rude of me to simply revert the changes and I apologize. I am a bit touchy about any large editing done to the article after all the nonsense we were recently subjected to. Please go ahead and make the new contributions and we can discuss here to see if we all agree they are suitable or not. Thanks, and sorry again for my rudeness.Hal Raglan 14:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that any new references follow the reference format of the page. I am working on trying to simplify it. Thanks, Steven McCrary 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hal, please don't worry about it. I actually am going to force myself to step back and not get too involved, because I have a lot of non-wikipedia work I need to be doing. I'm a bit of an addict, so I'm sure I'll keep an eye on what's going on. Steve, you are much better about reference format than I -- I just use those inline ones, and hope someone else can sort it out. Good luck to all; my feeling is that if we all stick with it and do our best to be civil we will end up with an even better article. Sdedeo (tips) 14:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've re-read the new additions, I should say I think all of the latest changes to the 1st paragraph should be moved to the Political Beliefs section. The introduction is too long now; it was nice and concise before. None of the new changes are bad, I just think they are in the wrong place.Hal Raglan 14:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Removing the Cleanup Tag

Oddly enough, one result of the increased chaos around here has been a much improved article. Flute's questionable deletions resulted in other users coming in and re-writing, re-sourcing and re-organizing the article to great effect. Obviously, Flute is vocally objecting to the results but what do other editors think? I personally feel that the cleanup tag can come down. The article is more balanced and succinct right now than it's ever been. Sign on...

Vote to Support or Oppose removal of the cleanup tag:

  • Support --relaxathon 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Ilyag - The article is well-organized, gramatically correct, and has good citations. Nothing to "clean up" here.
  • Support --ThreeAnswers - Though I don't believe the article gives nearly the full picture of how controversial he is.
Perhaps not, but the opening paragraph gives a pretty good idea. Also, the 'Political Opinion' section is fairly representative.
  • Support Hal Raglan 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC) The article is pretty good as is, much more concise and readable than before. The cleanup tag should be removed.

POV tag-The commentator

Greetings all,

  • I have considered this long and hard, and I know that I am going to have to spend hours defending it, but I must voice my objection to the title of the page. I am replacing the POV tag because I believe that the bias against O'Reilly is slanting the POV of the page.
  • O'Reilly is a journalist regardless of his current job.
    • The O'Reilly Factor is FOX News version of the newspaper "op ed"; and we certainly consider "op ed" to a part of the news. Yes, it is commentary as well, but that is the nature of this type of journalism, and we do not characterize editors as commentators. In addition, the show does more than provide commentary. Even though it is a filtered look at the news, it is still news. Granted, it is not a news show like Paula Zahn or Anderson Cooper, but it is still news. Plus, the fact that this show represents a mere portion of his life should be sufficient enough.
    • The word commentator implies that he is some sort of a ring-side sports analyst. This is certainly not what the show is about. Again, the show is about analysis, but not like a sports commentator.

I strongly object to the use of this word! Sincerely, Steven McCrary 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right about problems with the "commentator" label, and I think I was wrong above to oppose a move to "journalist". At the same time, it's important to acknoledge that the "Factor", his most famous product, is purely op-ed/commentary, in the same way Paul Krugman's work is. Whether this needs an NPOV tag, or just a restart of the previous move debate, is up to you. Sdedeo (tips) 14:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sdedeo for the considered response. I agree, that the show is largely op-ed and commentary, still it is journalism. Yes different from typical new shows, but still news. Yes he is part of the debate, so what, that does not make it any less newsworthy. It is op-ed news. I guess my main concern about the title is that is disparaging to the career of an individual who has spent a lifetime in journalism. I know that the majority of previous editors were against the move, and I have read their reasons, but I believe that those views only point to a POV that needs to be fleshed out. Sincerely, Steven McCrary 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the NPOV tag should be removed. In my view, the use of the term "commentator" instead of "journalist" does not taint the entire article with bias. If you wish to put up the whole "commentator" versus "journalist" thing for vote again, thats fine. But the NPOV tag should go (in my opinion).Hal Raglan 14:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I see absolutely no bias in either the term "journalist" or in the term "commentator". Neither one is more 'favorable' to O'Reilly. I must point out that this is what seems to be debated here: Users like Fluterst and some others want a more favorable article of O'Reilly, while other users want a more negative and critical article. I honestly don't see how either of these terms accomplishes these tasks. To me, one of the terms is a blanket statement that isn't at all indicative of who O'Reilly is or why he is famous, and the other one is far more descriptive ("commentator"). This is the sole reason I oppose changing this term. Commentator is a factual description -- he COMMENTS on the news. The other term is more akin to what O'Reilly would put on a resume to advertise his supposed neutrality on the issues which, through the nature of his debate show, he doesn't have (he takes concrete positions on everything he debates). --Ilyag 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What about (news commentator)? Schizombie 00:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see here is not whether or not O'Reilly is a commentator or a journalist. It is the misapplication of the word journalist to other articles describing such people in WP. Anderson Cooper is no more or less a journalist than Bill O'Reilly. Even the dictionary (not Wiktionary) definition(s) of the word(s) leave yards and yards of wiggle room. 71.244.163.156 23:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


To resolve this issue, I visited his webpage and looked at his "bio" which lists "Blending news analysis with investigative reporting." Take from that what you will. I have never thought of Bill O'Reilly as a journalist as he tends not to report news, rather analyse it. Though there are instances where he does report on stories that are not, or hardly, covered anywhere else. I think description of "Commentator" conveys the point that he comments/analyses the news. You could solve it by making the tag more detailed, "Commentator, Editor, Publisher, Writer, Producer, Loud Mouth..." With all this said, I don't really consider other simular shows to be "journalists" either, being that the funtion they perform is analyzing the news, or having debates and interviewing people. Bill may be a journalist to some extant in what he does, but it is not his primary function. His primary function would best be described as "Commentator" in which, I see no bias about the use of that word. Would those that disagree rather have "Chief Commentator" ? Well those are my thoughts regarding the issue.

Voting &c.

Hello all -- just a brief very general thought or two. Please remember all that wikipedia is not a democracy; it's fine to take votes, but really that's not how decisions get made and votes are never binding except in rare circumstances. Really discussion is what's important. Fluterst generated a lot of ill will in the way he went about doing the (commentator) -> (journalist) stuff, so waiting a few days or a week to revisit the issue might be a good idea. Sdedeo (tips) 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Political Beliefs section ballooning up again

The 'Political Beleifs' section is again getting stretched out and worse, it's starting to organize his opinions into liberal/conservative files again. At this rate, it's not long before we're back to the old liberal/moderate/conservative/libertarian opinions scorecard again (which has spontaneously generated in this article twice before.) What was wrong with this section as it existed last night? Why has the Good Morning America/apology to the nation fiasco been squeezed into the liberal opinions column? --relaxathon 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

After reading it again, I had to revert most of it while including some of the new material. It just didn't make much sense, criss-crossing between points and incorporating a seperate matter out of nowhere. --relaxathon 01:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My revised comments are below. Steven McCrary 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC) :I am OK with these changes. Thanks, Steven McCrary 13:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My concerns here

Hello all -- I have not been active in editing the page, but I am concerned by what editors have been doing here. I looked at the diff from when I first got involved to the most recent edit [4], and I have to say the only thing that's happened here after all this work is some minor rewording of the intro and the removal of what I think is an important section (the stuff on O'Reilly's reaction to the WMD assertions.)

I'm not going to make a fuss about the fact that all the material I provided from the CBS news interview was removed. But my concern here is that editors who have been working on this article for a long time have become "attached" to a particular version and are reluctant to accept further development.

Please bear in mind that you should work with what others bring to the article. Err on the side of including information, rather than deleting it because you think it unimportant. Usually "firestorms" on the talk page are followed by an article's expansion and material improvement in particulars. This does not seem to be the case here; the only major change to the article has been the removal of information.

I think editors need to take a step back here and allow the article to develop.

Sdedeo (tips) 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down. I'm the one who deleted the WMD fiasco and it wasn't a whitewash - it's because you moved the issue to the section about his political beliefs, and I forgot to put it back under 'disputes' after I manually reverted your edits. I think it definitely belongs in the article.
However, once again I'll say that your remodeling of the 'Political Beliefs/Bias' section is ridiculous. It follows a narrative based on a 60 Minutes story, which is more like a People Magazine article than what you should find in an encyclopedia. Also, it once again tries to hash his beliefs up into liberal/conservative tally cards, and that's an invite to chaos around here. relaxathon 05:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the liberal/conservative dichotomy is a recipe for disaster, good call. I try not to use that dichotomy myself, just fell into that trap. Thanks for the edits here. Steven McCrary 05:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, hey, I don't claim a whitewash, and I totally accept that removing info was inadvertent. I have no objection to changing the structure of the article. (Actually, I'm not sure it was me who made the divisions? But whatevs.) I will say that I think the division of beliefs into lib/conserv. is actually potentially quite helpful. My feeling is that readers coming to the page will helped by this. It does, for example, answer "in actions" allegations that BO'R is liberal/is conservative without having to have a separate section discussing it (and, IMO, the article should probably handle those allegations, since they come up quite a bit.)

I'm not sure why you both consider it a recipe for disaster? What do you think will happen because of this organization? It is clear we need some principle for organization -- we want to be able to cover his positions in a full and complete manner without cascades of undifferentiated text. If you like, perhaps you can do something like make subsections for "Economics", "Civil Liberties", "Environment", "International Relations", etc. etc. -- but this will perhaps be unweidly? Another option is just to get rid of the subsections and have a long single section for "Political Beliefs" and hope that as it continues to grow someone will come up with a better idea.

Finally, I am not sure why you don't like the info from the CBS article? Right now the bulk of our references are to either FOX news pages or to liberal blogs and action groups. This article needs more "middle of the road" sources, and IMO reporting what CBS thinks about O'Reilly is perhaps more valuable to the article than what Counterpunch thinks.

Sdedeo (tips) 06:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

(Just want to reiterate that please feel free to reorganize the article; I just wanted to remind people that it's important not to get attached to one article in a particular state, and to err on the side of including and expanding upon additions, even if you think they are contaminated by POV, as opposed to maintaining a single "perfect article" state. Sdedeo (tips) 06:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

(As an example, do look at the developement of the ACLU article over the years; this is one I've put a lot of work into and is on my watchlist. In particular, we very often have people swoop in an add a sentence or two on a controversial case that bugs them. Instead of deleting the reference to the case, we've done our best to integrate and organize these cases, provide expanded information on them, and place them in context. This has resulted in I think a much better article than if we had just reverted those little contextless (and usually hyper-POV) edits. Sdedeo (tips) 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC))
Sdedeo, in my opinion, your concerns are justified. Many of the edits have been made without discussion. The text on Doug Forrester has reappeared, but I believe that it was settled above. The deletion your refer to about CBS, I believe is important and should be in the article. It may be that a couple of users should be put on notice? Steven McCrary 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to put anyone "on notice", but I would definitely encourage editors to look at the diffs from the last few days to see if information has been removed and to put it back in at their discretion, to regard edits that remove information and sources with suspicion, and to encourage others to do so as well. It is much, much better to have a longer article with problems than a shorter "perfect consensus" article. Wikipedia articles are always in a state of flux and expansion, and it is almost a rule that additions that others make should be regarded with respect; even when they are written in a POV manner, strive to include the information; if you feel "one side" has too much promenance, the better thing to do is fill in the other side of the question. Good luck Steve and others! Sdedeo (tips) 23:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(In that vein, I have gone and restored some info removed by PlasticEditor, who essentially reverted the page to a prior state. I don't claim the article as stands is in any way perfect. Also, I can't watch and participate in the editing as much as I'd like, so I won't be "policing" anything. Good luck to editors. Sdedeo (tips) 23:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

Regarding journalism

Response to Hal and Ilyag regarding why "commentator" is a negative term: Greetings gentlemen. I appreciate the POV expressed in the paragraphs immediately above, but find that I am in stark contrast to them. This is in no way meant to be a personal attack on holders of that view, but I cannot characterize professional journalistic expression of opinion as mere "comment", and believe it to be an incorrect POV of the American political system. Please do not say to me that I am defending the honor of O'Reilly, or that I am an O'Reilly supporter. Because, I often find that he is overbearing and rude, but that does not minimize the role that he plays in American politics. In my view, to say that "comment" is not news leaves a distorted impression both on the role of journalists in the American political system and on the entire political process in America. In the American system of politics, the "comments" are dominantly the news. Look at what happened to Dan Rather and CBS News for not getting the story (really the source) right this summer about President Bush. In this case, the journalist became the news. Can we really say that journalists views on abortion (for example) are unimportant? I hope not. In a society where give-and-take and opinions are both paramount to decision making, calling people mere "commentators" is an insult, because all of us are participants, especially the journalists! In a sports match, the game occurs between the participants on the field (for example) only, people on the sidelines are observers, nothing more. But in American politics, the game is not merely between the politicians, the press plays a critical role, as do all Americans (if we are interested). Yes, the politicians are where the decisions are finally made, but their decisions are not made in isolation, but rather they are part of the give-and-take that is American politics. That give-and-take includes op-ed pieces, news shows, debate, etc; and those events are news worthy. Therefore, it is paramount that we recognize the subtlety of each individual's and each organization's POV in its presentation of political events. To ignore POV in news presentation, to call it mere "comment," is a naive position that I cannot agree. And to say that O'Reilly is a "commentator" is an insult, not just to him, but to the profession of journalism, to the entire American political system, and to its participants. Well, I have gone on for too long, I am Respectfully Yours, Steven McCrary 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My comments on O'Reilly's status as a "journalist" are in no way referencing any kind of POV I may have of O'Reilly as an individual, or his politics. I believe that O'Reilly is in no way different from a typical Internet blogger. What does a typical political blogger do? They post links to various news stories, and offer up their own comments on the matter. This is essentially what O'Reilly does; I believe it is entirely the same. O'Reilly presents a brief summary (or short video clip) of a news event that has been covered elsewhere, and then proceeds to comment on it (and engage in debate with his guests). If one is to call O'Reilly a journalist for doing this, then one must also refer to all political bloggers as "journalists". I do not believe he's a journalist any more than I believe bloggers are journalists (I know many of them will disagree with me). The fact that his opinions are broadcast over a major television network is irrelevant. He himself does no journalistic work, and neither does any member of his staff (other than to put together so-called "links" to the news stories to be discussed on the show). I should also point out that my references here to "bloggers" are not meant as insults in any way. I can just as easily compare him to any highly successful political commentators on talk radio, and guess what? None of them are considered journalists either. Neither Sean Hannity (conservative) nor Alan Colmes (liberal) are referred to as journalists on Wikipedia. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh (conservative), Al Franken (liberal), Howard Stern (Libertarian), G. Gordon Liddy (conservative), Michael Savage (conservative), Neal Boortz (Libertarian), Ed Schultz (liberal), etc, etc, etc! O'Reilly can no more be compared to a "journalist" than Al Franken (whose radio show is virtually identical to O'Reilly's, but happens to have a far-left liberal slant to it). I continue with my strong objections to calling O'Reilly a journalist, if for no other reason than consistency. --Ilyag 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the argument for "journalist" is that O'Reilly built his early career on journalism, and perhaps even recently has received awards for "investigative journalism." Not arguing either way, though. Sdedeo (tips) 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sdedeo has it correct, O'Reilly is a career journalist. Those comparisons (by Ilyag) are valid, but they only add small weight, in my mind. Al Franken is a humorist and comedian, by career; Howard Stern is a disc jockey; Liddy is a lawyer; Savage is a nutritionist; only one or two even have a background in journalism, let alone making an entire career of it. To me, the POV here is best exemplified in the statement, "He himself does no journalistic work." Going all the way back to college, Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, by education, by background, by career (except for short stint in secondary education), as recognized by his peers (read: the awards). Again, to characterize an individual life by one job, seems nnPOV to me. To characterize The O'Reilly Factor as mere blogging, is nnPOV as well. SteveMc 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, seems to me the discussion on this has gone on long enough, and we should try to bring it to a close. Any suggestions on another name that might bring consensus, such as Bill O'Reilly (journalist and commentator), Bill O'Reilly (journalator), Bill O'Reilly (commentalist), Bill O'Reilly (broadcaster), Bill O'Reilly (the loud and opinionated journalist who bloviates on Fox News Channel), Bill O'Reilly (non-partisan ;-) )? SteveMc 20:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the only valid choices are Bill O'Reilly (commentator) and Bill O'Reilly (broadcaster). As far as him being a "career journalist"... this article's purpose is to describe who he is, what his personal and professional history is, and the reasons he's so well-known:

  • What he is - a political commentator on television, radio, and in print, and host of television and radio programs.
  • Personal history - growing up on Long Island, attending college, family details, etc.
  • Professional history - he started as a journalist, had a brief stint as a teacher, moved up to host Inside Edition, did award-winning investigative reports, etc, up until his current job on Fox.
  • Reasons why he is well-known - controversies derived from his highly publicized views, the response of the critics, and O'Reilly's response to these critics.

I believe that the article should be categorized in this manner, and as such believe that describing him as a "journalist" fits into only his professional history, not the section on who he currently is. This is a clear precedent established on Wikipedia. Despite of your reply to my listing of fellow radio and television personalities who do the same exact work as O'Reilly, Savage is NOT described as a "nutritionist", he is described as a commentator. If you change O'Reilly's description, change Savage's as well. Likewise, G. Gordon Liddy is not described as a "lawyer" for the same reason (regardless of what you personally may refer to him as). The precedent on Wikipedia exists, and should be followed. It exists even outside of political commentators. For example, John Edwards is a "career lawyer", but his primary description (i.e. the one in the opening paragraph and not in his professional history section) describes him as a Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate. --Ilyag 21:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite some thoughtful comments above, I haven't changed my mind on this issue. O'Reilly is a commentator. Thats his current occupation so, despite what work he may have done years ago, thats what his primary description should be.Hal Raglan 01:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

my job is done

I have removed the POV tag and the talk regarding it, since I added it in the first place. I came here as a cabal mediator to help resolve the issues raised between Fluterst and Ilyag. Ilyag's original concerns were resolved early several days ago; Fluterest's concerns have not been resolved, but Ilyag may be willing to compromise on a different name, the suggestions for that remain above. I believe that a mediator's job is to suggest solutions to both parties, but the final solutions should be implemented by the parties. I did by best to defend the position of Fluterst, since he was blocked from using Wikipedia. However, I will not make the change, that would be going beyond the duties of a mediator (as I see them). In any case, my job is done. This page is too controversial for me to keep track of, so I hope to encounter each editor on another page. Good-bye and good luck, SteveMc 06:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I have listed this page on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics to broaden the comment on the article's name change. SteveMc 15:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For those heeding the RfC, the discussion to change the article's name begins here and goes on for the rest of the talk page. It is rather lengthy, so thanks for your participation. SteveMc 16:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC response

  • I believe that Bill himself considers, er, himself to be a commentator, not a journalist. He comments on topics and issues of the day, not facts and events, as a journalist (should) do. He should be listed as a commentator.
MSTCrow 09:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would myself prefer Bill O'Reilly (broadcaster). He does not just comment on the news, but he doesn't just report it either. This title ought to be a neutral compromise and fits with his earlier career as well. David | Talk 18:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator. This title is 1) constructive and 2) neutral. (1)This represents his mature, most famous work and how he conducts it: The O'Reilly Factor, his books, his columns, and his radio show are all works of commentary. (2)This title makes no quality assessment of O'Reilly, it does not associate him with anything/anyone but himself, it does not deny him his journalistic credentials, and it does not label everything he has done as commentary. I was going to go with "Journalist", but that simply does not represent his conduct, work, or merits of fame. In short, it doesn't represent the reasons we have this article. --Vector4F 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Concur as per Vector4F DolphinCompSci 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd keep it as commentator, as he is more the broadcasting equivalent of a columnist. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator , though I think that Dbiv might have a good point with broadcaster. I think that either of these may be a more accurate description of his daily duties than "journalist". If he included on-location or journalistic reporting in his radio show or his Fox News show, I'd prefer journalist, however. At least for now, I'd leave it as-is. --ABQCat 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator. I believe "journalist" and "broadcaster" is inappropriate because he hasn't done any non-opinion reporting in at least half a decade as far as I can tell. —James S. 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator. I think Bill himself would admit he's not a journalist. NickDupree 09:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator Given the two options, this is the most accurate, however he would more accurately be described as a "Pundit." Scaife 19:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator is definitely better than journalist in my opinion. Fightindaman 21:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator I would say jackass but commentator seems more NPOV heh - Mike Beckham 22:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator Bill refers to himself as a commentator in some of the members-only videos that he posts on BillOReilly.com. 345th 05:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator; Nothing warrants the label "Journalist". Celcius (Talk) Flag of Denmark.svg Wiki be With us! 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator Journalists report the news as objectively as they can. O'Reilly is far from that standard. Copysan 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Commentator Never having seen his work as a journalist prior to his current show, I can't comment on it. In any case, he's most well-known today for his work in commentary, which is the term he (I believe accurately) uses to describe his current role. I think "pundit" is an ok term as well, though it does seem a more ambiguous than "commentator," and I also believe that many people (wrongly or rightly) perceive "pundit" in a slightly pejorative way. Severoon 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

David Letterman

Is this one appearance on David Letterman's show really considered a highly publicized dispute? Sounds like Letterman got a few good jabs at O'Reilly but thats about it. I don't think this belongs here (or anywhere at all in the article, actually). I'm pretty sure it should be removed but wanted to see what other people think first. Maybe I'm just missing the point?Hal Raglan 01:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not important and the excerpt here is much too long for such a non-event. Of all the intelligent criticisms Letterman could have made, he chose to play the crowd instead. O'Reilly didn't make a fight out of it. That was it. --Vector4F 02:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Letterman is extremely high-profile media personality. - 200.141.119.254 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, anonymous, Letterman is an extremely high-profile media personality. But in what way does that justify inserting such a lengthy quote-filled paragraph concerning this ONE appearance on his show into a section called "Highly Publicized Disputes"? It doesn't because this is NOT a highly publicized dispute. I'm going to remove it. If someone wants to put it back, please try to justify its reinsertion. Thanks.65.182.19.98 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Oops, sorry, thought I was logged in!Hal Raglan 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I just did a Google News search for "O'Reilly AND Letterman" between the dates of 1/1/2006 and 1/6/2006, with redundencies included. I got five pages that were noticably bare of major news sources. Please, anyone wanting to push this issue look for yourself. --Vector4F 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It simply hasn't turned into a highly publicized dispute. The consensus here seems to be that the Letterman stuff does not belong in this article, so it'll continue to be removed. The thing I don't get about people who keep adding this nonsense to the article is that O'Reilly has in fact had far more notable "disputes" of varying degrees with many other individuals that aren't even mentioned in this article. As an example, shouldn't there be a section on his repeated insults of Cindy Sheehan? Wouldn't that make much more sense than the Letterman non-issue?Hal Raglan 05:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the interview does provide important information to anyone who wishes to make a judgment about O'Reilly. It is an instance where he is faced with an openly hostile critic and where he is not in control of the interview. I very rarely watch his show, but I was impressed with how he handled himself and answered intelligently in the face of the ad hominem attacks by Letterman (Question - Have you ever had anyone close to you killed in combat Mr O'reilly?) Overall, I would say the article tilts slightly to the left and a reader with no knowledge of O'Reilly would be more likely to come away thinking he is conservative, opinionated to the point of being an ideologue, and not necessarily concerned about facts. A link to the full interview would allow them to see how he justifies himself in front of an antagonistic host and an audience that is sympathetic to the host. At least, I found my opinion of him was changed after watching the interview, though I doubt I'll be a regular viewer.

It was actually pretty rare, too. He hardly ever keeps his silence on his show, and has gotten pretty steamed when challenged by hosts and guests on shows like Hardball or Fresh Air (the latter of which he walked out on.) The thing is, any O'Reilly fan, critic or neutral observer could pick a promotional interview that they think is interesting, and highlights the side of him they would like to see more of in the article, but it would be extraneous. If a silly non-spat with Letterman was worthy of inclusion, surely the previous two examples and many more would also qualify, but I don't think any of them do.
I think the rationality to his behavior is as follows: Fresh Air and Hardball purport to be neutral channels forums for the conveyance of news. Letterman's show is an entertainment vehicle. When he perceives neutral forums to be putting a slant on stories related to him, he flips out. There's no point in my addition here about the article, just thought I'd stick my nose in. :-) Severoon 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry/John McCain

Someone feels it's neccesary to add sections on John Kerry and John McCain, these are not controversies so to speak. They are isolated incidents that have nothing to do with the price of bread...please exclude them from the article.

Phone Sex affair

I think it should be made clear that O'Reilly said that he would fight the whole affair in court to th end and "vindicate" his name. He said he woudn't settle. Yet he did, out of court. Why is this not mentioned? It is clearly another of countless examples of his hypocritical nature.

I dont understand what this has to do with o'rilly this would not be NPOV --Kylehamilton 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean what does it have to do with 0'Reily. It's called criticism and the reader should be aware of the criticism of O'Reily. And I'm surprised there is no section for that. If Dan Rather gets a criticism section why not O'Reily that is NPOV on behalf of Wikipedia editors. I hope this does not mean Wikipedia is Wikirightwing.

There was actually a much more detailed section on that a while ago. But due to recent actions they were removed. One of those users: User:Fluterst was permanently banned so it might be possible for this page to start healing. Here's an older version that has most everything intact: [5] and here's the difference between that version and the current version [6]. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, the older article is certainly more accurate and unbiased than the current one. Yet it still doesn't mention (a simple sentence works) that O'Reilly settled out of court when he said he would fight the charges to the end. That's pretty major don't you think?

No. At best, it's just an attempt by opponents of O'Reilly to nitpick and then yell, "See? See? He really is a douchebag!" Unlike what certain people believe, this article's purpose is NOT to document each and every criticizable thing O'Reilly has ever said and done. Every time the article goes into this level of depth in attacking him (whether those attacks are justified or not) or even if they go into this level of depth to PRAISE him, the article must be edited down immediately. --Ilyag 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Level of depth? Give me a break. If you don't want to sound like a hypocrite then how about you delete the "feuds" that O'Reilly has, that is pretty in depth for a article. I mean what you say is pointless because level of depth is relative and subjective. The fact that he settled is just that a FACT and it should be included because I think that gives a really "IN DEPTH" and appropriate picture of who this man is. Nothing left wing or right wing about it, facts are facts. Isn't that what O'Reilly himself thinks?

O'Reilly's open endorsement's of Republican politicians

There have been several congressmen O'Reilly has endorsed, including Doug Forrester for governor of New Jersey, just several days ahead of the election. I would like to know why exactly that relevant information was removed? If O'Reilly is out there claiming to be neutral, isn't it rather relevant to point out that he endorsed Forrester for governor of New Jersey and attempted to portray Jon Corzine as an "appeaser of child molestation"? Please give a reason this information was removed from the article, I find it highly relevant.

Reverts By Guettarda

I noticed that Guettarda reverted some details that I had edited earlier today. I am not an O'Reilly fan, but I believe the article should remain as NPOV as possible. Could Guettarda, or anyone else, please explain why it is believed that the following is relevant to an encyclopedia?:

-"After the show, O'Reilly screamed at Glick, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to f_ _ _ _ _ g pieces." I think its very possible that O'Reilly indeed made this threat but from what I understand the only source is Glick himself, who has said that it happened after the cameras were shut off and there were no witnesses around. I think if this line is reinstated it should say something like "According to Glick, after the show O'Reilly screamed at Glick, etc" and that should be immediately followed by a link to a source of information. This is pretty inflammatory material to have without a source, don't you think?

--"On the air since the advent of the Fox News Channel in 1996, The Factor gained its popularity in the late 1990's through O'Reilly's relentlesss attacks on Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal." I don't believe this is NPOV. As is, the sentence indicates that it is completely unquestionable that O'Reilly relentlessly attacked Clinton; I believe my change is superior: "On the air since the advent of the Fox News Channel in 1996, The Factor gained its popularity in the late 1990's through what some critics described as "O'Reilly's relentlesss attacks" on Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal." Again, the way I feel about O'Reilly convinces me that he probably did rant against and attack Clinton but this is an encyclopedia and should not have such a negative tone.

--"According to the Rolling Stone, the Factor serves as the "centerpiece" of "a cable channel [that] operates as little more than a PR arm for the Republican Party: putting a negative spin on anything to do with Democrats and issuing a steady stream of upbeat, often factually inaccurate, cheerleading for the Bush administration." Despite the fact that this is sourced, I think there's plenty of info later in the article strongly suggesting that O'Reilly is a conservative and a supporter of the Republican party. If you believe its important to retain this sentence, it should be moved to the more appropriate "Political Beliefs" section.

--"O'Reilly denounced Franken as an "idiot" and screamed his now-signature comment: "Shut up!" Fox then sued Franken and his publisher for using the words "fair and balanced" in his book's subtitle, claiming infringement of Fox News Channel's trademarked slogan. To no one's surprise, a judge called Fox's suit "wholly without merit" and threw it out." The details are not at issue, as the linked video makes clear, its the hyperbolic, overly emotional tone of the writing I have a hard time with. Please "To know one's surprise"? I will try to rewrite, keeping the details but toning down the melodrama. Then you can tell me what you think.

Looks like someone else thought this section had some problems as changes have been made since I posted; additionally, I've changed one sentence. Its not needed to state that O'Reilly "denounced" Franken and the video reveals that O'Reilly did not "scream", although the expression on his face indicates that he probably very much wanted to.200.122.158.40 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In the recent past this article has had horrible POV problems (from a right wing extremist, since banned) that were recently fixed via community editing. Now, we are having problems once again and I think we need to try maintain NPOV before the article gets out of hand one more time. I think anyone reading this article can make up their own minds on O'Reilly from the sourced facts and quotes; we don't need editorialzing or melodramatic writing cluttering up this article. Thanks.200.122.158.40 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you've written. Guettarda is an admin and you would think he'd know better than to just blindly revert things without logical explanation. I notice he earlier reverted some obvious vandalism ("Whether or not the general public would actually have an interest in O'Reilly's private life has yet to be determined.") that had been understandably removed, claiming that the removal was "unexplained deletion of material." I've removed the line again.Hal Raglan 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I simply reverted a large number of edits by an anon who seemed to be engaged in a wholesale deletion of sourced material vaguely critical of O'Reilly. Whitewashing is pov-pushing, pretty close to vandalism. It seems pretty extreme to call that "blind reverting". Guettarda 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Guettarda, if you are referring to the edits that the above anonymous user made, I don't think his/her changes were what you describe at all. The explanatory comments discussing the reasons the edits were made make sense to me. Anyway, since you've replied I'm just wondering why you reinserted the line I mentioned above about O'Reilly's private life. The original sentence seems like pure vandalism to me and I'm curious why you thought it should be reverted. Thanks.Hal Raglan 05:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I looked at your edits, and they looked good. There were two sets of edits after your - one by an anon who reinserted material which was in the article previously (and Saginaw) and a second anon who had removed a lot of material critical of O'Reilly. Every so often someone comes along and removes criticisms of O'Reilly, and as I have been doing for months, I reverted the deletion. Deleting text without explanation is often considered vandalism. I was simply undoing vandalism, I have no interest in engaging in an edit dispute about whether the Saginaw material should or should not be in the article. Guettarda 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. There are a whole slew of users who've been making massive and questionable edits to this article very recently and I know its going to take admin like you to help sort things out. Thanks Hal Raglan 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging sections

The following two sections are extremely similar and largely redundant:

  • "Campaigns and recurring themes"
  • "Highly publicized disputes"

Please consider removing one of them and merging the content together to provide better structure for the article. --Ilyag 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Shown on Sky News?

I removed the following:

"The O'Reilly Factor is also available internationally from various local television providers, including Sky News in Europe. On occasion, the show is broadcast live."

The show isn't carried on Sky News. The Fox News channel itself is avilable via the Sky Digital pay tv system, which is run by the same company as Sky News. Matthew Humphreys 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

This article is 35 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. While Bill O'Reilly is a noteworthy and controversial individual that people might wish to research, I firmly believe that this article needs to be trimmed down to a significantly more readable and managable size. People who either strongly agree or disagree with O'Reilly often come into this article and add anything and everything they agree/disagree with him on into the main article, and then claim that their "beef" with or "support" of O'Reilly is relevant and necessary. I disagree. While MENTIONS of these items may be necessary and appropriate, the sort of long-winded essay-sized elaborations into these topics are most certainly not. I'm asking for your opinions on this matter, and if you agree with me, suggestions on what should be trimmed, edited down to a smaller size, or entirely removed from this article. --Ilyag 07:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article can be cut down. The "Controversies" section has no real limits, as was evident when the Letterman appearance was discussed. Basically, the way this section is structured makes it prone to bloat. Mentioning so many incidents is prohibitive to brevity, because an incident has to have context, O'Reilly's opinions, and someone else's opinions. If we want to keep all of these controversy items, I think they may need their own page. Here's what I propose for further editing:
I see two classes of "controversies" here that can help focus editting and trimming specifically. First, there are habitual stances, almost themes, towards certain groups (alleging a left-wing bias in the media, derriding foreign governments who don't cooperate with U.S. policy [e.g. France], bias against critics of the U.S. military, bias against the ACLU, and harsh penalties for criminals). O"Reilly basically incorporates these themes thoughout all his commentary. These are part of his public persona.
Second, there are specific incidences where O'Reilly tells someone to shut up, insults them, or takes an extreme position. These almost always involve one or more opinions from the first category. They are examples where O'Reilly or someone he is talking to or about provokes the other and a "scene" developes. --Vector4F 23:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No, articles are not "cut down". If an article becomes so large as to be unreadable, certain segments should be moved to a daughter article. An example would be the George W. Bush article which spawned Early life of George W. Bush and Professional life of George W. Bush. Please see Wikipedia:Editing policy as well as Wikipedia is Not a Paper Encyclopedia. [7] For this article, first all of the missing information from previous versions needs to be restored, and then if that makes the article so large as to be unreadable, a daughter article should be spawned. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly Controversy -- Mr. Tibbs 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ilyag (and others): The article has been trimmed down about a dozen times in the past, and within two weeks balloons back up to what you see now. Honestly, your time would be better spent elsewhere unless you can figure out a real solution to the problem. Merely editing it won't work. A disclaimer at the top of the article, perhaps linking to a "manifesto" about the article's history and how future edits should be considered, would be a good step, though perhaps un-Wikipedian.
Wikipedia is a great resource, and generally works very well, but when it comes to articles about individuals - especially the living and currently famous - it's an absolute mess. I think Wikipedia would benefit a great deal if edits to just the articles about famous people were filtered before they were added. Again...un-Wikipedian, but it would really help. --Plastic Editor 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

O'reilly vs Franken

In regard to the recent addition here (where O'Reilly called Franken an "idiot" etc.) - I believe they both interrupted each other in that debate from what I saw. Comments? WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All accounts I've read about the incident indicate that as well. --72.224.182.201 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I have not been able to recently watch the video, but from what I have read, Franken spoke for some time without O'reilly saying anything. O'reilly claimed Franken spoke for 35 minutes, however it supposedly was more like 22. Anyway, I do not know if it was O'reilly's turn to speak or whether he just got fed up with Franken, but when O'reilly started talking, Franken kept on trying to cut him off. That's when O'reilly told him, "Shut up. You had your 35 minutes. Shut up."--129.252.176.46 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

someone needs to watch the entire video (which must be available somewhere). Time O'Reilly's speech. Time Franken's speech. Then annotate what happens during the section when they are crossing swords. And then prepare a succinct summary that has credibility. Otherwise we are depending on memory and second-hand accounts that may/may not have an agenda. Davidpatrick 23:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like performing individual research - something Wikipedia doesn't exactly encourage. Perhaps you can find a commentary from either man or from a news source which might be worth inclusion. --ABQCat 00:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. But we already know that there are contradictory accounts from both protagonists - so those are unlikely to shed clear light. Maybe there is a contemporary news report of the actual event. Or from a news outlet that watched the confrontation on TV. Davidpatrick 01:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all get into the hunt here for a source if we were more aware of the facts of the confrontation. I can't recall the date or setting of the discussion, though I have some vague recollection that it was on a BookTV segment of CSPAN, maybe? --ABQCat 01:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you're right. The link in the article apparently goes to a continuously updated page. Here's a cached copy of the page though [8]. There are also some media reports: CBS [9], USAToday [10]. Also got an audio clip [11] and a video clip[12] that I think covers the entire episode (if you want to cut to the action, go to 48:00 - O'Reilly gives his line around 48:55). You need the real codec. I also grabbed the direct URL [rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/arc_btv/arc_btv053103_4.rm?start=4:16:18&end=5:45:37]. Most of this was found on this forum [13]. Off-topic, does anyone have a Windows program to download realplayer streams? --Vector4F 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olberman

Someone has added a section on Keith Olberman's criticism of O'Reilly three times, referring to Olberman calling O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World", and I removed the paragraph each time. My reasoning has nothing to do with POV. The fact is, O'Reilly is criticized by many people in many different venues. This is no more a "controversy" than when anyone else attacks O'Reilly. It clearly does not belong under the topic of "controversies", as it would be the ONLY part of the section that in NO WAY deals with anything that O'Reilly said or even participated in, and only deals with what Olberman said about O'Reilly. For whoever wants to keep adding this section: Please add it to Olberman's article, as it far more pertains to him than O'Reilly. And, if the defense for adding this paragraph here is that Al Franken has a section (he too criticises O'Reilly), the reason THAT belongs in this article is because there is a constant back-and-forth debate/fight/controversy in which both O'Reilly and Franken participate frequently. With Olberman, the only way O'Reilly has ever participated was by insulting Olberman's show over having low ratings.

To sum up, what Olberman says about O'Reilly is not O'Reilly's "controversy". If it is a controversy at all, it's Olberman's. If your intention is to merely catalogue a list of people or instances when O'Reilly has been attacked, please add a seperate section on that and include other instances as well. However, this would likely turn the POV of the article as a whole significantly into an anti-O'Reilly piece, and I don't think I'm the only one who would strongly discourage the formation of such a section, especially since the number of people who publically criticize O'Reilly numbers in the hundreds and even thousands (starting with almost every Democratic member of Congress, most well-known comedians, and about a million newspaper editorials), and would flood this already-lengthy article to death. So, please, don't even start that section at all. --Ilyag 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be a short bit about it, its substantial at that - Mike Beckham 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, would you then go to the Wikipedia articles of every other individual that Olberman has called "Worst Person in the World" and make a reference to it, or isn't it much easier to go to Olberman's article and compile a list THERE of all the people he has given this title? And second, exactly how is it O'Reilly's controversy in any way? The section's subtitle is: Over the years, there have been some ongoing controversial issues highlighted in O'Reilly's print and broadcast work. How does Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" bit fit into this description in any way, shapre, or form? --Ilyag 07:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please Refrain from using bold as it appears as a way of "yelling" instead of using caps lock. - Mike Beckham 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The bolding was used to emphasize a quote, not to yell it out. --Ilyag 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I just added a Keith Olbermann section due to O'Reilly's recent petition campaign to have Olbermann's show removed. In case yo didn't know, Olbermann's show plays at the same time as O'Reilly's. Sysrpl 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I added a paragraph to the end of the Olbermann section related to O'Reilly's curious neglection to refer to Olbermann by name. You can read O'Reilly's petition here [14] and see that Olbermann is never mentioned. It is obvious that O'Reilly is refering to Olbermann because he is the only personality at the timeslot mentioned. Additionaly, I have sourced an audio clip of O'Reilly dumping the sound of someone who attempted to mention Keith Olbermann's name. Sysrpl 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
One of the weird things about that call was that there was no indication that the caller liked Olbermann, and may have been about to criticize Olbermann (unless there was a part of the call was heard by O'Reilly and not heard by the public). Schizombie 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not edit out the fact that O'Reilly has and continues to not name Keith or Countdown in his complaints. Editing the topic sentence of the "complaints towards MSNBC" to "did not" infers a single incident. This is not true. It is an ongoing practice as sourced. I have editied the paragraph to say "complaints towards MSNBC continue to not mention" which could be worded better. I am open to suggestions. Sysrpl 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive Again

May I request this page be archived again, it is starting to freeze the browser (long articles do usually) Im not on a slow connection so I know its the length. Mike 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope this page is more readable now. --Ilyag 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It is thankyou :) Mike 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag without reason

The NPOV tag keeps magically showing up on the article without explanation. I feel that anyone who believes this article has POV problems should address those issues on the talk page so others can make attempts to correct the problems, if they exist. Slapping the NPOV tag on the article will simply cause others to make it disappear. Please jump on here and discuss if you believe the tag should remain, and provide specific reasons as to why you believe it should. Thanks.Horace Walpole 16:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias Section

The "bias" section (Political Beliefs, etc) in this article is very similar to an equivalent section in The O'Reilly Factor article. I wonder, would the rest of you agree in moving this entire section off to it's own seperate article, so that both of these articles can easily link to it rather than hosting similar content themselves? It would also allow for further lengthy elaborations into the very important topic of O'Reilly's allegations of bias. --Ilyag 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Burke

Did this really happen? I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything to back up the claim that this interview ever took place. It was a quick search, mind you, so maybe it is there and I just didn't find it. The thing is, this section has been added before, and then deleted after no source or citation for the "controversy" could be located. If you believe this section should remain in the article, please provide a link to a reliable source that indicates this is not just a hoax. Thanks.Hal Raglan 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I just did another search and still couldn't find anything. This would be all over the internet if it were true. I'm going to remove the section. If anyone can find a link to a reliable information source showing that this interview ever happened, then by all means reinstate it.Hal Raglan 06:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


"Saving" Christmas

Regarding: "Some of his claims have been proven false. [15] " The source is bias at best and after reading it I would hardly say it proved anything. It was Oreilly's opinion that the Wisconsin incident was an example, and he stated his opinion.

Anonymous, just because you believe a source is "bias" [sic] doesn't mean the information provided is false. I've added more links (to the same "bias" source) that clearly indicate that at least four examples of what O'Reilly offers as proof of the so-called War on Christmas are completely false. Please continue to discuss this here if you still have issues.Hal Raglan 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


"Please stop deleting linked/sourced information from the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article. Just because you have proclaimd a source as "bias" [sic] does not make the information false. Please join the discussion on the talk page of the article before making further unwarranted edits or deletions. Thanks.Hal Raglan 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.11.154.78""


First, I can't reply to you personally since you have no page. Second, I did bring it up here on the talk page and got no response. The source says nothing that proves he was "wrong" about anything, it says that he was wrong in their bias opinion. whatever though, I will leave it alone. --24.11.154.78

Regardless of bias, the information on Media Matters is factual and accurate. They may use the information to showcase a specific point of view within the context of their own website, but this doesn't mean that the information is wrong. In other words, you may disagree with their conclusions, but you cannot disagree with their facts. --Ilyag 19:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you agree with the position of Mr. O'Reilly or not, it seems inappropriate and POV to claim that Mr. O'Reilly's statements have been "proven" false based solely on the editorials of a blatantly liberal-biased website. It seems to me that it would be better to rephrase the final line of this section to "Several of Mr. O'Reilly's claims have been disputed” rather then declare them proven wrong. It would also be better if a more accepted news source was quoted than a liberal activist website such as Media Matters (I am neither supporting nor opposing Mr. O'Reilly's position with this statement, just pointing out the apparent POV of this section).BambinoPrime 07:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

-But some of O'Reilly's claims aren't merely "disputed", they are inarguably false. Media Matters does indeed have a "bias", in that they proudly advertise themselves as a progressive organization intended to point out what they perceive as deliberate conservative misinformation in the media. Media Matters does so not by mere "editorials", as you claim, but by presenting links to actual interviews and news sources. Since you apparently didn't bother to read anything once you noticed the links took you to an alleged "liberal activist" website, please note the following:

  • O'Reilly claimed that the U.S. Postal Service no longer sells spiritual postage stamps; Media Matters links to an interview in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette with a United Postal Service spokesperson who flat out calls O'Reilly's claim "absolutely not true." In another word, false. Do you believe the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is a "biased" "liberal activist" newspaper?
  • O'Reilly claimed of Sagina that "the township opposes red and green clothing on anyone." Media Matters referred to a linked report from WNEM-TV 5, a Saginaw TV station, in which the township supervisor called O'Reilly's claim "[F]lat-out not true." In another word, false. Is WNEM-TV 5 part of the "liberal activist" conspiracy?
  • O'Reilly claimed that a Plano school prohibited their students from wearing red and green clothing. Media Matters provides a link to a telecast in which O'Reilly himself admitted later that this was not true. In another words, it was a false claim.
  • O'Reilly claimed that a Wisconsin elementary school changed the lyrics to "Silent Night" and forced their students to sing only the "politically correct" new version. Media Matters provided a link to a Washington Post report that showed this was not true, and that the lyrics had been modified only within the context of a play that had been performed without controversy in numerous churches throughout the country. Nonetheless, O'Reilly has continued to repeat this, yep, false claim. Of course, I imagine you're going to say that the Washington Post is a "liberal activist" newspaper.

The simple fact is that O'Reilly has made several false claims that he has utilized to support his allegations of a conspiracy theory. Just because you dislike the Media Matters website doesn't mean their facts are wrong.Hal Raglan 16:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First, there's no need to be insulting. Please make your point without resorting to attacking; that shows the weakness of your position, not mine. I will not respond, nor will I throw any insults back at you or any other editor of this website.
Nothing you have said changes the POV problems of this section. This is an encyclopedia. It is not meant to give, or even imply opinions. It is to be a simple statement of fact based upon unbiased information, no more and no less. Great care must be made to remove even an implied bias, or the information is useless.
Using one source, ANY one source as the factual proof of your claims is at best limited and at worst POV. I would have made the same argument if the only linked source of corroboration came from Free Republic or any other conservative media source. If you want to link offsite, link to the direct news articles, not a left (or right) leaning editorial. This allows the reader to make u p their own mind based on the facts presented. If the conclusion is as obvious as you believe. Then that is the conclusion that people will come to after an objective review of the facts. The fact that you or anyone else may or may not agree with the conclusions reached (I make no assumptions) does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. No conclusion should be presented; simply lay out facts from respected news sources and let people make up their own minds.BambinoPrime 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Peabody Award

/* Peabody Award */removed, citation offered no proof..said "Apparently, O'Reilly had mentioned in multiple interviews that his old syndicated tabloid.........

Key word is "apparently". The source does not offer it as fact, so i removed the section until the author can provide a reliable source for the claim.24.11.154.78 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. This is an old, non-controversial fact, backed up by multiple authors and archival recordings. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is non-controversial, then why is it in the "controversies" section????? ALso, if it is backed up by multiple sources then go ahaead and cite them. 24.11.154.78 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Blanking sections is a form of vandalism; do not do it again. The actual content is non-controversial, that is to say, it is not disputed. However, it appears in a section entitled "controversies" due to its treatment by O'Reilly. The sources are cited in the article. —Viriditas | Talk

How is it vandalism when I am discussing it? I am not trying to vandalize the article and I take exception to your accusation that I am. I will leave it alone since you are so adament about it, but I would hardly say it is not disputed since I am disputing it now. A simple solution would be for you to replace the section WITH appropriate citations to sources, then I would not have any grounds to dispute it, nor would I want to. All I am asking for are a few sources so I can verify the validity of the claim 24.11.154.78 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blanking is a form of vandalism. Please do not remove content based on your personal disputes. If you have evidence, present it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did present it, look above, the cited source said "apparently" which is not the same as fact.

Sorry, I don't know what you are referring to here. We don't depend on just one source for evidence. —Viriditas | Talk 01:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added sources since this, there used to be only one.

Alleged Media Bias-Herbert "Terrorist Helper"

In one such exchange O'Reilly characterized columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times as a "terrorist helper" because of his criticism of the war in Iraq and his support of the ACLU. (O'Reilly 2005b)

Again, I read this cited article and no where does this exist in it. The cited article never even refers to Bob Herbert at all, so accuse me of vandalism again if you want, but I am deleting this until a proper citation is listed. It is a false citation.

Not a false citation but an error by the editor who added it. I've since fixed it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from the source cited it says "Are Herbert and others helping the terrorists by misdirecting, in my opinion, the motive for terrorism? "Talking Points" will not condemn Herbert for that opinion. I think it's wrong, but not intentionally aiding the killers."

SO, to say he called Herbert a "terrorist Helper" is very POV. The NPOV way to write is is to say waht he said , that he was unintentionally helping the trerorisys, but I see you reverted that change as well. 24.11.154.78 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states that O'Reilly characterized Herbert as a "terrorist helper". In the cite, O'Reilly states, "So Bob Herbert is most likely helping the terrorists..." —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

and, in the cite as above, it also says "unintentionally", so why are you so opposed to making it more neutral?24.11.154.78 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly what is said. While O'Reilly does say that Herbert's opinion regarding the motive for terrorism (terrorism is being exacerbated by the Iraq War) is not intentionally aiding the killers, he makes it clear that Herbert "is most likely helping the terrorists" and that "those helping the enemy will be brought to your attention". —Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then put the quote as it is in the article rather than parphrasing it into "terrorist helper" so it can remain NPOV

I don't understand your objection. O'Reilly characterized Herbert as a terrorist helper, even if he claims that one aspect of his "helping" is unintentional. O'Reilly also takes Herbert to task for not condemning the ACLU regarding Abu Ghraib. In this regard, O'Reilly claims that "any picture of accusation of an American abusing a Muslim is a terror recruiting tool", but O'Reilly chalks this up to Herbert's "hatred of Mr. Bush". He makes it clear that Herbert is "helping the enemy", intentional or not. —Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what, I am going to leave this one to be commented on by others ...24.11.154.78 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit

Mackris later revealed an audio tape of a telephone call in which O'Reilly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her. [citation needed]

I deleted this because as I said before there is no public evidence of any tape. If there is, please present it and cite it when you put this line back in.24.11.154.78 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, old news. This was covered by TSG some time ago and is cited in TSG links. Please leave this page alone until you are able to inform yourself on the issues. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

She never publicly produced a tape and if she did prove it! If it is such common knowledge you should have no problem citing a source for me to verify the accusation. I never heard a tape confirming her allegations about him.

This article is not a battleground for your POV. We merely report the facts. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

SO how is it a fact that "Mackris later revealed an audio tape of a telephone call in which O'Reilly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her." if nobody ever heard this tape. How is it a fact, tell me please? I am not trying to battlee for my POV, I am trying to see this POV article become NPOV by stating facts only, like an encyclopedia should. If she did reveal a tape on which he made lewd remarks, then I would agree it is a fact, but no such tape was ever "revealed". If one was, please link me to it so I can verify it. 24.11.154.78 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, it was O'Reilly's attorney and Fox who claimed the tape exists. [16] [17]Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Fixed error by original editor. —Viriditas | Talk 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, where in those sources you gave does it say that Fox claimed a tape existes, much less that the tape was revealed to contain lewd sexual suggestions? I read "Fox believed Mackris had tape recordings of the long, highly detailed conversations alleged in the suit, but Morelli never confirmed that, saying only that they had concrete evidence." The other article says "that O'Reilly "wants to hear the tapes if they exist." SO, what I read is that the existence of the tape WAS NOT CONFIRMED, from your own source, so please delete the claim from the article, there was no tape revealed in which he made lewd sexual suggestions, there was only speculations. It is POV and innaccurate to say Mackris later revealed an audio tape of a telephone call in which O'Reilly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her. 24.11.154.78 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I also do not see where your last edit changes anything. Give me a link to this factual transcript of the tape. There was no transcript released, in fact, if one does exist it would be a breach of the settlement to release it anyway.

No, the statement is correct as it stands. See: [18]. "The draft complaint contained several lengthy block quotes of statements that O'Reilly allegedly made to Mackris. The length of the quotes and the specific verbiage used made it appear that Mackris was taping O'Reilly during the conversations." It is not our job to confirm or prove the existence of anything, only to report. —Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. See, these were ALLEGED statements, so it should be sufficient for the article to say that Oreilly allegedly made these lewd comments. The article now says "Mackris revealed a transcript of a telephone call (thought to be based on an audio tape) in which O'Reilly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her.". This is very POV. A transcript was not revealed in which he made these comments as a matter of fact (or beyond a preponderance of the evidence), AND the statement 'thought to be based on an audio tape" is POV too. Thought by who? Just remove it and let it be NPOV. There is no need to make him sound guilty or innocent. Write the stright facts and nothing more.24.11.154.78 01:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate refs which substantiate the claim. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your sources do not substantiate your claim that his alleged lewd comments were released as a matter of fact. Again, I am just dropping this to wait for comment from others.24.11.154.78 01:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. The sources support the claim that the transcript was "thought to be based on an unreleased audio tape". —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)





Sure is funny how Media Matters is the cited source for 90% of the negative claims about O'Reilly, yet when I read their web site they give no sources for their info. They don't even tell you the dates or times that the shows aired from which they are quoting him.???? Very POV to use only 1 source and a bad one at that.

"thought to be based?" Thought by whom? Nobody should consider anything unreferenced written in the passive voice to be evidence of anything.

Introduction: "...has five books..."

The following sentence appears in the introduction: "O'Reilly also hosts a radio program syndicated by Westwood One, called The Radio Factor, and has five books (one of which is a novel)." The clause "...and has five books..." is ambiguous, in my opinion. It seems to me that it could either mean that O'Reilly has written five books or that he owns five books. Thus, perhaps the clause ought to be changed to "...and has written five books...". PJ 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps "...and has written five books, including...". DolphinCompSci 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mug on Letterman

I've deleted the line referring to Bill's appearance on Letterman which stated that he drank from Dave's mug. The mug he drank from was the one that always sits at the edge of the desk for guests. The reason the audience laughed was because Dave stirred it with his pencil before Bill came out. RyanSEanes 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Watch the scare quotes

This is a little on the threshold, but I went ahead and deleted scare quotes surrounding a couple of words that I thought weren't appropriate for NPOV. While scare quotes can be used to try to distance Wikipedia from the views of Bill O'Reilly, they also usually sound like sneering or sarcasm. It's usually best to attain NPOV through the text and not through punctuation. "Bill O'Reilly believes he defends American values," is better than "Bill O'Reilly defends American 'values.'"

I agree with the removal of these scare quotes. However, now that they have been removed from the "'Saving' Christmas" section, I don't think the section title is sufficiently neutral. "War on Christmas" seems like a good change. Rhobite 00:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good.

This is spinning out of control

Just because he is wrong, it doesn't make it a controversy. Nor is it a contrversy because someone gets angry at something he says. --BohicaTwentyTwo 19:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Take for example this statement in his Personal Background section:
Critics argue that O'Reilly is out of touch with "the folks," or the general American public which he defends, due in part to his $10 million a year salary with Fox News
Would it then be fair to add a line below that one which reads:
Supporters argue that O'Reilly is in touch with "the folks," and the general American public which he defends, and that his salary has no bearing on his positions whatsoever
Go to the Norah O'Donnell entry, I duplicated the entire Criticism section and added a Praise section and re-worded a few things (in order to have discussion) Take them both out, or keep them both in, but not one without the other....The WikiBias that exists is insane.... Jeravicious 09:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Journalism vs. Commentary

People want to know why Bill O'Reilly is called a commentor while Anderson Cooper is a journalist? How many and false claims and misinterpretations do Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace make? Do either of these men need to profess their shows to be a "No Spin Zone"? Do you see them in the news on a nearly daily basis for something they said? Bill O'Reilly seems to make more news then the actual 'news' he reports. Shouldn't we let the facts speak for themselves? People shouldn't have to agree with a journalist, a journalist goes out and reports the facts as objectively as possible, there should be no sides, just reporting. But Bill O'Reilly does want you on his side.

A small joke-----The Many Enemies on Bill O'Reilly's list.

Who will be the next "SO CALLED" left-wing nut to be on the list of Bill O'Reilly website is it you or the many others who challenge the 6'4 news analysis.

  • Michael Moore- The far left smear merchant who released Fahrenheit 9/11 and publicly controls the mother of slain solider in a propaganda left wing movement.
  • Al Franken- Oh that's Staurt Smalley, the one who used Fox News' trademark for a bestseller and made fun of the blotches on Bill's face.
  • Keith Olbermann- That guy on the other channel who can't get near the number of viewers who watch the O'Reilly Factor. This guy constantly makes fun of Bill O'Reilly, and others on Fox News with his "Most Worst List".
  • Cindy Sheehan- That mother who is just an idiot who does nothing than to bother the president.
  • Jeremy Glick- That menace who lost his father in 9/11 attacks and tried to blame Bush for his father's death. I just don't get it, as O'Reilly puts it.
  • Edward Kennedy- far left zionist in the Senate.
  • Hillary Clinton- this woman is trying to run for president.
  • Phil Donahue- That left-wing cut and runner who believes that Cindy Sheehan needs a platform for the anti-war movement.
  • David Letterman- After taking a blunt criticism from the War on Christmas, Letterman tries to make O'Reilly look like an idiot on late night television.
  • Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert of Comedy Central- oh those stoners at Secular Central, that sits on their laughing high horses and make fun of Bill and Fox News.
  • George Clooney- after criticism was made by Bill O'Reilly towards his charity, Clooney strikes back and attacks on him. Bill believes that Clooney is the left wing's voice in Hollywood.
  • Ludacris, Busta Rhymes and 50 Cent- gangsta rappers who gets lucky with deals. Add them to the liberal Hollywood list.
  • Jesse Jackson- this so-called civil rights figure who undermines the Bush Administration as well as try to play the race card in winning cases.
  • New York Times- the newspaper who O'Reilly accuses of liberal basis in columns. They dropped his column years ago and he's been at their throats ever since.
  • Los Angeles Times- see what the NY Times does, it even affect the minds of the west.
  • Samuel W. Bodman- the only person in the Bush Administration, Bill O'Reilly hates.
  • ACLU- The most dangerous group to ever be in existance as Bill puts it.
  • Bill Maher- "Mr. chatterbox" as Bill puts it. After being slammed in interviews with Maher, Bill has been attack on him too.
  • John Kerry- as well as Fox News had contributed at least 90% of negative commentaries against the senator from Massachusetts.
  • Edward Cashman- this judge who gives a child molestor 60 days to a repeat rape on a girl who molested for "FOUR YEARS", yeah add him on the list.
  • Jane Fonda- Jane Fonda is a traitor to the United States, and she's the biggest left wing of the liberal groups. She deserves no respect from Bill and Fox News.
  • George Soros- a billionaire who contributes to far left sites, and possible involved in the movement to remove Christmas from store ads and merchandising.
  • Gavin Newsom and San Francisco- the culture war allows this liberal mayor to allow gay marriages alongside Bill's jest of San Fran's ban on military recruiting, oh yeah add him to Bill's list.
  • Ang Lee and Brokeback Mountain- the Hollywood movement is trying to influence Bill's children into the gay agenda.
  • The Atlanta Journal-Constitution- This is Jimmy Carter's favorite newspaper for the liberals.
  • Newshounds- that left wing Fenton group at it worst. Everything Bill says goes to this site.
  • David Brock and Media Matters- Bill doesn't have time to speak with the left wing smear merchants ran by that radical billionaire George Soros.

This is the list of enemies on Bill O'Reilly's list.

Thanks for reading.

LILVOKA.


You forgot to put the entire country of MEXICO!!!

Addition Under "Alleged Liberal bias in the media"

The overall disputed text in this part appears to be this overall text :

This, in part, has lead many to view Bill O'Reilly as a closeted conservative Republican. According to imdb.com, "Politically he has always claimed he is a registered independent on The O'Reilly Factor. But it was later revealed O'Reilly was actually a registered Republican in Nassau County from 1994 to 2000. O'Reilly re-registered as an independent soon after."

To a certain extent, this text may be a good addition in that it adds understanding to earlier references to O'Reilly being a Republican but this text addition is still in dispute by some, including myself. For the moment, all I have done is revise the link formatting for the section since having a full quote as a link seemed kinda pointless. Anyway, lets talk about this hear instead of having an editing war on the main article! Chris 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, most of that text duplicates existing text. Look under "Political beliefs and point of view". --Calton | Talk 04:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The basic information and the same linked source are already in the article, as Calton has correctly noted. One contributor is repeatedly attempting to place a redundant paragraph into the "Alleged Liberal bias in the media" section, where it doesn't even belong anyway, so it quite naturally gets deleted each time.Hal Raglan 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New NPOV tag (January 22, 2006)

Sj7700 has added the NPOV tag to this article without explanation. If someone has valid, specific reasons why this tag should remain, please discuss them here on the talk page. If you don't bother to tell us what the perceived POV problems are, we can't fix them. And the tag will be removed. Thanks.Hal Raglan 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me there might in fact be a small NPOV problem that remains. The final paragraph of the section discussing the sexual harassment suit leaves one feeling as though O'Reilly's position is that he avoided admitting guilt, and therefore never wants to speak of the issue again. I believe it is more accurate to characterize O'Reilly's position differently—that he settled to avoid having the allegations played countless times in the media, but that he ultimately didn't do anything wrong. (Keep in mind, I'm not stating my viewpoint here, but I'm attempting to accurately characterize his.)
All in all I don't think it's a significant strike against NPOV, but it's something to look at. Severoon 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Stabbing section

I removed the section on a Feb. 8 stabbing, added by 64.12.117.9 on Feb. 23. There was no citation given, and a quick research of the suspect's name resulted in zero hits except for Wiki's page (and a mirror) on famous lawyer Johnnie Cochran. On that page, 205.188.116.69 added a section very similar to the one here on Jan. 24 [19], and it was removed on Feb. 2 for lack of citation. --Spiffy sperry 10:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the good editing.

Controversy section

Would it be OK to move the Controversy section to its own new page? Crumbsucker 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. It seems to be up to about 20 mini-sections at this point. --Vector4F 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I was hoping somebody would get around to doing this.Hal Raglan 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. Thanks for being bold. WP:SIZE has the following rule of thumb - >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) - and this article was 58KB just before the move. The summary on the main page also meets the "guideline" for breaking out a controversial section. --Spiffy sperry 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For Sysrpl: my reasoning being that the section and its sub-sections were making the article and its table too big and long and that the whole controversy surrounding him can fill an article on its own, similar to other hightly-debated political and entertainment figures. Crumbsucker 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Charitable Giving...POV?

Would it be appropriate to list charitable giving as a significant aspect of O'Reilly's life? From what I've heard, he's tithed a certain percentage of his paycheck since he started working to charities (even before he hit it big). It seems to me excluding significant and ongoing philanthropy from the article is significant POV. Severoon 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add a section on O'Reilly's philanthropy, you should also add a section on his for profit mass marketing business which includes brand mechandise such as Factor cups, Factor pens, Factor baseball caps, and Factor holiday ornaments. [20] Sysrpl 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be relevant and fine to add to the charitable giving section a mention about Factor gear. It's not my intention to embarrass anyone...but the claim you make about his "for profit mass marketing" is incorrect. The Factor tchotchke is marketed by him for charitable purposes as well, at least according to him (the following are quotes taken from the email segment on his show, emphasis is my own):
October 3, 2003
Bob Wood, Pomfret Center, Connecticut: Bill, my spin meter goes into overdrive every time I hear you say that some of THE FACTOR gear proceeds go to charity. How about a bit more specificity?
O'Reilly: Well, just this once, Mr. Wood, because I don't answer personal questions and charitable donations are personal. All of the money that I get from FACTOR gear goes to charity. And it is a substantial amount.
December 2, 2002
Matthew Ryan, Bronx, New York: Bill, I've heard you mention that some of the proceeds from THE FACTOR gear go to charity. In the interest of full disclosure, which you expect from Jesse Jackson and the Red Cross, what is the exact percentage that is donated?
O'Reilly: Well, Mr. Ryan, because I don't take public money or donations, the full disclosure deal does not apply. I would not, for example, tell anyone my salary, but, in the interest of charity, I will tell you that all the money I receive from FACTOR gear is given to charity. All of it.
If you have an impartial source that proves Mr. O'Reilly is lying, please cite it. We should aspire to keep wikipedia a source of factual, well-founded information free of rumor. It seems pretty clear to me from his statements that maybe some people make money off the gear (probably Fox News, the manufacturers of the gear, etc), but not him. To imply otherwise in the article would require a reliable source, as it directly challenges his statements to the contrary. Severoon 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


I searched billoreilly.com for a statement of non-profit or charity statement and found none. I also searched the IRS non-profit and charity database and cold not find any references of his business. I claimed that O'Reilly mass marketing business is for profit which so far seems factually correct. I'd appreciate it if you would research this.
As to O'Reilly 's money earned from billoreilly.com, it's a conflict of interest to use O'Reilly mouth as a source for these figures. Also I noticed that O'Reilly sells his books through that website. Are you claiming that the money made from his books goes to charity? I challenge you to find out what money he earns from mechardising. Is he paid a salary by the merchandising companies, does he get royalties, does he take part of the profit, is it a combination of these factors, or none at all? Good luck. Sysrpl 02:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you possibly could have looked very hard. I googled "oreilly charity site:foxnews.com" and hit I'm feeling lucky and got this (do a page search for charity and you'll go right to the line). Look, I'm not a big O'Reilly fanatic or anything, I just think this article shows a pretty big slant by omitting the philanthropy aspect of his life (wikipedia lists it for George Soros and those of other political persuasions). I think wikipedia runs the risk of being perceived as not giving traditional or right-of-center people a fair shake just because the subject of the article doesn't hold a fireworks show in honor of himself every time he writes a check for a good cause. Also, it's relevant to the article because it gives him a certain moral authority on the issues he raises about charities having responsibility to donors, as his history would seem to demonstrate that his motive is bigger than just getting ratings.
It is true that most of his donations, unlike Soros' for instance, are kept personal, though...so I'm not sure of how a resource such as this ought to handle the issue, hence the original question mark in the title of this section. There probably isn't going to be much in the way of third-party evidence of his giving; I just assumed that it makes sense to take him at his word unless there's a compelling reason not to. It does seem like a significant oversight to me, though, and not very balanced to go down the list of feuds and his holding of charitable organizations accountable to donors with no mention at all that he's interested in charities from both aspects, both holding them accountable and donating his own money to them—the impression of him immediately changes from one of opportunism to concern in light of this knowledge. It would also seem to unnecessarily cast doubt and inject POV if the article referred to his charitable giving as O'Reilly claims... when there is no compelling reason to think otherwise. Can someone more experienced suggest some wordsmithing on this one?
Regarding your questions as to whether he collects a profit on his books...I was discussing the "Factor tchotchke" if you read my reply carefully. The confusion in your question evidently arises from the idea that the term tchotchke includes books—an interpretation I admit that's never occurred to me. I hold books in relatively high regard, which typically prevents me from referring to them as cheap, showy trinkets...but that's just me I guess.
Forgive me for perhaps overstepping my bounds here, but do you think it's conducive to NPOV to comment further on issues concerning this article when you clearly come from a strong negative POV of the subject? (I have a feeling that I am perhaps asking you to exceed your capacity for circumspection on this particular issue in response...) Severoon 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I searched previously and found the same result you quoted, and if you had read my response carefully you would have seen that I was referring to O'Reilly's store as a non-profit organization, which it is not. The point I made originally, and you keep seeming to rebuke is that his tchotchke businesss is most definitely for profit.
Additionally, to claim that O'Reilly receives no benefits and/or money from his mechardising business sourcing only word's from O'Reilly's mouth is a conflict of interest as I stated. Donating some money to charities and running a charitable organization are two different things. If his mechardising business were a charitable organization, then that financial information would be public records, which it is not.
Let's not forget though, that O'Reilly's website is more than just tchotchke mechardising. Check it out and you will see there are ad banners for podcast subscriptions, books, and self promotion. You cannot even see the results of his polls without paying to become a premium member.
The fact that you feel none of this should be mentioned when talking about O'Reilly's dontations to charities, or what percentage of the take goes to charities is inherantly POV. My statements are NOT negative, they are factual and an attempt to present all sides off O'Reilly's philanthropy. I support Bill O'Reilly donations, but it would be remissful to only choose the facts that shed good light on O'Reilly. Sysrpl 23:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


In regards to the companies he says he supports, here is this link. [21] If this entry feels the need to list how much money he makes, it should point out his contributions as well, which would include how much money he donates. If that is not known a simple "Bill O'Reilly states that all the proceeds from his Factor Gear go to charities." And if a link is available, list that as well. In response to "Are you claiming that the money made from his books goes to charity?" I did not see anybody make that claim. Books are not considered "factor gear." If I missed somebody saying that "all the profits from his website store go to charity" then I apologize for missing it.--65.83.137.137 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)G


Ok, allow me to nip this black-hole-I-did-not-mean-to-start in the bud. At no time was I advocating that we set up Mr. O'Reilly in this wikipedia article as one who is running (nor does he claim to run) a not-for-profit business or a charity with his personal website, his Fox News presence, or in any aspect of his life. Rather than have you guessing at what I'm trying to say, Sysrpl, I'll try to reiterate my original meaning in starting this section as concisely and simply as I can.

I feel the article (or the newly created controversies article, depending) ought to address his relationship with charities, both holding them accountable, and for perspective, his personal involvement in terms of donation. The changes made in the post-9/11 Red Cross and other big charities as a result of his scrutiny have been positive (at least as far as the charities themselves are concerned, all said and done). They've also generated quite a bit of controversy, which ought to be added to the controversies page (a George Clooney entry, perhaps). I do not believe I'm coming at this article from the standpoint of wanting to see him painted in a favorable light, nor do I want the article to leave a negative impression either. The fact that he promotes his show by selling mugs and doormats and whatever else I do not personally see as a big strike against his character (who doesn't engage in self-promotion? is that really a character issue? is it relevant to his effect on charities?).

I'm simply suggesting that someone add this relevant and significant info. As he is a highly controversial subject, I do not feel comfortable doing it myself. I don't see the need to put words in my mouth in order to make your point, Sysrpl, as pointed out by 65.83.137.137. Let's try to remember the rules; be civil. Severoon 01:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Right-Wing

If in this article other personalities with which O'Reilly has a beef are refered to as left-wing, should then O'Reilly's be labeled as well? I suggest either we remove references to Olberman and Franken as left-wing, or we be fair and also apply a label to O'Reilly. Sysrpl 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the need for a one-word label when there's an entire section detailing his political beliefs and point of view? My opinion on this is that one should not be objectively labelled something other than what they claim for themselves unless there is a compelling reason to do so (not to invoke Godwin's Law :-)...but the example comes to mind—it would be fine to override a label if the self-assigned label were totally unsupportable, such as Hitler describing himself to be a pacifist). However, in this case, O'Reilly calls himself an independent, and the article shows he does not clearly fall into line on every issue with either the Republicans or the Democrats. What does he believe deep in his heart? I don't know—we can't read minds, so we should stick to the facts as the article currently does.
To sum up, Reagan was a Republican because he claimed it for himself and his actions and stated beliefs accorded well with that label. Clinton was a Democrat for reasons the same. How ought we refer to Bill O'Reilly in this context? Severoon 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Just say what Bill O"Reilly says and does. Left/right labels can only be established after all that has been stated anyway, but they frequently are used in place of actual information. In other words, we don't need left/right labeling. It only comes in handy when you want to make a group generalization (e.g. "leftist media"), but even there it is usually so vague as to be near-useless.
It seems reasonable to remove the left-wing categorization (note also the newly created Bill O'Reilly controversies). It seems ridiculous to even bother trying to make a scheme of left/right labeling fair (reminds me of Fox News) without going outside the bounds of an article like this. Only make use of general labels when they are necessary to understanding the controversy (e.g. when O'Reilly speaks of a leftist media). When in doubt, loose the jargon and keep the facts. --Vector4F 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly has said that he is, in fact, a "traditionalist". Now, who else has he called a traditionalist? Bush and Dobson - "traditional leaders". So what are we to infer from that?

  • Removed "right-wing" label from description of O'Reilly at beginning of article. His views are adequately described in the article and readers can make up their own minds as to whether or not he's right wing. --JChap 02:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

When is it time to call a spade a spade? When does point of view and move from opinion to fact? I honestly can't believe that anyone with a modicum of independant capable thought and a passing familiarity with Bill doesn't realize he represents the conservative agenda. Just because Bill denies he is conservative, it does not make it so. To fail to call him a conservative is a attempt to fool the public, which is akin to lying. This litany of evidence, from Bill's mouth, is proof of his conservatism.

  • Confirming he will never confront the right[22]
  • Lies about never using personal attacks, following by many examples of him personally attacking people on the left[23]
  • His most famous attack on someone from the left[24]
  • An example of him defending the right in what should be an indefensible action (goes to show how far-right he is)[25]
  • If Bill lied about this, then why believe his lies that he is not a conservative?[26]

Sysrpl 08:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

why dont you listen to Limbaugh for a while? Limbaugh is further to the right than O'Reilly and hes still mainstream. You have to remember there are both economic and social dimensions to political affiliations and most people would agree that Bill OReilly leans conservative on social issues, but not far right. Almost no one would agree that he is an economic conservative. He's solidly centrist on economic issues.Mrdthree 15:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'd rather listen to a female cat in heat. Seriously though, Bill's TV show is a on a news network and thus he must make an attempt to follow some kind of news format. Limbaugh, on the other hand, runs his own show, can do whatever he wants, and doesn't have work with news producers. That difference is reflected in Bill's Radio Factor program where he says things like, "Howard Dean; the biggest coward in the country, bar none, number one on the hit parade", "I don't have any respect for the Iraqi people by and large. I think they are a prehistoric group", and "John Kerry is a sissy". On his O'Reily Factor program, he leaves those kinds on comments to his regular guests like Ann Coulter. Of her many appearances on that show, he has never used his no-spin rule to pull her reins. Describing Bill as not being as far right as Limbaugh isn't really much of a defense. They're both really out there, and it doesn't make much of a difference who leads the pack in which they run. Sysrpl 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade? According to whom? You and your comrades? This is definitely against NPOV policy of this site. If you think BO is far right. Fine. Don't force your POV on ohters. Vapour

I think he is far-right, but don't refer to him as far right-wing in the article. I do however support calling him a right-wing commentator, because that is exactly what he is. O'Reilly is an advocate for the right wing and this is fact as supported by the links I posted above. Sysrpl 00:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"*Confirming he will never confront the right." The video cited did not "confirm" anything. O'Reilly was stating that TraToss' do not have the mainstream acknowledgment the far left does so they are irrelevant. This is probably the case because Bush is in office and the far right are more placated. When Clinton was in office it was the other way around. One could make the argument that O'Reilly never focused on them that much at the time but his Fox News show was fairly new and was only getting popular toward the end of Clinton's run. It might be interesting to see what O'Reilly was talking about his first few years on Fox.

As for labeling him a far-right conservative, that would still be POV. I believe he is more sympathetic with conservatism overall but as long as he claims to be independent, whether you think he is full of it or not, it is better to not use labels. MrMurph101 03:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But the far-right has plenty of high profile activists, it's just that Bill's defenition of right extremists is so titled that it exlcudes just about everyone, which is further proof of Bill's conservatism. To him only people like Nazi Germany and David Duke are too far right. Meanwhile he calls Howard Dean, the leader of the democratic party, "The number one coward in America" and the ACLU "The most dangerous organization in the United States of America right now". Slanted? I'd say so! Later Bill, lauds praises on his regular guest Ann Coulter, who on her off time says extreme right and insulting things such as "There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats" and "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact". How about taking on Billy Graham who directs his people to pray for the deaths of freely elected leaders? Nope, not extreme enough. Yes, Bill does not admit to being a conservative, but saying what you are does not make it a fact. You don't have to call yourself something to be something. Hitler never declare himself dictator, but that didn't stop the rational rest of the world from labeling him as one. Tell me why is it that overwhelmingly Republicans like Bill and the Democrats dislike him? Oh, and let's not forget Bill's registered as a Republican. Gentlemen, it is time to call a spade a spade. Bill advocates the right, he is a conservative. Sysrpl 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement, "How about taking on Billy Graham who directs his people to pray for the deaths of freely elected leaders? Nope, not extreme enough," is pure libel against Billy Graham. Billy Graham is a man of peace.[27] What you are refering to is Pat Robertson's "prayer project" against Supreme Court judges.[28]Dcflyer 05:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
And I will repeat what Vapour wrote, because it is worth repeating: "Calling a spade a spade? According to whom? You and your comrades? This is definitely against NPOV policy of this site. If you think BO is far right. Fine. Don't force your POV on ohters." -- Dcflyer 05:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Me and my comrades? Is that a thinly veiled attempt to label me a communist? Please, let's not resort to school yard tactics. I know Bill refuses to admit he is a Republican (even though his voter registration shows otherwise [29]), and I have stated Bill represents the far-right. I don't advocate that exact terminology in the article, but you need to realize that when we describe things like a public figure, it is sometimes useful to use labels like religious, secular, conservative, and liberal. For instance, when describing a figure that governs a nation by seizing power, and then abolishes the institutions which threaten his control, we could use the term dictator to describe him. This person may refuse to label himself a dictator, but the definition of who you are is not decided by the individual, but by society. In other words, a person is not how they describe themselves, he is what his words and actions make him. Sysrpl 08:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, the source you cite states that while he was, he is not currently a Republican. Lawyer2b 12:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Do Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch Control O'Reilly's Spin Content?

Article has no discussion of either Rupert Murdoch's or Roger Ailes' influence on the spin and subject matter O'Reilly rants about. Are O'Reilly's rant subjects purely ratings driven a-la the 'missing white women' syndrome, or is their an ideological content coming from Ailes and or Murdoch? And, for that matter, are they all in bed with Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove?

Salary

Does anyone know this gentleman's compensation from any of his employers?

--66.81.192.82 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The O'Reilly Refactor

The sentence below (yes, it is a single sentence, although not a properly formed one) shows the problem caused by lots of people adding qualifications to a statement without refactoring the prose:

Some of O'Reilly's more liberal viewpoints include his mild criticism of free-market economics in the oil industry and support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and perhaps his support for civil unions, however he has not taken a clear position on this issue, and supported James Dobson's push to stop the Rhode Island legislature from legalizing civil unions in 2006 (he supports voter-decided marriage definitions whether homosexual, polyamory, etc (however, O'Reilly is inconsistent with his openess to redefining marriage and falsely criticized Sweden for legalizing same-sex marriage when in reality they only legalized civil unions[30]), and his opposition to capital punishment (although some say he has been inconsistent [1]).

This gave me a chuckle, so I had to point it out. (I didn't refactor it yet...but I will if nobody else does soon.) —Doug Bell talkcontrib 11:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. It's probably good advice for encyclopedia writers to stay away from parentheses altogether. They're more often abused than used correctly. Rhobite 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This is known as "Weasel Words". There is generally no need for fact based encyclopedias to need words like "although", "however", "but", etc. Simple sentences that state facts are much preferred.--Tbeatty 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a avid fan of Wikipedia, and after reading many well-written and well-cited sources, I am extremely disappointed with the quality of this article. As a reader wishing to simply discover the facts about Mr. O'Reilly, I was astounded by the level of incoherentess to which this article has been degraded. This article seems like a battle ground between POV forces, using Weasel Words as well as inappropriate use of "Citation Needed" to either degrade or suppress facts. Wikipedia is not the place for this type of writing; readers can simply read their newspaper's Op-Ed section for this content. Wikipedia simply requires the statement of facts in a coherent and unbiased manner, and although these standards are realistically unachieveable, this article does not attempt to provide A neutral feel. I am not so much disappointed with Wikipedia as I am with those who have decided to abuse Wikipedia and the right to information that it provides.--Conchuir 09:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly's political views

O'Reilly is a conservative, no doubt about it (I am, too). But he has said before that he is against the death penalty. Wouldn't this count as one of his rare non-right wing views? He's also good friends (professionally, at least) with Ed Asner, a self-avowed Socialist.

BTW, even Dubya acknowledges global warming is a fact. There is no scientific consensus as to its cause, or to the dangers it will bring, and Bush hasn't weighed in with a strong opinion in these areas. Acknowledging global warming has occurred over the last three decades is hardly a liberal POV. Lots of other conservatives have done the same. -- Gerkinstock 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


After Katrina, O'Reilly realized that everyone should own a firearm. On the radio, and on his show, he advised everyone to buy a rifle to defend themselves after a major catastrophe. He has changed his mind 180 degrees on gun control.

Locking / Restricting Page

Watching this article on my own Watchlist, it seems that O'Reilly is having nearly constant revisions having to be done due to various IPs and possibly users adding POV statements into the introduction that do not add anything to the article, labeling him an idiot and changing some descriptions. I am wondering, does this page need to have some restrictions on editing to stop all of this constant changing?

Chris 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Falsehoods from Mediamatters.org

I went to the Mediamatters.org website and I couldn't find the publication from which that section quotes. Can someone find it and post a link directly to it? Lawyer2b 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new format for Political View section

I would like to suggest that the section discussing O'Reilly's political views be organized. I have created a page and edited it, putting it into a more organized format. It's certainly not in finished form and is open to editing/feedback. Please see O'Reilly Political View Section Format and let me know your opinion. Thanks. Lawyer2b 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody reverted my big change to the O'Reilly political view section and, in fact, have been editing it, you're all welcome.  :-P Lawyer2b 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Its a good template for other controversies.Mrdthree 21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

removed "generally regarded as conservative"

Needs reference or POV - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A mess

This article is a mess - should all this stuff be in an encylopedia? So much of it is not NPOV, or just plain odd... EAi 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur and edit as per EAi Some of this stuff just isn't encyclopedia worthy. DolphinCompSci 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Ancestry I read somewhere that O'Reilly is half Italian by ancestry.

Border Citation

I removed the request for a citation on O'Reilly's stance on U.S. border control; he has stated inumerous times on his show that he favors a closed border via military forces (rather than a physical wall), and I believe it has been on his Talking Points Memo at times on his website as well.

Evidence that implies hes conservative

THis section needs to be re-titled or re written, otherwise it faces deletion as being original research.Mrdthree 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I created the title when I the re-did the entire section format awhile ago. When I changed the format I didn't want to delete anything from that section (lest I be accused of trying to bias it through reformatting) and I came up with the name after seeing all that stuff listed and saying to myself "these really don't state or prove what his views are." I have absolutely no problem with it either being retitled or deleted entirely. Some of the things in that "evidence" section, if noteworthy, may be appropriate for other sections of his entry, though. Lawyer2b 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You could do a second section like pro-Republican vs. pro-Democrat stands O'Reilly has taken on issues. It seems to me alot of the stuff in the paragraph is about how he helps republicans more.Mrdthree 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, as per WP:NPOV. The contents of the section implicates he is conservative, something Wikipedia does not do. Implications are left off-site. Facts are included here. This section should be deleted - WP does not imply anything anywhere else. This article should be no different. --Mrmiscellanious 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the section should be retitled endorsements by partisan groups or partisan statements by Bill Oreilly, or some clever mix of both like Partisan learnings and political endorsements or some such. Then it is statements of fact, rather than a call to infer bill oreilly's politics.Mrdthree 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This section is necessary but it is a tough thing to present in a NPOV context. The template is great and keeps POV edits contained. There is still need for improvement but it is a step in the right direction. Since O'Reilly has claimed many times that his is an independent, it would be interesting to have a section that shows which of his opinions are Democratic talking points and those that are Republican. It may be a good alternative to the "implied" section. MrMurph101 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible that Ignore all Rules may apply here. MrMurph101 03:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I'd agree with you if there were sections of examples that some of his viewpoints were liberal, some conservative, some libertarian, etc. But implications should be left off here at all times. --Mrmiscellanious 19:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Mrmiscellanious, I think you have a very good point regarding "implications". They probably don't have a place in wikipedia. However, your last edit removed a bunch of stuff at least a couple of things of which I think should be included somewhere, e.g. O'Reilly's voter registration. It is at least, an interesting set of events. "What say you?"  :-) Lawyer2b 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that simply retitling the sections as "Liberal Views", "Moderate Views", and "Conservative Views" would solve the POV problem since while whether a view is conservative, moderate or liberal or not is a matter of perspective, as long as a consensus can be reached it should be okay. In addition, these titles simply state the facts, with as little bias as possible. Bwabes 02:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think overall Oreilly is center-right. I think gay marriage is liberal, I think dont ask dont tell is moderate.Mrdthree 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit

Deleted the sentence "O'Reilly went on to receive his master's degree from Boston University's college of communications." as this information is repeated later in the article.

Evidence for conservative, liberal, moderate Arguments

I claim that voter decided definitions of marriage is a liberal position. I think it is opposed by most conservatives and moderates. I think that people who erase this or rhetoricize that marriage is a 'human right' are simply trying to pigeonhole BIll Oreilly as a conservative. Rush Limbaugh is conservative. Bill Oreilly is center right.Mrdthree 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC) I also thnk that the dont ask dont tell military policy is moderate, not conservative. The question is not can gays serve in teh military-- that happens now. Citing a poll where 60% of americans favor that is false. I agree that banning gays from the military is a conservative view. But the question was not about banning gays from the military, rathter it was about the moderate position of 'dont ask dont tell' which bans gays from opnely serving in the military.Mrdthree 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed this section of the article. It seems unlikely that we will attain consensus on which positions are conservative, moderate and liberal. We could edit this section to include O'Reilly's characterization of himself along the political spectrum and how various noted liberals, moderates and conservatives charatcterize him. We could then discuss his positions without labelling them liberal, moderate or conservative. --JChap 00:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think consensus can easily be reached if we try. I am sure that a consensus can be reached on what is liberal and what is conservative on a 5 point scale or something. It is deciding where teh center is that is difficult. But we can agree on methods. For instance we can assume that the Republican party is right wing with a right-center platform and the Democratic party is left wing with a left-center platform. Then research the platforms what is in common is moderate. Or suggestion 2 assume moderate means the central tendency of voters and what is popular vis-avis polling data. Mrdthree 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm less optimistic. There are numerous reverts on the section. On some of these issues it is not entirely clear to me what the conservative or liberal position is. For example, on gay marriage is the conservative position a federal ban (favored by social conservatives) or leaving it up to the states (which would be favored by those who support states' rights)? --JChap 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if you cast a net and reel in 90% of conservatives and 5% liberals or moderates its a conservative view. Sometimes you have to choose to participate in a system because you think its useful and you try to ask more general questions that can be clearly classified. I like the system of pigeonholing issues into conventional political stands. Most people either use consensus politics or have learned how to map consensus politics onto their own political views.Mrdthree 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Any evidence O'Reilly does this? He claims not to. My concern is that this is becoming more about an argument between the editors and less about writing an informative piece for the readers. The O'Reilly Factor article has a good summary of his political philosophy that is more complex than just a bulletpointed list. (And no, this isn't self-promotion, as I did not write it!) --JChap 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
its a damn fine piece of writing. but to me I add it up and it comes out center right, I guess you might want a measure of variability as well as central tendency-- he has far right views he has some left views vis a vis green stuff.Mrdthree 05:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
A social conservative would favor a constitutional amendment.Mrdthree 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if we could establish consensus on these issues, just having a bulletpoint list of the man's ideas under simplistic labels is not really as useful to our readers. We should discuss his views fully and leave it to the reader to determine which views are liberal conservative or moderate. --JChap 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In the case of Bill O'Reilly I think this started because he is accused of being far right when he is really just center right and a loud bully.Mrdthree 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
His trade position could be characterized as either liberal (like Pelosi) or far-right (like Buchanan and LaRouche). I think he adopts it because he sees himself as a populist. Its tough to see how this position makes him more liberal and pulls him away from the far-right. --JChap 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
THats why its important to look at all his views. For what I mean when I classify things as right left, etc. check out this site if you havent already. I think he would end up 'center-right'. oviously this quiz isnt exhaustivr, but it gives you a better definition.
Neat quiz. But I still reject the concept that the best way to understand someone's political philosophy is to score them on some chart. Happy editing! --JChap 05:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I favor keeping the current system and simply debating what is liberal, moderate and conservative. Most only require common sense. The fact of the matter is that liberals do not support voter decided definitions of marriage, because liberals believe no one's rights should be decided by voters. Period. That's a very widespread belief and as simple as saying conservatives believe in "tax cuts". You can call it a "moderate" viewpoint if you want, since conservatives would rather keep marriage between a man and a woman at all costs, and merely use voting to do so. I don't think it really belongs on the list at all, though. It's simply a strange thing to say. Why don't you simply edit the statement and make it "O'Reilly believes marriage should be a man and a woman" and call that a moderate statement? It's such a strange statement, the idea that that is a political viewpoint. Someone's belief about WHAT marriage should be between (man-woman, same-sex) should be the political viewpoint, not HOW to get there. That's simply odd.--69.249.195.232 01:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please identify yourself. Start an ID so I dont have to worry if you are over the age of 18. Mrdthree 05:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are that young let me explain that it was only in the last five or so years that dictionaries began to change the definition of marriage. The oxford english dictionary cites 1975 as the first year in the english language that the term 'marriage' was used in a published work to refer to a same-sex marriage. Currently the OED defines marriage as: The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony (In small print it includes "The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex"). Now husband is 'A man joined to a woman by marriage' and wife is "A woman joined to a man by marriage". It is a liberal or progressive view to change an established social institution and it is a conservative view to resist changing it.Mrdthree 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Supporting the descisions of voters either way it turns out (either for or against) is NOT a liberal position. I do not know how to make that any more plain. If I were to say in a dispute that the voted will decide one way or another, and that I will support their decision it is not polically slanted. On the other hand if I said I supported the legislation to allow gays to be legally married and it should be cast to a vote, that is different. Bill's statement is that he would support the descision of the voters. Case closed. Sysrpl 05:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
A moderate position is civil unions. A liberal position is redefining marriage. Conservatives would rather eliminate the possibility of gay marriage by constitutional amendment (support for which polls at 50%). In general conservatives dont believe in unlimited democracy, they believe in an immutable set of laws that are inspired or rooted in moral thought. Mrdthree 14:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am putting it in moderate until I get some more time.The statement

He supports voter-decided marriage definitions whether homosexual or polyamory

is obviously a generalization so it may be best to look at the occaisions where he said it and see if the issues are liberal or moderate. Mrdthree 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will say this again, perhaps in a different way. Supporting the idea that if some reason the people are to vote on a new law (however it may turn out, yea or nea), you will support the decision of the voters ... this is neither left, right, or moderate. It is expressing support of our system of government. Until we have a polical party that declares the power to void voting results at their discretion, this is a non-issue. Sysrpl 19:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

we have a disagreement. Compromise is in order. I put it in moderate. According to your reasoning someone cannot disagree with abortion because it is legal. Well plenty of people, including Bill Oreilly are against Abortion. Even though it is legal! Now Bill Oreilly could have said I would oppose gay marriage EVEN if it were legal. THat would be different than his current position that he essentially will follow the will of the majority.Mrdthree 02:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly stance is that he would support the decisions of the people in this matter after it is put to a vote. When you do not know the outcome of the vote, it is neither, left, nor right, nor moderate. For example, if the vote was majority no, Bill could then say, "The people have spoken by refusing to pass law X and have declined to allow gays the rights to marry" and thus Bill would be against gay marriage. If you read carefully what Bill saying it's that he supports the Populist view, a support of the voice of the people. It is an example of the Populist postition O'Reilly claims to be coming from, and one that he states (actually referenced in the first paragraph of that section of the article) does NOT fall into any political category. Now, I said "not know the outcome of the vote" earlier ... if you know of a specific law that was passed by the people regarding a definition of marriage, and can reference a quote from Bill where he said he supports that particular law, then you can throw it into a political column, otherwise like I have said it is neither a left, a right, or a moderate stance. If not I say this specific issue be dropped from the left, right, and moderate columns, though perhaps it could be added somewhere else in the article to support O'Reilly's Populist claims. Sysrpl 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the | text from the advocate interview on 9-22-2002:
"Look, I couldn't care less, to tell you the truth," he says eventually of same­sex marriage. "You want to get mar­ried? Knock yourself out. Go to Vegas; have a good time." Really? He wouldn't oppose gay mar­riage if it were legal? "If you can get that changed, I'm not going to jump up and down and say I think it's wrong, because I don't," O'Reilly says. "I think it's [a] foolish [issue] because I don't think you guys should be telling any­body what you do anyway." And so we return to square one: Why would any­one come out in the first place?".Mrdthree 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
In that same article right above the paragraph you quoted it also says Bill flatly opposes same-sex marriage on legal grounds and social grounds. In your quote he says he is "not going to jump up and down" if same-sex marriage legislation was passed. That's hardly a statement of support on the issue. Sysrpl 23:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
On tonight's O'Reilly Factor talking points, Bill came out in support of the constitutional ammendment defining marriage as being between one man and on woman. He went on to add that if same-sex marriage were allowed, that you would also have to allow poligamy, because there would be little to no difference between the two. He also said that people who criticised supporters of same-sex legislation as being anti-gay were far-left extremists. I submit Bill's position on this issue is conservativeSysrpl 00:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
If he said he supports an amendment then I agree it is a conservative position.Mrdthree 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I can find no evidence he said he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In fact all the published evidence points to the contrary.

For captial offences, sometimes arguing in favor of the death penalty and other times arguing for time served using hard labor is not a liberal position. Hard labor is a tough stance on crime and it could be argued it's very conservative at that. I moved the crime bullet point to moderate as a compromise. Sysrpl 01:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your disagreement is with the format. Which may be legitimate its a question of how you define liberal conservative and moderate. I would submit that these are consensus terms and not ideological terms. The death peanlty polls at 65% pro and 28% against and 7% unsure. Mrdthree 14:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As regards his reasons for being against the death penalty, Media Matters states: On November 1, 2004, he said on Westwood One's The Radio Factor that "I'm against the death penalty for two reasons: No. 1, I don't think the state should be executing anybody; and No. 2, I don't think ... it deters." Mrdthree 14:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrdthree, please do not edit out relevant facts, then later come back to the same item and move it because such facts were edited out. On 04:40, 8 June 2006 you removed the line that Bill has many time stated hard labor is a better crime deterent than other forms of sentencing like life in prison or the death penaly. You also left a nonsensical comment for that edit. On 13:59, 8 June 2006 you took the line you edited earlier, minus the facts, and moved them it into a different column.
Now to the issue of the deterring crime. Bill has sometimes states he opposes of the death penalty, and at other times he is in support of it as verfied by references. He has stated many time that hard labor would be a better crime deterrent than those other forms of punishment. This is a conjoined fact, and removing it is leaves a half truth. As I said in my above prior talk, hard labor is a tough stance on handling crime. Sysrpl 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I editted it out because I felt that there were other changes made that were legitimate and I want to make sure I didnt revert those before correcting the inaccurate posting. Mrdthree 20:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You cant seriously doubt that he has an anti-death penalty position, especially since even media matters acknowledges it (this is the same case currently cited in the article) [31]. It is however important to point out his inconsistancies (which is what the article does-- I even think I added the inconsitency). As for his death penalty views you are trying to claim they are linked to his views on hard labor. My sense of his death penalty position is that he is against the death penalty because he is Catholic (or at least for the reasons given in the popes opinion). In which case I dont see what hard labor has to do with it.Mrdthree 14:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill has stated that he doesn't believe the death penalty is approriate because it doesn't serve as a good deterrent. As for him not believing in killing people for crimes, just read here [32] [33] where he laments people that don't support putting people to death. How about when Bill advocates hanging here [34]? There goes your he doesn't believe in the morality of the death penaly argument. As to my point about Bill believing the death penality is not harsh enough, how about this quote "I don't believe in the death penalty, but I don't think what we have now is enough. When you kill a human being you should be forced to work for the rest of your life in a harsh environment." [35] You may also want to read this wikipedia article on penal labor. Sysrpl 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The above is more than enough evidence to support that Bill's position on the matter of the death penalty is not liberal. Like I said before, I think his view could be considered conservative. Therefore I moved the bullet point to moderate as a compromise. Sysrpl 00:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Your two citations, [36] and [37], are the same case on 3/15/05-- they refer to a cop killer and a District attorney in atlanta. Thecomment about hanging george soros is not serious[38] (george soros is a famous financier) just as the full body cavity search of cohost lis weihl was not serious [39]. Media matters is run by sensitive people. The point is that he has a policy of being against the death penalty. It should be respected since media matters has only 1 exception to this policy and catalogues everything oreilly says Mrdthree 04:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Resources for determing moderate issues

list of all polls in last 3 years. Comprehensive good to identify bipartisan issues, populist issues
partisan site with gallup poll results from 2000 on the 'issues' populist positions.
pew poll from 2004 on the issues (small list though)
should define some left, left-center issues
should identify some right, right-center issues
Democratic Leadership Council identifies center, center-left issues[40]
Its My Party too is a republican moderate group led by Christine Todd Whitman, useful for center, center-right issues.

Republican Main Street Partnership is a moderate Republican group should identify center, center-right issues Mrdthree 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Bill Clinton State of Union Address 1996[41]:

We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.

I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. Our goal must be to enable all our people to make the most of their own lives -- with stronger families, more educational opportunity, economic security, safer streets, a cleaner environment in a safer world.

DLC generally talks down big government "5. We won't let government spending go up faster than your paycheck does.Bush has abandoned the ethic of fiscal integrity and brought the era of big government back."[42]

Size of government [43] 15. Generally speaking, would you say you favor (smaller government with fewer services), or (larger government with more services)?

Smaller govt........Larger govt.............No
fewer services......more services...........opinion

6/20/04...................50............46...................4

11/4/02 LV............61 ............34.................. 5

11/3/02 LV............60............ 34 .................. 5

11/2/02 LV............62 ............ 34 .................. 3

7/15/02 ................53 ........ 42 ................... 6 Mrdthree 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The rally cry against big government has long been a staple of conservatism. Though it is not easily accomplish does not remove it from the conservative sphere. You must instead rely on the sweeping of history of the republican party's rhetoric, as compared to the democratic party, to draw your corollary conclusions. In that regards I'm sure you'll find the social repertoire of conservatism opposes the interests of big government. Sysrpl 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also want to see policy on drug companies writing medication legislation for the conservatives, and energy companies doing the same. Conservatives arguing against federal banking requirements, and taking social security into privatization. You can alos look at the goverment power company supervision the conservatives oppossed and pushed for deregulation.

"In fact, when I was fighting Enron and the other energy companies, these same companies were sitting down with Vice President Cheney to draft a national energy strategy"

Sysrpl 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If your point above is that conservatives can have liberal viewpoints, I agree. My point is that we need an objective measure of what is conservative, liberal, or moderate. Centrist is a provable term, and relates to the central tendency of the population. THe polling tends to agree with intuition about liberal and conservative, showing that conservative and liberal issues are not favored by a majority. Social security privatization has variable polling-- there is a majority in favor of partial privatization and a majority against eliminating social security.Mrdthree 01:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I take it back. There are a few polls showing a small majority (an NBC poll) but more consistently there is a majority against partial privatization (CBS, ABC, CNN, etc.)[44]

Joseph Lieberman Edit

Why was the entry on Lieberman removed? Lieberman is widely regarded as a centrist in the party, and O'Reilly attacked him during the primary campaign in 2003 as a secular, quasi-socialist who had an "immoral" tax plan.

Views on political extremists

I do not believe this section contributes much to understanding O'Reilly, but is merely a seratim list of people he allegedly views as "far-right" or "far-left." Except for the Ayn Rand Institute, the people he views as far-right are universally regarded as such. We might as well say "O'Reilly believes in gravity. The list of people he regards on the far-left is missing cites. Some of the cites that are included do not support the proposition that O'Reilly thinks they are far-right. I will go through the list and remove those names without citation.

Generally, even if we are left with some names on the list, I do not know that this contributes all that much to an understanding of O'Reilly. --JChap 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

the only citation that had confusion is the Ayn Rand institute. It didnt say strictly he considered tehm far right, but close enough. He has said it on his show tons of times. He also considers Michael Savage far right, but has a policy of not speaking his name so it must be inferred (like Al Franken). Mrdthree 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that Al Franken was ever called a far left extremist by Bill Oreilly. Maybe smear merchant but thats not the same.Mrdthree 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I've got to agree with you on Franken. You restored deletes on his regarding the Nazis, et al. as far-right. This is something everybody believes. As I said above, it's a bit like saying the man believes in gravity. Happy editing. --JChap 22:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Some people believe nazis are as much left as right (socialist authoritarians). He called air america far left so I'll retract what I said about franken.Mrdthree 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre

Added new section on the second time O'Reilly has claimed that American soldiers were responsible for the mass murder at the Malmedy massacre. The claim is false and disgustingly paints the murdered American soldiers as war criminals. Also, note that FOX News has editied the witten transcripts for the interview replacing the words "Malmedy" with "Normandy", even though in the video transcripts show he was unmistakable referencing Malmedy. References for both the first and second claims should be online shortly. Also since the original newsite is editing the written transcript, what is the policy for officialy quotations in this matter? Sysrpl 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something should be added to Malmedy massacre? Fishhead64 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
MOre likely you should move it to the controversies page. Mrdthree 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I added this citation: <ref name="Countdown 2006-06-01 Malmedy">{{cite web | last = Amato | first = John | year = 2006 | url = http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537 | title = Olbermann exposes O'Reilly on Malmedy | work = Crooks and Liars | publisher = John Amato | accessdate = 2006-06-02 }} A summary of a segment by [[Keith Olbermann]] on the TV show [[Countdown with Keith Olbermann]] on [[June 1]], [[2006]]. Also includes a copy of the Countdown segment as [http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReill.mov Quicktime video clip] and [http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-OReilly-Malmedy.wmv Windows Media video clip], plus a [http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/01/olbermannOnOreillyAndWesleyClarkTranscript.html transcript] of the segment.</ref> There is a "See Also" reference to the Bill O'Reilly article in the Malmedy Massacre article, and I think that's sufficient for there. This controversy is really about O'Reilly, not the historical events of Malmedy. --Jdlh | Talk 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)