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

message: Several months ago Rosie and Joy alluded to Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit.  This is what happened next according to Rosie at rosie.com:
Legal filings about Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment lawsuit are here.
Bill O'Reilly has also threatened NBC in an effort to silence and later fire Keith Olbermann for his remarks regarding Bill.
:Are you requesting or suggesting this Rosie feud be placed in the article?  If so, be bold and do so yourself.  But if it is just here for gossip or discussion purposes, I'm afraid it doesn't belong as it goes against the guidelines of WP:TALK. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Bill O'Reilly has become obsessed with Rosie O'Donnell.  He has had five segments this week to Rosie even though The View has not been on since Friday of last week.  On Monday he advised Rosie to stop the personal attack, an obvious reference to the above quote.  Since Rosie posted that message Bill has gone after her like she said.  I think this needs to go in the controversies section.
I am removing HagermanBot's above comment, see WP:ISNOT BATTLEGROUND Elementalos 04:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Given the numerous personal threats to Mr. O'Reillys safety (including the FBI's private meeting with O'Reilly mentioning that was under threat at one point from some terrorists), I think it would be humane to remove the neames of his wife and children from this article. 
–Can his claim of terrorist treats be verified? Or is this simply his ego talking and he is simply trying to make himself seem more important than he really is? Who else is on this so-called list? Cbbs70a 14:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know he was married so that part seems important. It is interesting to me that his wife's last name is not O'Reilly. Timothy Clemans 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The test is whether it is notable, not solely importance.  In addition, the importance of her name, is up for debate.  That being said, if there is no objection in the next few days, I will delete the name of his children per the privacy provisions of WP:BLP. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure I was just to know that he is married and has kids. Timothy Clemans 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would note that he is married, as it affects his positions, particularly on child advocacy, but if she is not noteworthy, her name should not be mentioned. Bytebear 06:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spouse and Children

message: I object to the Colbert's description of his character as a ""well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot."  This description of Colbert's character has no relevance to O'Reilly, except as to backhandedly call O'reilly these names.  Such a characterization violates WP:BLP.  When it comes to BLP, NO information is preferred over non-sourced negative information. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ramsquire: you win.  Looking over your "contributions" and your discussions not only on this article but on several others, I can see that you're a committed conservative idealogue, doing whatever you can to protect and enhance the reputations of famous conservative idealogues, while trying to make it look like you're "only following wiki policy" ("...only following orders" can't be far off for folks like you).  I personally find that reprehensible, and won't spend any more energy fighting you over the trivialities of your hero Bill.--Info999 02:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Deepstratagem 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very disappointed in both Info999 and Deepstratagem's dive right into personal attacks and incivillity. Considering I explain my position, the fact that neither of you wishes to even discuss it without the PA's is very telling.  Good luck to both of you. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem. Amazing how some people think the legitimate political spectrum extends from liberal to moderate, with conservatism being a question of abnormal psychology. It makes no difference whatsoever what articles Ramsquire contributes to, unless there is a pattern of tendentious editing, which is not an accusation to be made lightly. If you're here to stigmatize or injure Bill O'Reilly, then you may have difficulty writing his encyclopedia article from a neutral point of view and fairness of tone. MoodyGroove 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Hybrid: considering the way you addressed Anynobody up there, I'd say a small apology to them is in order ("...you don't deserve to be told...", snippiness, etc.). You were in the wrong, and you came on strong - stronger, in my opinion, than was warranted, even if you had been correct, which you were not.--Info999 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant it as a general statement, which is why I didn't post it underneath anynobody's statement, but if I offended anybody I apologize. 声援 -- The Hybrid 06:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to both of you, Info999 for caring and 声援 -- The Hybrid for apologizing. Personally I hate it when I make an error like that, the only thing worse is somebody giving me a big speech about stuff I already knew because I missed a detail somewhere. Therefore I too must apologize for getting so long winded in my explanation. I'm trying not to offend anyone and it seems to increase the size of my edits. Anynobody 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (P.S. that's not a shot at you Info999, as soon as I posted my last edit it occurred to me that size wasn't the issue I was trying to apologize for but for use of big analogies)Anynobody 08:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe editors here need to keep in mind that because an editor objects to or disagrees with an edit in one form, it does not necessarily mean that said editor wants it gone from the article forever.  Part of the consensus approach at Wiki is objecting, discussion, and then suggesting changes to reach a consensus version of an article.  If editors refuse to assume good faith with each other, and launch right into personal attacks, then that becomes impossible. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. Which is why I never engaged in any kind of personal attack; I simply stated my opinion that Ramsquire's political ideology was influencing the things that he or she took out or left in on several consevative bio articles.  Whether it's correct or not, it's an opinion based on a review of the record, and isn't a personal attack. However, when Ramsquire accused me of attacking him personally (on my talk page), Ramsquire used the term "stupid" to refer to what I did.  Who's engaging in personal attacks?--Info999 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From WP:NPA-- "Comment on content, not on the contributor." ... What Is Considered a Personal Attack? ... "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." (and in this case the attempting affiliation is demonstrably false).  I have made almost 2,500 edits here at Wikipedia over the last two years, and less than 10 percent of those edits have been made here, at Ann Coulter (if you read the actual edits, you won't find a political bias-and I was given an NPOV barnstar for my edits), and at FoxNews (because of two RFC's--again no bias in my edits) combined which I believe is where Info is getting it's FALSE information that I am a "committed conservative idealogue".  Also on your talk page, my sentence reads in its entirety "Your allusions about my ideology is absolutely wrong and stupid in this context." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Ramsquire was referring to what you did, which he was, then he wasn't making a personal attack. If he attacked you as a person, then it would have been, but an editor's actions are fair game. In fact, we have a place for editors to tell people that what they have done sucks ;). Also, reminding someone that they were wrong when they had just said that they get why they were wrong is the kind of thing that really turns people off. It didn't bother me, but some people around here get really huge egos, and it would be best to try not to deflate them. Peace, 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "I did miss the fact that it was a quote." Yeah, because those quote marks are so hard to see. -- Jibal 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Shouldn't there be a new section about his continuing criticism of NBC News? -Amit, 03/05/07
:Be Bold. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NBC News

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.--Stemonitis 14:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom. Part Deux 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
*I beg to differ. I fail to userstand how you classify Bill O'Reilly (commentator) as the the most logical inheritor of the article namespace, and label it as "common sense". Both persons are notable in their own right, own sphere's of excellence which are mutually independent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Speedy close Consensus can change and looking at the previous discussions it looks like this issues needs a healthy dose of outside prospective as it seems that a click of editors have been sitting on this issue for a while. I suggest a WP:RFC. This very much seems like a redux of the Crusaders (rugby) issue. 205.157.110.11 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree there is any similarity between this and Crusaders (rugby). While I didn't vote, I would have supported the Crusaders move since it made sense. The crusades and the crusaders who took part are clearly are more noteable topic then the Crusaders, as good a team as they may be (the Blues are better anyway :-P). The Crusaders team name came from the crusades anyway. On the other hand, these are two people, with no connection to each other. One is a commentator who is perhaps fairly well known in the US. The other is a cricketer who is considered one of the best ever. They are not connected, are equally noteable (indeed I would argue the cricketer is more noteable although not enough to make him the primary) and there is no reason why someone knowing one should know the other. I.E. completely different cases, not at all comparable Nil Einne 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move redux

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom. Part Deux 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nom. Part Deux 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Oppose -- Not again. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
*I beg to differ. I fail to userstand how you classify Bill O'Reilly (commentator) as the the most logical inheritor of the article namespace, and label it as "common sense". Both persons are notable in their own right, own sphere's of excellence which are mutually independent. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose Speedy close Consensus can change and looking at the previous discussions it looks like this issues needs a healthy dose of outside prospective as it seems that a click of editors have been sitting on this issue for a while. I suggest a WP:RFC. This very much seems like a redux of the Crusaders (rugby) issue. 205.157.110.11 13:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree there is any similarity between this and Crusaders (rugby). While I didn't vote, I would have supported the Crusaders move since it made sense. The crusades and the crusaders who took part are clearly are more noteable topic then the Crusaders, as good a team as they may be (the Blues are better anyway :-P). The Crusaders team name came from the crusades anyway. On the other hand, these are two people, with no connection to each other. One is a commentator who is perhaps fairly well known in the US. The other is a cricketer who is considered one of the best ever. They are not connected, are equally noteable (indeed I would argue the cricketer is more noteable although not enough to make him the primary) and there is no reason why someone knowing one should know the other. I.E. completely different cases, not at all comparable Nil Einne 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Apparently some over-enthusiastic O'Reilly haters have vandalized the page again with false information. I move the article be checked for it's neutrality and I will eliminate the offending remarks, of course. 72.198.194.159 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information that you deleted contained the precise dates of broadcasts, and was sourced.  Could you explain why you consider this information to be false? -- Cat Whisperer 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. The information that you deleted was not vandalism.  Please see WP:VANDAL for a definition of what is considered vandalism here at Wikipedia. -- Cat Whisperer 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: In the article it mentions Bill O'Reilly's use of a vibrator.  It doesn't mention what type of vibrator it is.  Vibrators can be any number of things.  I think it should be clarified as a dildo-shaped vibrator so there is no confusion.  Point 66. in the sexaul harassment lawsuit mentions the object and it's use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.212.40.162 (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people know what a vibrator is, it doesn't need to be clarrified.  Arzel 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vibrator 

message: Let the record show that Media Matters has been shown to be accurate by independent sources. They essentially contain videos, audio clips and transcripts of Bill O'Reilly's shows and little or no commentary. Therefore fairness and accuracy is no excuse to omit them as sources when quoting Bill O'Reilly.
For an illustration watch the following video of Keith Olbermann's show, where Bill O'Reilly's smearing of Media Matters is crystal-clear: 
Furthermore, Bill O'Reilly's transcripts on his websites and the FOX News site are frequently "sanitized" to remove and edit embarrassing or contradictory statements. So the most accurate source would be MM; or the actual videos themselves.
Deepstratagem 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deep, I know you don't like O'Reilly and that's all good.  Just a few questions: 
1. Who are these independent sources? 2. Do you think that using a partisan blog site with clips from a person who's competing with O'Reilly and chastises him on a regular basis is the best way to prove a point? That would be like having Ann Coulter using an O'Reilly clip to make a point about Keith Olberman's faults.  Both examples are just fodder for idealogues who have a view of what they want to believe.  
As for Media Matters, I don't have a contention toward them as a "reliable source" but more as a proper source.  They are who they say they are, "monitoring conservative information."  That in itself is fine.  However, it seems similar to an advocacy group which is not considered acceptable on wikipedia.  Just for a little comparison, I edited an article about a subject who was much less notable but notable enough, in my view, to have an article here.  There was a group(which is notable enough to have an article here) that criticized him and their criticisms were put in the article that was cited in a NPOV way.  Well, the subject had a fit about it and requested deletion and a bureaucrat deleted it stating it was an attack page just because the article mentioned what the group criticized him for.  It was worded to let the reader make up their own mind.  There were other issues for the deletion but that's another story.  I asked the bureaucrat what happened and one of things s/he told me that the group mentioned was an "advocacy site" and that "we do not do that here."  I believe Media Matters is used as a source in the same regard.  I put in the mention of BOR's criticism in the MM article but would not have a problem if someone took it out. Someone put O'Reilly's criticism of Bill Moyers in that article and it was taken back out and maybe it should be. 
Ideally, what should be used are "peer reviewed" sources that verify facts about any particular subject.  Partisan sources are easy to come by on the web and use for information but it does compromise the integrity of wikipedia.  We should find good, clean information for all articles, not prove how great or horrible someone or something is.  MrMurph101 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Murph, One independent source is Olbermann; (1) I don't know what the rest are - they are mentioned in the video by Olbermann. Still this is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is that it's hard to argue that a clip of O'Reilly is biased... it IS Bill O'Reilly speaking, so why can't MM be used to cite such a video. My main point was that O'Reilly continues to refer to MM as smear-merchants, when he is the one smearing them. I don't care for Olbermann in the video, I care for the super-imposition of contradictory statements made by O'Reilly illustrated in the video. (2) I don't care for the website the link goes to either... they are the medium. The target video is what is of interest. If I had found the video elsewhere, I would have used a different one instead. Deepstratagem 06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Murph, "peer review" is a reasonable standard for scientific articles. It refers to the process of publiching academic journals. It is meaningless as a standard for biographical articles.--HughGRex 11:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was saying "ideally."  I know realistically that it is not necessary and I guess it is kind of anal to go that far but there is a higher standard for BLP's and that should be taken into account.  I don't think that MM can't be used as long as it is not used authoritatively.  I wouldn't consider MM a credible source just because Olberman says it is and conversely I don't consider MM not a credible source just because O'Reilly says that.  It is a source that's for sure.  I just hear about not using advocacy sources and yet MM fits that description to me.  As for the video, I'm stuck on a dial-up so I don't feel like sitting around waiting for it to download so all I can do is take it for the description stated and that makes for an interesting point in its own right.  MrMurph101 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MM often will splice the video or give a partial example of it. This is the "gotchya" tactic used by partisan media (as opposed to true journalism) today. They used the same tactic in the Outfoxed video by only putting part of what the person said, such as making Carl Cameron seem to be actively be promoting a Bush Administration agenda when in actuality he was quoting a Bush Administration official at the time. Michael Moron, I mean Moore, did the same thing in Fahrenheit 911 and was proven to have done this deception when Fahrenhype 911 came out. Sometimes they are true sure, but the best thing would be to get a source outside MM to collaborate what MM states so we get the whole truth.Arnabdas 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters 

message: Did you know that on his TV show on FOX News and his radio show that IF anyone disagrees with him, he says they drink KOOL AID ? Seen and heard this myself. 205.240.144.220 01:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He implies that "YOU" are a idiot or worse. 205.240.144.220 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: The article on Bill 0'Reilly has been cleaned up a bit (for example it now gives his correct place of birth), however it is still basically an attack upon this man. I should point out that there are very many issues with which I do not agree with Mr 0'Reilly's political opinions (for example his opinion that high oil prices are the fault of oil companies and speculators, or his support for the war on drugs, and so on and so on) - however I do not see that as a good reason for this sort of personal attack (nor do I think a reference work is the place for one)
Either wikipedia is a reference work or it is not. If it is reference work then such attacks should not be part of it.
One might as well allow someone such as Mr O'Reilly (or me for that matter) to write the article on the A.C.L.U. - pointing out (as I would) that it was founded by socialists who were ideologically opposed to the basic principles of the Constitution of the United States and (as is documented by letters from the founder of the organization) only decided to wrap themsleves in the flag as a deception tactic.
A reference article should say things like "born in the year....." "worked in the following jobs....." and so on. Or (for an organization) - "founded in the year ....", "by .....".
For DEBATE ("O'Reilly lied about so and so" - "no he did not, you are quoting out of context" - or whatever) links should be given to general attacks or defences of a man or organization.
Paul Marks.
:Wikipedia does allow you to write an article on the ACLU, but not to fill it with absurd lies.  If your claim weren't a lie, then it belongs in the article, so it's not clear what your point is, other than that you don't understand what an encyclopedia is or what an attack is. -- Jibal 08:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon comment

message: And there you have it, The Simpsons has a feud with Fox News. Fox News and The Simpsons are a part of 20th Century Fox. The cast of The Simpsons are now engaged with a feud with Fox News Channel. Each character made a snipe at Bill O'Reilly or Fox News with some comments directed at the channel. Ludacris, a featured guest on the 400th episode, is pretty much a shot at O'Reilly and Fox News. And Fox being the representatives of both The Simpsons and Fox News Channel, it's seems like a deadlock between them. There were comment relates to O'Reilly digging up infomation on a political opponent (usually a person who is a a member of The Democratic Party or a liberal). The most starling surprise is the characters stated that Fox News was "exposed" as a conservative media outlet. Ashame that The Simpsons can get away with this, without loosing the audience. I am guessing right wing media critics such as Michelle Malkin will get on the blow horn and attack The Simpsons. Seth MacFarlene's televisions shows Family Guy and American Dad also take shots at Fox News. It's a war between the adult cartoons and Fox News. We'll see the feud be brought out in spotlight once it hits the MSM. Note: MSM is mainstream media. LILVOKA 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, this isn't a forum. I see nothing here that is about improving the article. Gdo01 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  That, and it takes two to have a feud.  The Simpsons has a long history of making jokes at the expense of Fox, so for now, it's not worth mentioning.  Oh, there's also a huge amount of original research, there.  171.71.37.103 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Simpsons have a feud with Fox News

message: This paragraph:
The reference link is invalid.  Also, shouldn't there be a counter view of this criticism to make it more NPOV? Jauerback 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a whole section regarding this issue in the BOR criticism article, it probably dosen't need to be repeated here, I am in favor of dropping it completely from this article, along with a better summarization of his criticism. Arzel 22:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Reference Link 

message: Re this sentence:
"While some have claimed that O'Reilly is really only "entertainment", and not "news", and therefore should not be held to a high standard for factual content, O'Reilly has been quoted as saying that Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer and should not be cited for hard facts, whereas O'Reilly is a commentator who opines to a journalistic standard.[26]"
Since there is no longer a reference #26 (I assume it was once there), I can't evaluate the veracity of this statement.  Whatever used to be there, the part "While some have claimed. . ." is weasily and at the very least should be attributed to someone or some group. Also his dig on limbaugh is not needed in this context.  I'm going to remove the short paragraph until it is both sourced and written in a way that doesn't use weasel words. R. Baley 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I the only one who finds it ironic that this article is being held to a higher journalist standard than the subject of the article is usually held to. . . over a comment supposedly from the subject about his journalistic integrity?  I've heard the weasily words like "While some have claimed. . ." uttered many a time by Bill O.  Good job on the integrity of the article, tho. 165.95.12.220 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference link 

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

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

message: Does anyone know why O'Reilly did not serve in Vietnam if he graduated high school in 1967? This is certainly a relevant topic of discussion and should be included in the article. I posted this a few days ago but someone deleted it. --Cbbs70a 22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He opposed the Vietnam war back in the day (although not fervently), but the better reason why he actually didn't go was because he went to Marist College. Arnabdas 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Military Service''' 

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

message: We have two separate articles for this. Why don't we just put a link to them there? I dont understand why his political positions aren't listed while some of his critics are. List both sections completely here or just provide the links to both.Arnabdas 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Critiques from relatively unbiased sources are plentiful, if one is capable of distinguishing between bias and reasoned criticism.  One who thinks that Jimmy Hoffa was a thug and O.J. Simpson is a liar is not "biased", and the same goes for O'Reilly (thug and liar). Sadly, most WP editors seem incapable of understanding this, and their insistence that reasoned criticism is "bias" is itself bias. -- Jibal 08:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing BOR to either seems a little biased to me.  Exactly what is your point?  Arzel 17:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Name-calling is more opinion than either bias or a reasoned criticism.  The difference would be how you would come to the conclusion of that opinion.  A bias would be a less in-depth drawing of a particular conclusion.  However, a "reasoned criticism" would be less likely to use the terms "thug" and "liar." MrMurph101 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the Controversies and Criticism Section 

message: This technology can find our ISP address and see who's computer it is.  It had found that Fox News did some, 'friendly' editing.  Cleaning up O'Reilly's and Fox's for a better image.  Trashing Al Franken and Keith Olberman's.  Exon covered up the oil tracker that crashed.  Isn't this nice? Lovestarvedwriter 03:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this relevant?  And how is it different than any other of the thousands of edits that are bias?   Bytebear 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikipedia Technology: Countdown with Keith Olberman 

message: This is what the intro has to say about O'Reilly's political views/ideology:
Previously a registered Republican, O'Reilly is now a registered independent, Paul Farhi, The Washington Post, The Life of O'Reilly, December 13, 2000. Retrieved May 21, 2007.
and has used several terms to describe his views. In his book Culture Warrior, he identifies himself as a traditionalist and a populist.
Is there anyone here who disagrees that he is a conservative? Is there anyone here who disagrees that he is a neoconservative?
I would add the sentence, "However, most Americans consider him a conservative," but this style is generally avoided in Wikipedia articles. Should I cite a newspaper which calls him conservative? I guess this is a question of how do you state the obvious? Wikipediatoperfection 08:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should avoid subjective labels like liberal/conservative unless the subject self-identifies with the word.  I agree he leans conservative but it would be better just to include what he has said about himself for now. MrMurph101 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we all agree he is a conservative? 

message: I do not have a problem in general about including O'Reilly's issue with the Daily Kos and Olbermann's rebuttal for that matter.  However, it was taken out of the Daily Kos article pending third party sources.  The Olbermann response relied on YouTube which is a copyvio issue.  Media Matters was used here but a more notable third party source might be needed.  MrMurph101 15:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a problem with sources, that can be sorted quite easily (by finding sources and removing unsourced stuff). However, I haven't got a feel of how important this issue is - is it given an undue amount of space in the article. Can I ask how important the issue is in comparison to other events in O'Reilly's life - how much was it picked up in the media, for example. I tagged the section  while this is sorted. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited this quite a bit - I think it's ok now. The only bit I'm worried about is the Nazi/KKK reference, as only Media Matters ever seems to mention it. Is there any other evidence for this? Incidentally, YouTube is a valid source for references, although text sources are greatly preferred. I've removed  (please re-add if you disagree) --h2g2bob (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Another editor contributed after you but I think the way it is now seems reasonable and the Wall St. Journal and Globe and Mail as sources help instead of just solely relying on citing blogs and/or partisan sources. As for the importance it may just be a case of recentism and if so someone will take it out in the future without much issue. I'm not sure about the determination of YouTube as a valid source but that is another issue and I could be wrong. MrMurph101 00:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Kos

message: Per wp:rs, it seems that youtube should not be use. Apart from copyright issues which are real, it has no peer review and just is not appropriate for this project. Can anybody else step in and advise if this isn't so or I am missing something? Thanks! --Tom 14:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyright issues aside, youtube is one of the only reliable transcripts we have. Fox News edits out/does not make available, Bill's more glorious moments. Wikipediatoperfection 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still should not be used as a source. I am not doubting the truth of the material, just that it should not be included per wiki's guidelines. Thanks, --Tom 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is WP:YOUTUBE which links to a subsection of WP:EL stating that youtube and the like is not banned as long as you stay within the guidelines.  Also, it can not be considered a secondary source since it is a medium to view the primary one.  In other words, it is better to find a secondary source to help establish the importance of what is being included. MrMurph101 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is referring to external links which is different from reliable sources. It also notes that linking to youtube in external links has to stay within guidelines "which would be infrequent".--Tom 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a direct replication of a primary source. Since there is no question of it being a fraud or out-of-context (since it showed the entire context) I don't see what the problem is. Eleland 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: youtube as a reliable source

message: What do folks think of using it as a source/reference? The cited article was written by A.I.?? Who is that? Sorry, I am not familar with that site. Thanks, --Tom 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When used along with other sources, or if directly addressed by the subject, I think it's OK (there are 3 other sources to establish notability in this case, including WSJ), especially as MM sometimes is the only place that will keep the media topic (whether sound or video) as a longterm link.  The author of the article, after some poking around, can be found here (link -scroll down a bit, it's the only 'A.I.' listed).  R. Baley 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with R. Baley.  Using MM is fine for verfication and including other secondary sources to establish notabilty is the right way to go.  MrMurph101 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Media Matters as source

message: In the course of pruning the "criticism" section, people have gone a bit too far. There's absolutely no critical discussion of someone who is, after all, the most criticized man on TV. (A sexual harassment controversy is not 'criticism' per se.) This needs to be fixed, or I'm slapping an unbalanced tag on it. Hornplease 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article all about the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly.  I personally think all issues should be addressed there, and only a single "see also" link in this article will suffice.  Otherwise you encourage bloat. Bytebear 00:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the existence of that article. Obviously. It is linked from this one. However, "all issues should be addressed there" is a violation of WP's core policies. I encourage you to reconsider, or I'm afraid a large, nasty tag might appear at the top of the article. That will also encourage bloat! Hornplease 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "critical discussion" do you mean what other people think of him or just anything negative you can throw in there?  I think it may be good to have a section called "Reactions to O'Reilly" or something similar and maybe include things that are both positive and negative, something I think other articles could use also.  Ideally, the examples would be notable and relevant and backed up by third party sources.  However, I do think an unbalanced tag would be illogical based on your own premise.  If he is "the most criticized man on TV," the fact that he is one of the few living person's with an entire article devoted to his criticisms, the balance issue is moot.  MrMurph101 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That last statement is based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We do not strive for balance within the entire encyclopaedia, but within each article with respect to the article's title. The Criticism article is, I am sure, covered with critical remarks on O'Reilly. As long as they are sourced, reflect all notable viewpoints in rough proportion to their notability, OK. The point is that this article is unbalanced. Introduce, if necessary, a more coherent summary of the child article, rather than the current content-free list of names. An alternative: read mainstream coverage of the man in major national sources: what do they believe is the most notable criticism? I do not, obviously, advocate slapping whatever I want in there. Unless these are done, tag it is. Hornplease 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on at least one thing, there does need to be a better summary of the spinoff article.  As to my supposed misunderstanding of NPOV, I consider the spinoff article to be a part of the subject as a whole.  We not only have the criticism spinoff, but one devoted to his opinions, his TV show, and some of his books.  There was enough material about those criticisms to warrant a spinoff article and therefore plenty of discussion of critical material for the entire subject.  I guess it's all a matter of interpretation.  Anyway, if you felt like being bold about editing that section (I know I have some idea), what would you do? MrMurph101 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornplease, before you get too far into your desire to have a "more fair" POV regarding this article (irony intended) you should also remember that this is a WP:BLP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: April Pruning

message: Wasn't there a video of O'Reilly doing an episode of Inside Edition and he suddenly got angry?  Should that be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.190.77 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has a third party reliable source commented in the incident? If you cannot find such a reference, then the answer is no. Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steven Colbert showed and spoofed it on his show, The Colbert Report. This was in turn referenced at www.primetimepolitics.com here . If you see any relevance, now you have a source to use.Aaberg (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (youtube)-Videos are usually not accepted in WP unless they are accomplished by a (written) 3rd hand reliable source (no blogs and forums, etc.). Scripts of a news show may qualify too. If you can provide one or more it may be included. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be mislead; youtube is not the source, just the transport medium.  The primary source is the show itself (Inside Edition), but we can't go introducing it as a primary source as doing so runs afoul of the original research policy.  However, there has been a substantial amount of mainstream coverage in print and broadcast that serves as ample secondary sources to which details of the event may be attributed.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

message: The paragraph in this section about O'Reilly's party registration and the New York Daily News investigation doesn't seem to have a citation. If no citation can be found should it be removed? El Gato Gordo (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should be cited with a  or  tag, so it looks like this.. Bytebear (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this. If sources are provided, can they be posted here and discussed first. As it reads now, it makes BO look like he is lying about this or something, which he might be, but it should be properly sourced and worded. Hasn't this been covered before in detail? Thanks--Tom 19:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a synopsis.  Everything is sourced on the "Politics of" page.Jimintheatl (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe leave it there then. --Tom 13:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe in the critisism article? --Tom 13:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Regarding this sentence: Over the years, O'Reilly has been criticized by or had disputes with numerous public figures including. Can we change that to some to avoid a POV over the number? This has been changed by another editor and myself. Can this be sourced? TIA --Tom 20:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jimintheatl, you have reverted this 4 times, please stop, thank you. Also see . --Tom 21:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of number of folks critical of BOR 

message: On Mr. O'Reilly's recent interview with Barack Obama they talked about a hypothetical game of basketball, and O'Reilly said Obama had the youth advantage because he was 73 (might have misheard 63 but I'm pretty sure it was 73.) Either way, neither of those numbers mesh with the birthdate listed on the page that makes him 59 years old. I'd like to think a person knows his own birthdate, but more precisely I'm confused that there are different figures floating around at all. Is there a for-sure confirmation on this? Jadams2484 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: edit: I found a link to the interview on youtube, I don't know how long it will stay up because of copyright concerns but he does say he is 73 years old. Fast-forward to the 6:12 mark or so, its his last question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rbu5FxD9IUg Jadams2484 (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My take, he was busting Obama's chops. Obama sort of fell for it, being good natured, saying something like. wow, really? I wouldn't have been happy if I was Obama, but he wasn't flustered really. It was silly. His age in the article is probably correct and this is not really worthy of mention, imho, --Tom 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He was using hyperbole, and this is trivial at best. Bytebear (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't characterize what he said as "hyperbole", especially given the fact that Obama asked if he was serious and then complemented O'Reilly.  I also wouldn't characterize a request for verification (one of our most core policies) as "trivial", especially given that the subject gave conflicting information about himself during an interview.  In case you guys missed it, no one ever suggested this as a content addition.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are we discussing it?  Wikipedia is not a blog.  Keep chatter limited to improving the article. Bytebear (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Requests for verification are certainly appropriate and welcome, as is responding to those concerns here.  Dickish move trying to make it seem wrong or otherwise unwelcome.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one ever suggested this as a content addition, then I also ask, why are we discussing it? Can we move on from this non issue? --Tom 14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus, Tom... we're discussing it because someone requested verification after the subject made a conflicting statement.  If you think WP:V requests are "trivial non-issues" then I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with our core policies.  I don't see the request as unreasonable, and the belittling attitude you've taken towards it is absolutely inappropriate.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Notable?  Relevant? Does it add anything?  Who else did he study with, and should we add their names?Jimintheatl (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kalb has his own wiki bio so I added it and appears to be a fairly notable journalist.  It seems worthwhile to me to add and has encyclopedic value by adding to whom educated him in addition to where he's been educated.  Also, if there were notable people he studied with there shouldn't really be a problem including those.  There is already mention that he went to school with Howard Stern (although they most likely never studied together) so should that be addressed to?  Anyone object to these inclusions? MrMurph101 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else support the inclusion of Marvin Kalb?  Does it add anything?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student of Marvin Kalb? 

message: <Anon Editor wished to discuss why some of O'reilly statement concerning the LGBT community was missing from the article> Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Controversy.2C_criticism.2C_and_parody seems to be the best place to put it. Remember, per WP:BLP, material like this needs to be carefully referenced with WP:RS, but if it's as you say, that shouldn't be too difficult. More tricky will be avoiding POV in the way you express it. --Dweller (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this IP user is adding unsourced defamatory info to a talk page of a WP:BLP.  I'll quote, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Asher196 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <replied at Asher's talk page> --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, this isn't a BLP issue -- there is no false accusation, slander, or unverifiable claims.  An editor is expressing his opinion, and as misguided as it may be, there is nothing here worthy of wholly removing his comments from this talk page.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Please move to Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) per consensus reached by majority of participants, including requestor (Dweller), myself (Blaxthos), Ramsquire, Rogerb67, Jimintheatl, and moderate support from MrMurph101.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: On Fox News, O'Reilly said "Over the weekend An American Carol beat the Maher movie."
An American Carol opened Friday in 1,639 theaters, it grossed $3.8 million dollars, which is $2,300 per theater.
Religulous also opened on Friday, but only in 502 theaters, yet it grossed $3.5 million dollars, which is $6,900 per theater, and only $300,000 dollars less, when it was shown in 1,100 fewer theaters.
I'm not sure if this deception is worth noting in this article (or in a different article). The first source I could find on this is http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/, but I think a more neutral one would be in order.--ParisianBlade (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you think so? Seriously; empirical micro could destroy your "deception" in a heartbeat. You might want to check on WP: POV after your first source..Wikiport (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To caveat, I love the attempt to inject that advertisement however, I would have deleted it if I didn't find it so humorous. Wikiport (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Why the Colbert reference was deleted from this article? Is a fact that O'Reilly is the primary inspiration for Colbert.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, lighten up. He only does it for the lulz. 81.159.7.98 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Should this be mentioned in the article when he got angry at the teleprompter because it kept screwing up and he blurted out the f-word on tv? Crazyconan (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It isn't noteworthy. Bytebear (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tj11hd19, you might have posted in the wrong place. As for the meltdown, I don't think that happened on national TV, it was taped and then leaked by someone. I don't think it's really notable. /no sarcasm Belasted (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside Edition meltdown 

message: The photo at the top of the aricle violates NPOV, as very few other people have such a negative picture used to depict them. It should be changed to a better picture or taken down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.248.49 (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is that a negative picture? It certainly isn't the most ideal, but a violation of NPOV?  That's a bit of a stretch.  Nufy8 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stretch is an understatement.  That being said, if the commenter has a suitable public domain picture of the subject he'd like to upload for consideration as a replacement I'm sure we'd be glad to take a look.  ;-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV-Photo 

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

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

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

message: The statement that his show is the "the most-watched program on cable television" should be followed by "in the United States" - unless this can be proven otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.133.213 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Ratings 

message: The second sentence is missing the word 'not' and should read:
O'Reilly has long said that he does not identify with any political party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.170.9 (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political beliefs and public perception (correction) 

message: I believe that, because THIS article is so small, there's no need to split two of the articles. I believe there's a need to split one of them, but not both. So, my question is if we do decide to merge one of them back, which will it be? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you're begging the question.  I think the consensus has been that including a lengthy criticism section in the main article doesn't constitute due weight and a neutral point of view.  Content inclusion in the criticism article is guided by consensus there.  Given that he is such a polarizing figure, there's ample meat for the stew.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do the Political positions article. There isn't undue weight to be found there, as well there shouldn't be. Simply put, the Bill O'Reilly article is not very big, while the two split articles are fairly huge. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, and I'd agree it's a better starting point for such a proposal.  I am interested in hearing others' ideas about (1) the utility of such a merge, and (2) what impact this move will have on the content being merged.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed as such to merging the "politics" article into here.  There may be so much content there that it would overwhelm the biography, but if we'd get a better presentation from merging, then we should do it.  Croctotheface (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsplit an article? 

message: The image has been cleaned up to make him look a little better. Is this policy on Wikipedia nowadays? 82.176.214.123 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point me to the original and the photoshopped versions?  I may be overlooking something obvious, but it seems at this moment the file is the same one it's been for at least a year... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has the picture with this article been photoshopped? 

message: How about a mention about his cameo appearance in "An American Carol"?
24.73.232.50 (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and other media 

message: Shouldn't it be Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? he does more than just politics. Nicholas.tan (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually agree. But given the nature of the subject matter I suspect there was a long, drawn-out debate about where to put the page. Recognizance (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a pretty thorough discussion involving a fair number of editors that can be found in the archives of this page.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title