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

message: The following text—previously found under the Political opinion section—was taken verbatim from  as far as I can tell, so I've removed it. For the future: if/when we do include an enumeration of O'Reilly's political views, we should have references to support each one of them. --Diberri | Talk 14:30, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
:Actually, whoever runs lyingliar.com copied hijacked what we had at Wikipedia for his own purposes.  Take a look at the history of this article since October and it is obvious that we have continually edited O'Reilly "traditional views" over time.  Especially telling is the fact that he forgot to remove the link to Wikipedia's article on October 18!  The guy at lyingliar.com just swiped what we had.  --Rookkey 16:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of copyvio section 

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

message: I think this pageshould be located at Bill O'Reilly and that Bill O'Reilly should be moved to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation) - the cricket player is not as notable, is linked on 4 pages (not including lists and user pages). The talk show host is linked on over 40 articles (again not including lists, user pages and redirects) and is the person most people would be looking for if they entered Bill O'Reilly in a search - we could include a line at the top referring to the cricket player. Trödel|talk 16:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconding this motion. 66.36.144.114 18:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I removed (temporarily) 
A CBC documentary concerning Fox News noted that two years after the start of O'Reilly's boycott, US-France trade had increased.
I think this should be included if we can find a decent reference on it - this is a contested issue and we should at least have an external reference on it. Trödel|talk 12:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference: On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television newsmagazine the fifth estate, broadcast an investigative documentary show entitled, Sticks and Stones.   See also: . "According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in February 2004, the United States imported $2.26 billion in French goods and services, up from $2.18 billion in February 2002." --Viriditas  | Talk 13:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US France trade increased 

message: CNN:
*Quotes from Ward Churchill
*Embattled professor won't back down
*Columbia professors cleared of anti-Semitism	NY Times:
*University President Resigns At Colorado Amid Turmoil
*University Changes Its Focus In Investigation of Professor
ABC News
*Quotes from Ward Churchill
*Univ. of Colo. Probes Claims Against Professor
*University Tries to Trace Indian Ancestry	MSNBC 
*Colo. university responds to attacks on credibility
*Claims of plagiarism, threat stall Churchill buyout
*University prof stands by 9/11 comments
Of course the lack of lead stories from the other networks demonstrates their bias. Symes 01:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churchill on other Networks: 

message: Old Right removed the following from the list of conservative views, "Believes gays and lesbians should stay closeted about their sexual orientation, though he says that he does not feel there is anything wrong with them." Without insisting on its inclusion, I would like more details of why it was removed. I thought that it was basically true. Was it expressed in the wrong words? Was it in the wrong place? Doesn't it merit inclusion? Tim Ivorson 07:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - this should stay in - I have heard him on his radio program say something very close to this. It accurately reflects his view and is an unusual postion to take. Trödel|talk 12:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be in the list of traditionally conservative views, if it is unusual? Tim Ivorson 09:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a good point - there are a few of his views that are not clearly liberal or conservative - e.g. his view on gay marriage - he supports it if it is voted for by "the people" - though he hasn't been clear whether that means by legistlature or by ballot initiative - but opposes it if imposed by courts. In many ways this is a more principaled postion since it can have opposing results in different states. Trödel|talk 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

message: "Harlem rapper Immortal Technique, who isn't signed with any major labels and vows he never will has thrown harsh criticism O' Reilly's way, calling him a racist who tries to be a patriot."
Is this relevant?  This sounds like self-promotion, as do the main site for Immortal Technique and his Wikiquotes site.  As I am not familiar with the genre of music, I don't really know.
:I'm not sure if Immortal Techique's criticism of O'Reilly is notable, but he's had national radio play in the UK and I'm sure that he deserves a mention on Wikipedia. Tim Ivorson 10:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immortal Technique who? 

message: It is truly amazing that so many anecdotes of blatant hypocrisy are described in this article yet not once is the actual word hypocrisy used.  Jeez, we can't even say the sky is blue these days on Wikipedia what with all the neo fascist admins.
In a pointless and futile exercise to correct this distortion, I attempted to add the following trivia, which will no doubt be deemed POV by the NPOV Nazis:
:"Franken has also played clips from O'Reilly's audio book reading of his novel containing graphic scenes of sexual perversion, to illustrate the hypocrisy Franken finds in O'Reilly's criticisms of rap music lyrics."
*To be honest, I think something of what you are saying deserves inclusion in the article. However, I believe that a centered, uninflamatory approach has yet to be taken. Yeago 19:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, no [[Hypocrisy]]? 

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

message: This is just plain stupid.  I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site.  Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense.  If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded.  Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.  
If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game.  In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic.  There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations. -- Plastic Editor</font></sup> 12:26, 3 December 2005
(p.s. - this message repeated below, because it's important.)
:I couldn't agree anymore with you.  Wikipedia has gone to shit and has become a message board with a bunch of nerds trying to impose their views on others.  The idea that wikipedia is somehow "neutral" is a far-fetched illusion.  Almost every article is locked, or has a npov sign posted now. --65.9.101.226 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not POV if it's objectively true. Leaving out facts that are unfavorable to O'Reilly is itself a POV. 68.47.234.131 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  HOLY MOTHER OF ... -- This is an encyclopedia! 

message: *Support.  ral315 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
**Withdrawing request, as apparently the cricketeer is much more well-known than the commentator elsewhere.  ral315 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
***I still support this.  If he were much more well-known, he'd have more than 10 articles linking to him.  Wikipedia's Aussie editors are plentiful (and I lived there this entire last year), so there's no worry of geographical bias, in my mind. Shem(talk) 23:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. I've never (well hardly) heard of Bill O'Reilly the commentator. I sure that there'd be millions of people who know who the cricketer is though. A case of WP:CSB. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *Neutral. I was attracted here by Wikiproject cricket. Although I feel the cricketer is more famous to a wider audience than the commentator, and will have a longer lasting impact, I have no strong opinion on this particular proposed move. -dmmaus 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: I agree that this article has gotten way, way out of control.  Theres certainly something to the fact that O'Reilly has sparred with so many public figures - but that's also his gimmick, and what makes his show so entertaining.  He chastizes a new politician, tv personality or newspaper columnist every single day!  Right now we have a system where as soon as one of them fights back, it ends up as a sub-section in this wikipedia article.
It's simple: if somebody wants to hear about each and every O'Reilly half-truth, they can visit Media Matters or listen to the Al Franken show.
I don't think O'Reilly is much of a calculating liar, he just seems to be one of those people who will pull something out of his a** if the need arises.  Which sucks for wikipedia, because everytime he does that somebody adds it to this entry.  
THE SOLUTION?  What we can all agree on is that O'Reilly has a lot of strained relationships in the media, due in part to his strong political views and arguementative approach to interviewing.  I think we can boil that sentiment down to less than the hundreds of paragraphs currently dedicated to it.
Perhaps a (short) list of *major* disgressions, with a sentence or two for each?  The Glick incident was widely reported and practically the heart of 'Outfoxed', it would surely belong.  The PBS-Buster Bunny incident?  Has it's place elsewhere on wikipedia, and should not take up space in O'Reilly's entry.
I may make a few major edits to this effect.  Even if some of them are reversed, I hope it draws some attention to the clean-up effort.
Plastic_editor 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK - Let's get started on a(n objective) clean-up 

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

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

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

message: This accusation against O'Reilly is alleged to be false. I will remove it to here for now to prevent the use of wikipedia to spread lies any further until we can get to the bottom of this.
:===Regarding His background===
:Bill O'Reilly has long noted his working-class roots as his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls 'the folks'.  He often points to his boyhood home in lower-middle-class Levittown, New York as a credential.  As with most details surrounding the man, this has been the subject of much debate:
:Al Franken, the Washington Post, and others have asserted that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in a more affluent neighboring village, Westbury.  The source the Post used for their assertion was O'Reilly's mother, who at the time a profile of O'Reilly was published in 2000 still lived in O'Reilly's boyhood home. O'Reilly has indicated in interviews since the article was published, notably including his 2004 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, that his mother felt as though she was misinterpreted.
here is a very detailed if biased site on the subject: http://lyingliar.com/lies/oreilly/levittown.htm 
here's a better shot of the deed: http://www.frankenlies.com/levittown.htm 
We probably need a better source to be safe. I really hope that bit about "misinterpreted" was not a knowing reference to this counter evidence (apparently O'Reilly actually displayed the deed on his show at one point). Its tough to do a search with all the clueless blogs out there clogging up google. 71.128.137.211 10:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is counter-evidence to the claim, add it. Do not remove the sourced statements in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am clearly seeking discussion on this issue prior to a final version, but we can do it your way. by the way I've been around in one form or another for months and I'm not going anywhere so learn to deal with my edits and please try harder to assume good faith. 71.128.137.211 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: we aren't required to please all sides, only to stick to verifiable facts. It is a verifiable fact for which there can be found multiple credible sources that state O'Reilly grew up in an area of tract housing built by the Levitt company and called the Westbury section of Levittown, exactly the answer he gave to Franken, for which Franken called him a liar. There is no burden on O'Reilly to give away his mother's address for your personal satisfaction. As for criticizing deletions, look at the article from a month ago when the section was over three paragraphs long and there were actually some arguments and references in O'Reilly's defense. Here is one of them: . 67.124.200.240 12:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The article from the Levittown Tribune that you linked clearly states that O'Reilly grew up in the incorporated Village of Westbury, a functioning political jurisdiction. I think Al Franken is trying to make to imply things about Westbury based on the city he grew up in, but even the local Levittown paper doesn't deny that he grew up in the village of Westbury. And there is a burden on O'Reilly to give away information if it proves his case. If he doesn't want to (and not for my own personal satisfaction either, a cheap shot on your part), that's fine, but that stills means this is in inconclusive. Sure he grew up in Levittown, with a Levittown post office, but he was receiving municipal services from Westbury, which because of a bigger tax base might have been better that Billy Joel's municipal services in Hicksville. I don't know. Calwatch 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ...although it is believed that O'Reilly paid Mackris several million dollars to settle the case (Mackris purchased a New York City condo for $809,000 shortly after the settlement)
71.128.137.211 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westbury vs. Levittown 

message: This claim in the article was positioned to imply it comes from the USA Today reference but it clearly does not. I checked the other relevant sources in the article and don't see anything on the subject: 
:...although it is believed that O'Reilly paid Mackris several million dollars to settle the case (Mackris purchased a New York City condo for $809,000 shortly after the settlement)
71.128.137.211 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified statement removed 

message: I have a lot of issues with the article. It seems to document many of his conservative positions and all of the disputes(which currently are out of place and should be redone in a criticism and Controversy sections) but the article fails to mention any of his libertarian/liberal positions(they do exist) in depth and it only includes four topics. Really, the biggest glaring admission is his views on Iraq and the Mexico-American border. There are many others, and it should be noted that these are just a few topics he covers indepth. Falphin 21:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to a cleanup tag on this article. The article has lots of grammatical errors, some POV issues, and its incorrect in many of its statements. C clean up is more encompassing that a NPOV tag and the cleanup might get rid of all prior vandalism(I have a feeling there is much still in the article). Falphin 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup is good. I think the article, while devoting a bit more space to the controversy than to positives, like his successful book career, is still fundamentally accurate. Some facts could be condensed or be in a separate article, for instance, a separate article on the Andrea Mackris affair with more information would be a start. Calwatch 08:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete Article

message: If we are going to have O'Reilly described as a "traditionalist" in the second paragraph, could someone please go and fill in Traditionalist with whatever that actually means. AlistairMcMillan 02:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill O'Reilly: "Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime." "The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox." . Looks to me like "Traditional" is O'Reilly's weasel word for Conservative, same with "Populist". Funny contradiction there too, First he says Fox is "populist-traditional and pro-American", and then he turns around and says "Fox's audience is across the board". - Mr. Tibbs 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox News is conservative.  To deny that would be as big a lie as to say that the ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are not liberal.  I think "traditional" probably is a euphemism for conservative but "populist" is something different.  O'Reilly generally is quite conservative but after hearing his complaints recently about big oil companies making too much money recently from gouging I'd entertain the argument he's "populist" or even "authoritarian".  Just as with the Michael Moore article, I really believe some kind of political description should be in his header section. -- Lawyer2b 04:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe I wasn't clear.  Traditionalist currently redirects to Tradition.  Unless I'm missing something that doesn't explain what it means if we say Bill O'Reilly is a traditionalist. AlistairMcMillan 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alistair, I agree.  I think having O'Reilly described as Traditionalist and having it link to Tradition doesn't work.  IMHO, If we put the word traditionalist in, it should link to a page that gives it some meaning and until then we should leave it out.   However, I'm not in favor of having people described solely by their own choice of adjective when many would disagree.  If how O'Reilly describes himself, as a moderate is going to be included perhaps something else should be referenced like, "...but many feel he is conservative in his views." -- Lawyer2b 20:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Used this:  as a source. If anyone finds a better source, feel free to replace. - Mr. Tibbs 21:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Traditionalist?

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

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

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

message: I kid you not. "Every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." Derex @ 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly to Al Qaeda ... please blow up San Francisco