Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 6

message: I'm glad we're taking so many steps forward to being transparent by deleting controversy articles over highly controversial people! Na, billo's too perfect. <tommy> (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  YAY 

message: Should O'Reilly's mother's statement that their family lived in Westbury be placed into the article as the sole basis for questioning O'Reilly's assertion that he grew up in Levittown? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I say no.  It seems like a minor minor contraversy with limited circumstantial evidence.  At best it should be on the "contraversies" page.NickCT (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also say no. This was not a headlines grabber a wasn't a notable story to anyone other than the O'Reilly-haters and left-wing blogs. Badmintonhist has made many good points for removal in the above section. Happyme22 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The question as framed here completely misstates the issue.  First of all, he DID grow up in Westbury.  Second, the issue is about whether O'Reilly's dubious statements about his past should have this issue as part of the supporting evidence.  Croctotheface (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may interject here, I think that you've missed the point, Croc. My point was not that O'Reilly's mother was in error when she said that the family home was in Westbury. My point was that living in Westbury doesn't contradict living in Levittown, much like living in the Missouri doesn't contradict living in the Ozarks. Identical locations can have a variety of place name. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Fine, we won't miss you, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yanked the  template, as the request clearly made no attempt to comply with WP:RFC.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Right. Unlike the talk page subtitle: Removal of previously stable and properly sourced content. The capacity of a certain editor for blatant hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please learn the difference between a talk page and an official wikipedia process (which is governed by policy).  Also, please note my objection was a procedural one -- you don't go yanking out years-included content slap in the middle of a heated talkpage discussion about that content.  If you need examples of how to properly construct an RFC check my contributions for RFC's I've submitted over the years.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Right. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the material about what AL Franken says what about what O'Reilly said and what his mother said added to this article a month or so ago? The sub articles usually are ceespools and best avoided. --Tom (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a place name? 

message: Is there ANOTHER Bill O'Reilly article on Wikipedia?  If so, we need a disambig.  If not, then we need to move all the content on this page Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) to plain old Bill O'Reilly. 69.181.220.209 (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is another Bill O'Reilly.  Look at Bill O'Reilly (that you linked).  "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." (disambig).  the "(disambiguation)" tag that you sometimes see in the title is only used when there is a primary topic for the term.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Name 

message: I question the validity of Wikipedia when they decided to delete the article on the criticism of mr. o'reilly. That alone is reason enough for me to NOT donate to Wikipedia. Most of the criticism quoted on that deleted article was VALID, as it had SOURCES. This tells me that somehow Fox News may be involved...is that the case, or you're just afraid of a silly old man?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.143.172 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Article Critical of O'Reilly 

message:  Factsnotlies (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit in question was vandalism. Thank you for calling attention to it, but feel free to be bold in the future. Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest revision was false and said that Bill O'Reilly was a professional liar which is his opinion and does not belong in the article. 

message: We need a more professional picture of O'reilly than the current one of him eating in a cafeteria. I don't know how to find one, so could someone that does find and upload it, or just find it and I'll upload it. Thanks. Ink Falls (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture of O'reilly 

message: As I've said before, I support including basically all of that content, the stuff that was just batted in and out of the article.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from public image article 

message: I believe I've added a sufficient number or citations to the apology section. Sysrpl (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FAIR, Common Dreams, and The American Prospect are not good sources for WP:DUE. The blurb in the AP would warrant a sentence or two probably, but not its own section. Soxwon (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text that you removed was four sentences long; is there really that much of a difference?  Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I objected to it getting its own subsection (not nearly weighty enough) and really I could summarize pretty well in one actually. Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let us handle these disputes separately and in order. Are you denying these quotes and events are fact? If so I believe the four citations I provided should be sufficient: Associate Press, FAIR, The American Prospect, Flak Magazine. Let us resolve the citation issues first before bringing in other disputes with the content. Sysrpl (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm debating is its importance, FAIR, Prospect, and Flak do not give it that. A blurb in AP makes for a sentence maybe two, not its own section. Soxwon (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section is a NPOV problem.  The premise of the section is that BOR is a hypocrite and the sources are being used to prove this to be true.  Now maybe he is but to use mostly biased sources which present the premise to be true you have a NPOV problem.  On top of this it is very much undue weight to be given it's own section as it currently is.  Arzel (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you may want to reword and merge it into an existing section. As far as the sources go, I believe if you leave just the facts (such as the quotes) there isn't much POV to it. That is unless you are contending the quotes are fabricated. Sysrpl (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making that contention so please stop bringing that red herring into this discussion. I simply contended that there weren't many credible sourcing establishing the importance of this incident to the man's life that it warranted its own section. I have trimmed it and re-added in an appropriate section, though it could go in the section below (about his politics) if needed. Soxwon (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I fixed a tense issue (please vs pleased) and some weird quote ... quote ... wordage. Sysrpl (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I have rmved the section that seemed to be deemed irrelevant by consensus save for the usual Blaxthos/Croctotheface cabal. Soxwon (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the discussion?  There was plenty of support for including the section, and even the edits at the time did not remove all the text as you have just done here.  Furthermore, the way you talk about me is just so rude and obnoxious that I'm almost at a loss to respond to it.  It must be easy to believe you're right all the time if you just dismiss people who disagree with you out of hand.  Croctotheface (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appeared the majority (though I know WP:NOTADEMOCRACY is going to be cited), thought that the hometown portion was simply nitpicking. Soxwon (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Revisionist history not based on consensus will be swiftly reverted.  There is no cabal.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently you didn't read the two discussions above on the subject, the concensus was that they should be left out. Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no such "concensus", nor do most others -- if that consensus had been clear, the edit would have been done quite a while ago.  I fear this may be another episode of Don't agree with the results?  Just wait a few weeks and then do what you wanted to do anyway... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: According to my count, in the past two discussions seven editors; Badmintonhist, Bytebear, Arzel, Soxwon, Happme22, Threeafterthree(Tom), and NickCT basically took the side of removing the material about the "debate" over O'Reilly's neighborhood. Four opposed it; Croctotheface, JamesMLane, Jimintheatl and Blaxthos. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After a lengthy discussion upheld a long consensus with which you didn't agree and a failed attempt to start a poisoned WP:RFC, I find it hard to believe that you're now asserting this in seriousness.  It's over, just because the three of you won't stop squawking about it doesn't mean that consensus is in your favor.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Now we're getting revisionist history from you, Blax. At the end of the last discussion the "Where did O'Reilly really grow up" material was moved, without objection from you by the way, from the "Early life" section of the article to the "Political beliefs and public perception" section of the article. That was a modest improvement and one that showed some "movement" away from your presumed  "consensus". However, on reflection, this just isn't enough for an agenda-driven political animal such as myself. I recommend we scrap all of the silly Levittown versus Westbury nonsense for the reasons that I have already admirably delineated. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, you are correct in stating that the discussion ended with an (acceptable) move to a more appropriate section.  The point is, Badmintonhist, that you and Soxwon simply won't accept anything less that complete removal (as you so clearly stated above).  Even though the consensus appeared to be stable, here the two of you come a few weeks later making unilateral edits in defiance of that (and previous) agreement(s), and now are pretending like it's okay to do so.  I have a real problem with editors who, when dissatisfied with a consensus, have a modus operandi of waiting a few weeks and then pretending they didn't hear previous (settled) discussions and just making unilateral edits in defiance of said consensus.  It reeks of agenda driven bad faith editing and shows a complete lack of respect for other editors and any viewpoint other than your own.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where he grew up 

message: I suggest including this incident in the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8
I know that the reporter doesn't hide his dislike of O'Reilly, and that O'Reilly fans might find this provocative. However, I feel that such evident tampering with the truth is an important facet of the man.
Best wishes,
Daniel
09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Daniel.  This incident used to be covered in the article; it was later moved to an article covering all of O'Reilly's controversies.  However, that article was later delete and the content was never merged back into this article (due to the same size guidelines that mandated the split in the first place!), so unfortunately the article is severely deficient in covering Mr. O'Reilly's controversies and criticisms.  I agree with your assertion, and will support any efforts you make to re-incorporate this significant controversy into the article.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

text: This just seems to be mistake in speaking. What he meant to say was that in response to the Malmedy Massacre U.S. troops killed some surrendering troops back, not that they did the killings themselves. Anyways, he obviously wasn't deliberately trying to misinform people about the massacre and later went on to correct himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malmedy massacre controversy 

message: I'm going to remove the line, "....often referring to him as "Tiller the baby killer"."  Anyone who has seen O'Reilly's reports on the Tiller murder can clearly see that he was referencing what OTHER PEOPLE were calling Tiller.  O'Reilly himself at no time addressed Tiller in this way, and he certainly denounced the murder, in any case.  And the two reference links - numbers 37 and 37 - provide no support for this "baby killer" claim.  The article at number 36 makes no reference to either O'Reilly or the "baby killer" comment (in any context).  And the link at number 37 is no good.  Elsquared (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Took me 2 minutes to find and fix the link.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

text: O'Reilly may have at some point referred to other people's characterizations, but he very often used the "baby killer" phrase without any kind of qualifier.  His claim to the contrary is simply untrue.  Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link that supposedy proves O'Reilly specifically called Tiller a baby killer offers no proof at all.  The writer offers no broadcast date for such a comment, no transcript, nothing.  Your claim about "....without any kind of qualifier" is equally weak.  I admit to being a fan of O'Reilly's, but I would be the first to criticize him if the situation warranted.  As a regular viewer, I can state categorically that I never heard him use the baby killer comment "without any kind of qualifier".  I think it only fair to use more than one source - Brian Stelter in the New York Times - to support this claim.  Elsquared (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go look at transcripts from O'Reilly's show.  Here's a video: http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001803/ .  Sometimes he throws in a very quick qualifier like "known as", but you can see multiple times were he does not.  Croctotheface (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes.  The Daily Kos.  The symbol of fair, objective commentary.  I'm not going to watch the video, because I know what's going to happen.  It's going to be a carefully edited video, highlighting O'Reilly's use of the words "baby killer", with little else.  And the Kos commentary will likely make some ridiculous claim like how O'Reilly's comments sponsor terrorism.  Even if O'Reilly had called Tiller a baby killer face-to-face, it's only his opinion, based on his belief that a late-term baby (or fetus, if you prefer) is a valid human life.  And since it's only his opinion, I have no problem.  Leave the Wiki article as is, if you want - O'Reilly did use the phrase "baby killer", I can't argue with that.  But I think your analysis of the context is wrong.  Elsquared (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you demand that other editors bring you sources, then refuse to watch the sources that are provided, then you're not approaching this discussion in good faith, and trying to talk to you is not a useful way for me to spend my time.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am approaching this discussion in good faith.  I require not just a source, but a reputable, reliable one.  The Daily Kos is neither of those things.  Elsquared (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Refusing to so much as look at a source before you make (untrue) assertions of fact about it is not a good faith approach.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen enough commentary in the past from the Daily Kos to make a fair judgement on their credibility.  You may wish to believe their rhetoric without question, but I don't.  As I said previously, I am confident that the Daily Kos website will (1) accuse O'Reilly of something like sponsoring terrorism, and (2) show a carefully edited video that highlights the words "baby killer".  I'll watch the video, but I know what to expect.  If I'm wrong, I will gladly apologize.  But if I'm correct, will you?  If one is to be fair, one must admit the possibility they're wrong.  Elsquared (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It cuts together sequences of baby killer and usually includes the qualifier. Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, Soxwon, that's what I said in the first place.  He usually qualifies it (albeit very quickly and with two words "known as"), but sometimes he does not qualify it. Elsquared said, "O'Reilly himself at no time addressed Tiller in this way," which the video shows is plainly untrue.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see why there should be an argument here. A New York Times article already provides a reliable source for the the "Tiller the baby killer" quotes. The Daily Kos clips of "O'Reilly's program don't have to be used. They do provide his actual words on the show (so would you-tube) for Elsquared's benefit, however using a clearly anti-O'Reilly source in his Wikipedia bio should probably be avoided when possible, just as using a clearly anti-Olbermann source in his Wikipedia bio should probably be avoided when possible. As I said, The New York Times article already provides the required source. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tiller the baby killer" comment removed 

message: There was a paragraph (regarding the cross-filed lawsuits with Andrea Mackris) that was duplicated in both the "Personal life" section and the "Controversy, criticism, and parody" section. It seemed more appropriate for the "Controversy, criticism, and parody" section so I deleted it from the "Personal Life" section.  cheers  Thepm (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated Paragraph 

message: A part of this article reads:
In a 2003 interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio, O'Reilly said:
“ 	I'm not a political guy in the sense that I embrace an ideology. To this day I'm an independent thinker, an independent voter, I'm a registered independent... there are certain fundamental things that this country was founded upon that I respect and don't want changed. That separates me from the secularists who want a complete overhaul of how the country is run.[10]
Would it be a good idea to mention that America was founded as a Secular Republic?  Chairmaneoin (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean in the article on O'Reilly, Chairmaneoin, no, it would not be a good idea. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some sources, it would make an excellent addition to America's page. Let me and Badmintonhist know how it turns out 129.133.206.180 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secularism 

message: Please remove "dumbass" near the beginning of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.44.247 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dumbass comment 

message: Bill O'Reilly is one of the most controversial figures in the public eye, we all know this. There are sources everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE on the internet for his ill-behavior and frowned-upon beliefs and personality. You can literally type in his name on youtube and you will find hundreds of videos depicting his poor behavior, from losing his temper to insulting people who call his show, the list goes on.  It boggles my mind that NONE of this has been addressed in the article let alone there is no dedicated article for it.  --Radicalfaith360 (1/19/2010)
:Read WP:POVFORK plz. Soxwon (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:POV plz. The user above has a valid problem: this page used to have an extensive sourced section on O'Reilly's (negative) public image. Then it was pushed out into a separate article (this one: ) by O'Reilly fans, then there were 7 (seven!) deletion attempts of the public image article (all but one of which ended with a "keep"), and last year a single admin simply removed that article without consensus. (He "merged" it here, but the content strangely didn't arrive...) If that isn't pushing of opinion (some would say "whitewash"), I don't know what is. -- Marcika (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point, you do not correct a lack of criticism by simply creating a POV "Criticism" page or a POV "criticism section." If you feel that the material should be added back into the article, then by all means do so. However, do so in appropriate places rather than letting it all accumulate in one particular section of the article. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make for an extremely unorganized article, such as this one right now (honestly, look at this article, and a revision four or five years ago, and tell me which is more informative). Also, I've given up on getting into pointless edit wars with political zealots on Wikipedia sometime back in 2004, so I won't get involved here. -- Marcika (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   item only list 2 refuted points by Franken, I guess intelligent people know the truth, and dumb people wont be swayed but any facts anyway. gadfly46 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I added some reasoning below in the newer thread about criticism & controversy. PrBeacon (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism page needed 

message: The real irony here is that long ago, this article contained sufficient rich, well sourced criticisms.  Given O'Reilly is a very controversial figure, the volume of sourced criticism was great; a cadre of editors who seemingly think very highly of Mr. O'Reilly began complaining that the criticism was overshadowing the rest of the article.  The majority of the criticisms and other negative information was moved to a secondary article in following with WP:SIZE and the prescribed remediation from the MoS.  After a while, the O'Reilly fans began nominating the criticism / controversy article for deletion by attempting to label it a POV fork (ignoring the fact that it was a valid split).  The majority of "delete" respondents at AFD cited their disdain for any article containing Controversies of... in the title, not citing any actual deficiencies with the content itself -- editors at AFD noted that most of the individual incidents were so richly sourced that they could stand as individual articles.  After 5 or 6 unsuccessful attempts, one AFD finally succeeded.  The closing admin graciously allowed the article to sit for several weeks during which discussions were ongoing as to which content to include in the main article.  Of course, at that point the cadre asserted WP:SIZE and WP:UNDUE as constraints to keep the majority of any negative content out of the main article (and apparently have been doing so ever since), to the point that the article no longer gives an accurate representation of Mr. O'Reilly or his significance.  What was once enough content to fill another entire article -- all of it well sourced, vetted, and presented -- has been slimmed down to a few sentences that contain almost no information.  The article, as it stands now, is intellectually dishonest -- like O'Reilly or hate him, I don't think any academically honest person can state that this Wikipedia article accurately reflects O'Reilly and his relevance to the world.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I added some reasoning below in the newer thread about criticism & controversy. PrBeacon (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: A tale of two articles

message: ::The listing of, by my count eighteen "public figures" who have purportedly had disputes with O'Reilly is rather silly and unencyclopedic and I doubt that all of these particular disputes are properly sourced anyway. Something similar could be said about about any of the controversialists who now inhabit the cable news channels. I think it would be better to basically say, that O'Reilly has had numerous flaps with others in the public eye while keeping whatever WP:RS's are now in place.Badmintonhist (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ^^Agreed. Ink Falls 19:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: A couple of points. One, Beck and O'Reilly are quite different both in style and in ideas. Two, the words that you quote come in the context of a lead section that summarizes the opinions of both Beck's detractors and his supporters (for whom he is a "conservative champion" and a defender of "traditional American values from secular progressivism"). Basically, that's the Beck bio's equivalent of saying that O'Reilly's commentary has drawn both praise and criticism. While I admit that the Beck lead is more specific and certainly more flamboyant, I think it is probably less encyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing what I said, thought you were quoting the section. Nvm. I'll see to changing that lead section to be more like this. Anyways, it's definitely not a model for O'reilly's page. Ink Falls 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy, criticism, parody section 

message: This section needs to be better represented in the introduction, per WP:lead. Only the final sentence there hints at it: "Over the years, O'Reilly's print and broadcast work has drawn both praise and criticism." By comparison, Glenn Beck's article has the following adjectives to describe him in its lead section: "polarizing, provocative, controversy and criticism, notorious for conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric."  PrBeacon (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of points. One, Beck and O'Reilly are quite different both in style and in ideas. Two, the words that you quote come in the context of a lead section that summarizes the opinions of both Beck's detractors and his supporters (for whom he is a "conservative champion" and a defender of "traditional American values from secular progressivism"). Basically, that's the Beck bio's equivalent of saying that O'Reilly's commentary has drawn both praise and criticism. While I admit that the Beck lead is more specific and certainly more flamboyant, I think it is probably less encyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing what I said, thought you were quoting the section. Nvm. I'll see to changing that lead section to be more like this. Anyways, it's definitely not a model for O'reilly's page. Ink Falls 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: lead should mention more about why he is controversial 

message: I notice that the infobox template for O'Reilly is "person," while the infobox templates for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are "journalist."  O'Reilly, for one, would seem to have a more legitimate background as a journalist than Maddow.  In fact, the cable TV commentators on MSNBC generally have the "journalist" infobox while those on FNC do not (Ed Schultz is one exception). One option could be to create an infobox for "political commentator", but in the meantime, might this be a form of bias? RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends.  Likely not.  You would have to explore what the differences are in the items they cover, as your starting point.  Nobody reading the article sees the "name" of the template, other than those who open it for editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, the whole point of different templates is to provide a visual reference for the article. "Journalist" generates a yellow bar for the infobox title background. RadioBroadcast (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox template 

message: I personally dislike Bill, but I feel that the photo of him in this article:
* is taken at a sufficiently indirect angle as to make recognizing him from the photo difficult
* has his eyes pointing nearly orthogonal to the camera
* is particularly unflattering (due to aforementioned issues, as well as his expression at the moment of capture)
* is non-iconic.  These photos have a more iconic feel:  and 
Please note I'm not suggesting we actually use one of the linked photos, but it is clear that photos taken like that - straight on, under proper lighting, no grimace, are more recognizable and better convey his visual presence (important for a TV personality).
Once again, I totally hate the guy, but...  is there a reason someone can't find a suitable image? - JustinWick (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not obligated to reveal that you "totally hate the guy," however, if that's the way you feel about him, imagine how the folks who decided to use that the photo in there now felt about him! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, just didn't want to sound like a fanboy - those types of requests are often ignored.  - JustinWick (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Ink Falls described the issue quite well, but I want to try to make it even clearer.  WP policy is that we can't use "non-free" photos--meaning photos that are not either in the public domain or licensed to be freely distributed--to identify living people.  (The consensus interpretation of WP:NFCC, criterion 1, is that a "free equivalent" could be obtained for any living person because they can still be photographed.)  Especially in this case, where a free photo of O'Reilly exists in the article, we're simply not allowed to use a non-free one.  If a better free photo exists, we could certainly use it instead.  Croctotheface (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main photo is at a bad angle 

message: Rather than having a standard Wikipedia "Controversy" Section', citations critical of O'Reilly are woven throughout the entire article, which is manipulative and unbalanced.  
People who are critical of O'Reilly should be aware that manipulative writing reflects more on the writer than it does on the subject. Readers recognize it very quickly. 
It's also unethical to write like that. For this reason, Wikipedia calls for putting all incidents of controversy together, under one "Controversy" section.
Sean7phil (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you did open a discussion. Please disregard my edit summary. As for the criticisms "woven throughout" the article, it's actually better than having a Controversy section. That kind of section can never be balanced and usually serves as a troll magnet. †TE†Talk 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the tag on the grounds that your sole rationale in favor of it completely misstates WP policy.  In fact, "weaving criticism throughout the entire article" is explicitly preferred to a dedicated section. Croctotheface (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Uh, Sean7phil, merging Controversy sections into the main text is the preferred style and in no way indicates a POV problem. If there are other POV problems in your view, we are happy to hear them. Ashmoo (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added NPOV Tag, Due to Overall Bias in Article and Failure to Put all Controversy in the "Controversy" Section 

message: I removed some non notable material about some guy getting fired. Can this be discussed here and consensus reach first before readding? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nolan getting fired material 

message: For the consideration of regular editors more familiar with this article: O'Reilly occasionally trades interviews with left-leaning political comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and while they exchange the usual barbs and jabs, they seem to reach some common ground more often lately -- or at least it appears that way compared to other conservatives and liberals. Maher replying to his own critics for engaging him:
"There's hope for O'Reilly" -- referring to similar stances on global warming, gun control, etc (but this quote is oddly not contained in the  reprinted transcript at Fox News.)  Unfortunately I don't have a link to HBO's subpage (problem with old browser) but here's another link from a quick search for video: . Can any of this be worked into this article somehow? I mean the bigger picture stuff, not just the show appearances. Perhaps in the articles on Maher and Stewart, as well. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only concern I'd have is that there has been a concerted effort to remove mention of his relationships with other media people.  They existed in the "public image" article but were never merged into here--this article doesn't mention Stewart or Olbermann or Letterman at all.  I'm troubled if this becomes "Don't include Stewart!  It's a feud!" and then "Ooh, include Stewart!  He said something nice about Bill!"  All from the same editors.  Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Bill Maher a "left-leaning polital comedians" ?  I think that you should read his page again... (end of corporate welfare, partial privatization of social security, legalization of marijuana, ... seem to me some very libertarian thought)  --Jertonit (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable Common ground, surprisingly 

message: FYI, there is currently a discussion at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard regarding whether or not the Palin articles should mention a particular film that includes pornographic portrayals of both Palin and O'Reilly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLPN discussion 

message: The Paris Business Review ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.117.25.10 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about the magazine Bill O'Reilly created

message: * Reportedly blamed American soldiers twice on air for the massacre, yet nothing here re that, and it's been removed from Malmedy Massacre as well. --Treekids (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need a reliable source verifying he said that.  Do you have one? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2KU02lsfH8&feature=related Keith Olbermann discusses O'Reilly's invocation of the massacre, with clips from O'Reilly's show in which the incorrect usage is clearly identifiable. Aquamonkey (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The two clips can be found at about 2:20 and 4:00. Aquamonkey (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, let's not pretend it's a matter of sourcing.  Also, before anyone jumps in with the whole "YouTube is not a reliable source" red herring, the source is Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  This was previously covered in depth, however it got removed when the article was scrubbed of nearly all negative information.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a matter of not being notable.  He made a mistake during a debate, and it because a manufactured controversy by KO, and the far left blogoshpere.  That, plus a bunch of other worthless junk got left on the attack page heap.  Arzel (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem much?  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh: Special:Contributions/Arzel --Treekids (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  Clearly neither Bill O'Reilly nor Keith Olbermann are nonpartisan but clearly this issue and the subsequent scrubbing of the transcript at foxnews http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200606030002 has had enough coverage elsewhere to be included.  Yeah, let's not pretend it's about sourcing or notablility. --Treekids (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, there is absolutely no requirement that the sources must be nonpartisan (a red herring oft perpetuated in Talk:*).  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing about the Malmedy Massacre 

message: Proposing to change:
:O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy (in particular his opposition to the death penalty). O'Reilly characterizes himself as a "traditionalist".
to this description from his bizshark profile:
:He is a self-described "traditionalist" and a registered independent, who is also considered a conservative, a label he rejects.
We could add in "widely considered a conservative" if that would please everybody.
--AerobicFox (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording was hashed out in something of a laborious compromise (you can find it in the archives if you're interested), so I don't think it would be especially wise to change it too much.  We could cut the death penalty bit because parentheticals rarely improve writing, but I don't really see the advantage of the other version.  It has something of a run-on feel with the last few phrases.  Also, we shouldn't really be cribbing our text from other sites in the first place.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the revised version is grammatically incorrect--it's hard to explain why, but the short version is that there's nothing for the "who" to refer to (it's not structured right to refer back to "He".  To make it correct, you have to get rid of the comma before "who"; I'd then change the comma after "conservative" to an em dash.  Still, though, the sentence remains difficult to parse and not as clear as the original.  I think getting rid of the death penalty parenthetical aside would be a plus (why that one specific example?).  I do think I would clarify the second sentence to show that O'Reilly rejects "conservative"; so, how about changing the second sentence to "O'Reilly, however, does not describe himself as conservative, instead using the terms "traditionalist" and "independent". Qwyrxian (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually think that, of late, he has been less explicit in rejecting "conservative."  I'm for removing the parenthetical, but I think it's basically fine otherwise.  Croctotheface (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of sentence in lead 

message: Wonder if anyone else has an opinion on this? Is the new photo really an improvement on the old, beautifully angled shot of a jaded-looking O'Reilly at a military mess table, peering disdainfully at what perhaps is a serving of creamed chip beef. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think it is an improvement. –CWenger (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WHAT??? An improvement over the marvelously artistic shot of the great man that greeted readers of the O'Reilly article for years. Where are your aesthetic sensibilities, man? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo portrait 

message: Add Westbury and Levittown are in Nassau County on Long Island New York?  99.181.152.155 (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[Westbury, New York|Westbury]] and [[Levittown, New York|Levittown]] are in [[Nassau County, New York|Nassau County]] on [[Long Island]] [[New York]]? 

message: Recently, there was an incident during The O'Reilly Factor that Bill claimed, during a debate with the leader of American Athiests, that the tides can not be explained by man and that is proof that God exists (As well as the fact that the sun always goes "Up and down". Bill got a bunch of letters explaining the fact that it is common knowledge that the gravitational imbalance between the moon and the earth causes the tides. Bill responded with a video on his website where he calls the people who wrote into him and the bloggers that also explained the tides "desperate" and "pinheads". He would go on to say in the interview that he still has proof that God exists in the fact that Earth has a sun and a moon and the other planets do not, naming particularly Mars and Venus. The incident and Bill's wildly inaccurate (In a scientific sense) claims have gotten a lot of coverage on the internet and was also featured in a recent episode of The Colbert Report. Do you think it warrants inclusion here, maybe under the section about his public image? I think we can safely say that O'Reilly's public image has taken a hit because of this, Karrmann (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching from outside the USA, I'd suggest that those who have chosen to adore him so far are likely to continue to do so forever. It's the nature of that kind of relationship. But as for the suggested addition, is it written up anywhere by an independent source? Your observations and recollections, while no doubt good, aren't enough to include it in Wikipedia. Not sure if The Colbert Report counts as a relaible source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's his own youtube page for the video with the "desperate pinheads who attack me" line. Found via huffington post and others. He's also since become a meme, but wikipedia can't explain that. h3st (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tides 

message: There's really no doubt about it.  Numerous major newspapers reported a settlement in the millions.  They didn't just make it up--reporters spoke to people involved with the negotiations, most probably Mackris's attorneys.  They only got the quotes on the condition of anonymity.  Mackris bought a very expensive condo not long after the settlement, something way outside the means of someone making mid level cable producer money.   
We settled on the "likely" phrasing after a lengthy discussion; it's the same language used in the source we cite.  Honestly, the level of sourcing we have would, in my view, support an even stronger formulation, but this is fine in a pinch.  An attempt to weaken it just obscures the facts and slants the article with opinion.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an obvious example of a discussion staring in the middle. Without context I have no idea what you're talking about. I come here not because I know heaps about the subject, but because I want to see good articles. Please explain a little more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly paid Mackris 

message: I have a request to add information to Bill O'Reilly's page. Perhaps you can place in the "Personal life" section of his page.
Bill O'Reilly has stated that his favorite bands include The Weather Girls, famous for their song "It's Raining Men" in a recent debate with Jon Stewart. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/bill-oreilly-and-jon-stewart-debate-common-controversy?page=6
Speedstr (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: How would this improve the article? Is it necessary? Kinaro(talk) (contribs) 00:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Speedstr, 18 May 2011 

message: There seems to be plenty of controversy listed on O'Reilly's page, so I'm not sure this should be added, but...
The interview with Jeremy Glick was probably the most replayed segment from the season if not his entire run.  I don't see it anywhere, surprisingly.  Any thoughts as to why it hasn't been included thus far?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even experienced Lawyers will tell you that one must prove that O'Reilly knew he was lying, if suing for a libel issue. If someone lies so much, and that such is his customary behaviour, you can't even prove he is sane. He does not know he is lying. Therefore no libel case. --83.108.31.228 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremy Glick Incident 

message: I have degraded O'Reilly's imporantance status of Wikiproject Conservatism to low. Wikiproject Conservatism covers a broad topic that cover hundreds of years and several countries. It's obvious that when O'Reilly was labelled as "High" imporantance, the ranker was only thinking of modern American politics. Looking at conservative globally and historically, O'Reilly is not a significent figure, he did not pioneer conservative though or lead a significent movement or event that impacted conservatism historically. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say mid. He does have a large audience, but he's not known primarily as a conservative like Hannity. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance ratings are governed by  which is based on notability. – Lionel (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance to conservatism 

message: Under the sub-heading of 'political views and public perception', this edit request specifically relates to public perception, and I can provide a source.
At the end of the above named subsection could you please add the following or an equivalent phrase:
"On the 13th of July 2011 retired journalist Peter Hadfield (under his youtube pseudonym 'potholer54') awarded his annual QQOQQ award to Bill O'Reilly. Hadfield awards his annual QQOQQ award for "a simple question asked in the arrogant expectation that there is no possible answer". Hadfield awarded the QQOQQ to O'Reilly for O'Reilly's statement that there existed no explanation of why the tides go in and out during an interview of American Atheists president Dave Silverman on The O'Reilly Factor on 4th of January 2011."
There could be further details added on the topic. As per the discussion page O'Reilly's 'tides go in, tides go out' statement has become somewhat of an internet meme. Thus the 'public perception' relevance. However the reason why I am requesting specifically the change as set out above is because I can provide sources for the above details.
Sources:
(1) the potholer54 youtube video where Hadfield awards O'Reilly the QQOQQ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcUo9Tk0A-s
(2) the potholer54 youtube video where 'potholer54' outs himself as retired journalist Peter Hadfield and provides an overview of his journalist credentials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo
(Note that Hadfield is known to provide in depth researched presentations (his 'made easy' series) and debunkings (his Monckton Bunkum series) in his potholer54 persona, in addition to his extensive and broad journalist career, so I'm kind of surprised that he doesn't have his own wikipedia page. Particularly considering Christopher Monckton's highly visible presence in the 'climate change skeptic' field, that climate change is a hotly debated topic of world wide interest, and Hadfield's thoroughness in his own sourcing/research/debunking.)
(3) a youtube video showing the moment in the The O'Reilly Factor where O'Reilly makes the 'tide goes in, tide goes out' statement (at 1 minute 54 seconds in): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI 
Edit/Correction - I was under the impression that Hadfield is retired. It's possible this impression is incorrect, so perhaps if you leave out the 'retired' reference. Thanks.
About those TPS reports... (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: While your sources certainly indicate that each of these separate events happened, this seems to be a synthesis of three separate events you've linked together into a claim of importance, which is the type of research and conclusion we would look for in a third-party source. If you can find reliable sources (not primary sources from YouTube) that bring this award and its significance up, feel free to reopen this request. — Bility (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Timtamtyrant, 12 September 2011 

message: Maybe it's just me, but this section seems rather irrelevant. It wasn't a lawsuit, and it really wasn't a big deal for more than a few days. Vyselink (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  In fact, the whole "Controversy" section could be described that way. 138.162.128.55 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joy Behar/Whoopi Goldber 

message: The article says he graduated from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York in 1971. It says that after graduating from Marist, he moved to Miami, Florida, where he taught English and history at Monsignor Pace High School from 1970 to 1972. Huh? 5Q5 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "dubious" flag to the line in question, which is sourced from a detractor's book. 5Q5 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepency in years taught high school 

message: Hi - please be aware there is a discussion at the noticeboard regarding some disputed content and join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard - here - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The resolution of the BLP noticeboard discussion was: "Yes, Bill O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative." JamesMLane t c 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP noticeboard report 

message: :O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator,[6][7] though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy (in particular his opposition to the death penalty[8][9])
O'Reilly's position on the death penalty has nothing to do with whether or not he is a conservative and the two sources used to say it does, say nothing about conservatism and the death penalty.  In fact, the only one that could possibly be misconstrued as supporting this statement is an opinion from Rebecca Leung in the 60 minutes article.  She says:
At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the "old boys club" – including Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich – welcomed him with open arms...Some folks would expect this reception for O'Reilly, a favorite of conservatives. But what you don't expect are his views, which sound more like they're coming from a Democrat...O'Reilly says he's pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."
Sorry, but that's simply not good enough to claim that "some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy".  O'Reilly is against the death penalty not because he's leaning to the left or because he sympthasizes with Democrats, but because he's a Catholic social conservative and he agrees with the position of people like Pope John Paul II.  These are conservative positions. Nevertheless, many American conservatives are pro-death penalty due to their embrace of religious conservatism, but not political conservatism.  Their position rests solely on a biblical justification, not on a political position.  This is doubly ironic since it's a position that not only contradicts their religious pro-life stance, but also contradicts their core conservative tenets that mistrust government because government tends to lessen freedom, and a government that kills its people is one that requires more money and is prone to making errors.  With the serious problem of wrongful execution (130+ cases in the U.S.), the evidence for exonerated death row inmates, and the established fact that the death penalty does not deter crime, one would expect conservatives to be on the front lines of putting an end to capital punishment.  However, they are not, because they let their religious beliefs get in the way of the facts.  Coincidentally, O'Reilly's own strand of religious conservatism is in agreement with his political conservatism.  The problem here is that people are confusing the two and assuming that conservatism is by its very nature pro-capital punishment when in fact, its core ideology by definition, is against giving any government the power of life and death over its people.  O'Reilly's position on the death penalty, therefore, is consistent with his conservative beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is a little tricky.  He often says he opposes the death penalty, but he also has said on multiple occasions that he hopes certain people receive it.  As you've said, pro-death penalty isn't really conservative orthodoxy.  It's more of a Republican position.  But he is factually not a registered Republican.  I'm trying to think of a better way to word that statement.  We could remove the "though some of his positions..." part, but I think this leads to another problem.  Nobody agrees with every single plank of the GOP platform.  And while he is generally considered a conservative, he is also definitely to the left of most other conservative commentators.  I don't want a reader to get the impression that he's the same as a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.  Could we go with something like, "While O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator, he also tends toward centrism on some issues."?  (I know that statement is laughably clumsy, but hopefully a better wordsmith than I could twist it into something reasonable.)  Another option would be to flesh out the "political views" section a little better and move it there.  I'm of the opinion that section is in pretty poor shape anyway.  Sperril (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

text: For the record, O'Reilly's issues stem from his Catholic beliefs.  Many conservatives could care less about the religeous aspect of the issues on the death penalty, for us it's a Constitutional issue.  The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This right was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment (1868). Therefore, to us it is obvious that with "due process" (which is left up to the various juristictions in accordance with the Constitution) then is is Constitutional to deprive a person of their life. SeanNovack (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said above, however, it is not a constitutional issue for many conservatives in America, particularly those in the South, who take a biblical, punitive approach to deterring crime, which for the most part, does not work.  Conservatives also support the prison–industrial complex and have little to no real interest in reducing crime rates as lower rates of crime hurt prison profits.  Finally, the conservative record on upholding civil liberties is atrocious, particularly in the Supreme Court where civil liberties have been chipped away year after year by conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Mr. O'Reilly comes accross as a right-leaning populist.  I've seen him argue with Neil Cavuto and Lauran Ingraham on their unbending pro-business, right-wing beliefs. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Here, citing specific sources would mean providing a couple dozen references saying the same thing.  There's no reason to do that.  To say that he is "widely" considered a conservative is not POV, but is merely a fair characterization of the body of opinion.  The community has considered and rejected the contention that this is a BLP violation.  See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). JamesMLane t c 12:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy 

message: The archiving got a bit mixed up since someone added automatic archiving but neglected to change the parameters. Since many of the pages were less then 150K and the counter was 1, the bot slowly added content to many of the existing pages means they were a confusing mix of old and new. To fix this, I first reverted the bot additions. While not strictly necessary, I then combined the older archivings to be about 200K. I then added back the additions from archive 1 to the suitable archive page and proceeded until I had combined them all. I'm pretty sure I didn't lose anything, but not 100% sure. I also modified the archive parameters although it wasn't strictly necessary since it ended up it would be using the next empty archive page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving fixed, hopefully 

message: shouldn't there be something about the "You can't explain that" meme? 137.150.194.188 (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more or less interesting than many of the, um, questionable things that O'Reilly has said. While it certainly got covered in the blogosphere, I'm not sure it was discussed by independent reliable sources. Our job here is not to catalog everything O'Reilly has said (good or bad), just to give an encyclopedic overview of the most important highlights of his life and career. This can, of course, include negative things, but we need independent sources to verify that those things are important. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has its own page on http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bill-oreilly-you-cant-explain-that . You don't get more official than that in establishing a vital, world-changing meme. Jadams2484 (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction: it was O'Reilly's argument with Dave Silverman of American Atheists machi4velli (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't explain that 

message: This entire page reads like some sort of (auto)biography. Could this please be reviewed? Lord British (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like an anti-FOXnews, anti-O'Reilly hatchet job to me. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lord British, the page carries a tone sounding more like tributary biographical literature rather than a WP article. This needs to be reviewed. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Style 

message: The quotation from Immortal Technique is censored; as it is from an original source, it should read "And O'Reilly you think that you a patriot? You ain't nothing but a motherfuckin racist bitch, Fulla hatred, pressin a button trying to inject me, But I ain't got no motherfuckin deal with Pepsi, No corporate sponser telling me what to do, Asking me to tone it down during the interview..." in accordance with WP:PROFANE and WP:QUOTE. The source confirms this. HectorAE (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is important why?  Regardless this has no relevance to BOR and I have removed the trivial song lyrics of the rappers.  Arzel (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Christopher "Ludacris" Bridges still gets his lyrics mentioned. This is clearly inconsistent Dirty Souf favoritism/fandom, and bias in favor of more commercial, mainstream rappers. Jadams2484 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immortal Technique section 

message: There is no longer any reference to falafel in the article! I would really like to know what the falafel reference was about.
--Ben Culture (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested that the redirect be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yet it persists.--98.162.130.15 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Redirected from Falafel (Bill O'Reilly)) 

message: Can you please add that his columns are syndicated by Creators Syndicate? Thank you
Wikicreate91 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Adding the same link to multiple articles has the appearence of advertsing.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 2 August 2012 

message: While I'm sure that the World Affairs Councils of America or even Bill O'Reilly does not mind this picture being used here, I doubt that the user that cropped the image had the right to release this image under a Creative Commons license. While I foresee no problems to ever arrive from this, it would be wise to look into it or update the image. 74.196.155.150 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine... According to the licensing information from the original source on Commons, it was posted to Flickr and verified on 4 February 2011; the cropped version is released under the same terms as the original.  Good looking out, though.  :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Copyright 

message: ===Writings by O'Reilly===
O'Reilly has authored the following books:
# 
#  (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)New York Times Best Seller; Number Ones Listing; Non Fiction By Date, Hawes.com
#  (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)
#  (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)
#  (Best-selling nonfiction children's book of 2005)
#  (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list; Achieved more than one million copies in print in its first three months)
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
Jwhit61 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This content is currently in the article, what is your request? The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 October 2012