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

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

message: Can someone explain why they are putting the "posed publicity photo" caption next to O'Reilly? Does it even matter that the picture is posed? Do we put that caption on anyone else's picture, like George Bush? No. Calwatch 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is. First off, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to strive for conciseness. Secondly, placing this treatment on O'Reilly doesn't conform to standard wikipedia practice. Finally, those that want to find the status of the photo can click through and the source of the photo should be in the notes attached to the picture page. Putting that just lends to the tone that the article is anti-O'Reilly, when it should be NPOV. Calwatch 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Affirmed. Almost every photo of an individual seen on wikipedia is posed and intended for publicity. You'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't, especially when it comes to paintings of people who lived before any kind of photograph technology even existed. Furthermore, it does not help anybody to know whether or not a photo was for publicity. The purpose of the photo is so that somebody who doesn't know anything about the guy can see his face along with his biography. Pointing out that the photo is for publicity can only serve the purpose of bias in that you leave the reader with an impression that this pleasant side of Bill can only be seen in a staged setting, which is simply not true of any person. The name, and the name only, will work just fine.
=== Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly ===
It seems that a little bit of a fued is developing between these two.  Stewart just tore O'Reilly a new asshole on his show tonight, specifically over the fact that O'Reilly pulled out a clip of Stewart mocking Christmas a federal holiday, from a full YEAR AGO and attempting to make it look like he said it recently.  Stewart was visibly agitated, he said something along the lines of "Apparently we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central hate Christmas".
It wasn't even Jon Stewart...it was Samantha Bee who said "December 25th is the only Federal holiday that coincides with a religious holiday. That way, Christians can attend religious services and everyone else can stay at home pondering the true meaning of the separation of church and state." (Or something to that affect.) I just re-watched that segment of the Daily Show this morning, and I would say that Stewart was probably *acting* when he was visibly agitated. *shrug* DolphinCompSci 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: It seems that a little bit of a fued is developing between these two.  Stewart just tore O'Reilly a new asshole on his show tonight, specifically over the fact that O'Reilly pulled out a clip of Stewart mocking Christmas a federal holiday, from a full YEAR AGO and attempting to make it look like he said it recently.  Stewart was visibly agitated, he said something along the lines of "Apparently we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central hate Christmas".
It wasn't even Jon Stewart...it was Samantha Bee who said "December 25th is the only Federal holiday that coincides with a religious holiday. That way, Christians can attend religious services and everyone else can stay at home pondering the true meaning of the separation of church and state." (Or something to that affect.) I just re-watched that segment of the Daily Show this morning, and I would say that Stewart was probably *acting* when he was visibly agitated. *shrug* DolphinCompSci 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Amended the War on Christmas section to point out Bee's old joke.) DolphinCompSci 07:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly 

message: Anybody second my motion to delete the final paragraph/subsection, "On Brown University"?  This is not a very public controversy - or a very controversial controversy, as far as O'Reilly is concerned.  Worse, the writing has POV issues, with the author having outlined the "subtext" of the segment.  I don't know how this one managed to stay on the page for almost a month.  Plastic Editor December 11 2005  03:06 ET
:I second the deletion.  While I'm a big O'Reilly fan, I try to listen for whatever the liberal scuttlebutt is about him and I haven't heard anything about this being controversial. Lawyer2b 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next up on the chopping block... 

message: Sorry, but the following references were contained at the bottom of the page.  I am inclined to delete them all, but if any one wants them, please move them over to the  External Links.  Steven McCrary 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support-As explained above, Mr. O'Reilly is a journalist by profession; The O'Reilly Factor is op-ed, debate, and interviews, all news for television; the name "commentator" is consistent with sports broadcasters, not news broadcasters. Steven McCrary 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: OK,  I, Steven McCrary call for a vote again on the idea of moving the page to Bill O'Reilly (journalist).  I make this request with a great deal of circumspection realizing this was voted on once before, but I believe the title assigned to this page is not encyclopedic.  I will only add this one more thing, this page should be about Bill O'Reilly (journalist) and not just Bill O'Reilly (commentator).  Most of the material here is about The O'Reilly Factor, and may need to be moved.  In any case, there is a great deal more to the man than just this program.  Eventually, I hope, someone is going to add material here about the rest of his life, his other accomplishments, his family life, etc.  
There is additional details on this debate in the above text.  Especially I note the many examples that are given of other Wikipedia-described journalists engaged in work similar to Mr. O'Reilly. 
Before voting, I ask that each person attempt to remove, as much as is possible anyway, their bias regarding Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor from their minds.  Given the disdain held by many, I realize this is a real challenge.  Nevertheless I request that the voting be based on carefully considered views that are consistent, not biased.  
Your humble servant, Steven McCrary 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request move (again)

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support-As explained above, Mr. O'Reilly is a journalist by profession; The O'Reilly Factor is op-ed, debate, and interviews, all news for television; the name "commentator" is consistent with sports broadcasters, not news broadcasters. Steven McCrary 16:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: ===Sexual harassment===
resolved Steven McCrary 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal the sexual harassment section has a few such comments that need consideration.  That section was edited twice, once by me, but was reverted to include deleted content.  Steven McCrary 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I should correct my previous opinion. Many of these same recurring themes have appeared in both his op-ed columns and on his radio show. One must be careful to only remove the topics from this article which ONLY take places on his show (for example, specific debates that go on, or specific guests, etc). --Ilyag 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag-other concerns 

message: resolved Steven McCrary 20:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal the sexual harassment section has a few such comments that need consideration.  That section was edited twice, once by me, but was reverted to include deleted content.  Steven McCrary 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual harassment

message: resolved Steven McCrary 20:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Saving Christmas

message: resolved. Steven McCrary 06:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doug Forrester

message: This page is becoming increasingly about the show and not the man. It is difficult to separate the two, but shouldn't some of these issues be on The O'Reilly Factor page?
Regards, Steven McCrary 14:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I should correct my previous opinion. Many of these same recurring themes have appeared in both his op-ed columns and on his radio show. One must be careful to only remove the topics from this article which ONLY take places on his show (for example, specific debates that go on, or specific guests, etc). --Ilyag 17:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The O'Reilly Factor.''

message: I don't understand why this section was removed, as it was highly relevant, as calling for a terrorist attack on a city simply because they disagree with your opinion is not exactly regular political rhetoric.  No leftists ever call for the bombing and destruction of Houston because of Souther conservative fanaticism.  What O'Reilly said is a major issue.  It was poisonous and has to be mentioned.  In John Kerry's article there's a mention of the fact that he joked that the secret service had orders to shoot Dan Quail if Bush Senior died while in office, yet this is removed?  Give me a break.  This warrants definite inclusion.  If you're going to remove it again, give a reason.
--- Reason was given in the history log - a more succinct and less editorialized account of the incident is under 'Highly Publicized Disputes' in the article.  You should really register with Wikipedia and log in to make changes and participate on the Talk page, so people can let you know personally why they are modifying any addition you've made.  Also, then you could sign your posts.  --relaxathon 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Fransisco 

message: Having just read over the article I was at a loss to discover any overt bias in any passage, and what incidental bias there was tended to no political viewpoint (some was supportive, some was negative, none was significant enough to remove). Are the tags still necessary?  Better to be safe than sorry, to be sure; but tagging a good article is not much better than failing to tag a bad one. Wally 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The cleanup tag should remain, but I certainly don't understand why the neutrality of the article is being questioned.  Unless someone can specifically state why the article is biased, the tags should be removed. 200.122.158.40 13:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This talk page extensively documents why the neutrality of the article is in question.  It has good weeks and bad, with people constantly adding a ton of useless info to reflect negatively on O'Reilly, people adding a bunch of overly positive stuff about him, people coming in and deleting anything at all unflattering, people deleting anything mildly positive...and of course, every now and then somebody comes in to try to neutralize things.  But given the fact that it is a constant struggle, with biased edits not always being caught for some time, I think the NPOV tag needs to remain - nobody has the time to monitor this page enough (nor should they), so the least we can do is warn readers to take the article with a grain of salt.  I would guess things will remain that way until O'Reilly's planned retirement in '07. --relaxathon 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cleanup should stay still. The POV tag could go, since the total bias is < abs(.5). Mayhaps we need a new tag that warns "This page is extremely volatile, and may not always conform to NPOV standards for Wikipedia. See the Talk Page for discussion." DolphinCompSci 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would actually be an excellent solution.  Do you think there'd be any chance of us getting a tag like that added to Wikipedia? --72.224.182.201 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We shall see. I'd sure be in favor of it, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly whom to talk to on that. *prods nearest experienced Wikier* DolphinCompSci 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is always going to be the victim of the left-wing majority in Wikipedia. That's a fact. I have changed what I could. Indeed the only reason I came was to look into the whole Wikipedia thing after seeing it on Fox News defaming people about the Kennedy assassination. My concerns have not been allayed from what I've seen here or on the Ward Churchill page. It's a topsy turvy world when Bill O'Reilly is condemned and Ward Churchill presented as a misunderstood freedom fighter. This is all going to end in one big lawsuit, is my belief. The idea that you can anonymously lie about people - even if public figures - is fine probably on a site no one visits but it's not going to last now that Wikipedia gets many visitors. I don't know how this will be addressed, all I know is what I see. A very active and swift left-wing majority pushing its views very hard on every conceivable area of Wikipedia.  I'll stick it out over Christmas but won't bother much after that. Just one lawsuit is going to sink this whole encyclopedia. Just one. Who among you is going to be responsible for that? Fluterst 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Don't know whom that's aimed at and that's almost personally offensive. I think that instead of throwing up our hands and saying "Well, gosh, this is the end!" we should instead do the wiki-thing and innovate a solution for it. While a volatile page flag would not fully shake off the responsibility of this community to present an as objective-as-possible encyclopaedia, it would at the very least provide a warning that someone can't possibly be expected to babysit the O'Reilly page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Innovate, collaborate. (As an off-topic side note, it's very difficult to actually prove allegations of libel, especially for public figures. But you already knew that.) DolphinCompSci 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not aimed at anyone personally, but to those responsible for the left-wing nature of many of the articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean this disrespectfully, I think it's a widely held view. I have no idea what the solution is, I might add. There are more leftists here than others, so how do you fix it? I don't know, what I do know is when an article claims someone falsified their hometown, infers they are sexual perverts, liars, intolerant of the views of others then it is probably not as hard as you might think to file a viable libel claim, EVEN against a public figure like O'Reily. The real point is, who would pay if he did win. The Wikipedia Foundation? Jimmy Wales? The authors, whose anonymity would be removed by the legal process. Free speech belongs to everyone but what goes on here in its name would have the founding fathers spinning in their dusty graves. Don't let Wikipedia become a defamation manufacturing facility, or continue to be. I won't be around here for long as I have better things to do after my vacation but I hope someone who cares about it is reading. Fluterst 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags still necessary? 

message: Greetings, What is going on with the references on this page? They do not match the numbers in the article.  Let's all review Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and begin cleaning this up.  Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we use Harvard citation formats, or those of the Modern Language Association? DolphinCompSci 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Harvard format would be better here.  Users are not keeping the reference numbers (for MLA) up to date.  I have been using  with  and .  With regards, Steven McCrary 22:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Please see the [Mediator's response] for my response to the disputes on this page.  Thanks, Steven McCrary 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Filed amicus curae response. DolphinCompSci 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator's response

message: I think he's a journalist. Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather would probably agree, as much as they would disagree with his opinions. For they two frequently expressed their opinion on air and would probably both resist being called an opinionist or commentator or whatever terms of abuse Wikipedia has in store for O'Reilly? Fluterst 01:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinionist is such a nasty term, but commentator would fit O'Reilly perfectly. (Disclosure: In the interest of getting all the opinions I can get, I watch the Factor, simply to see what other people think.) He does very little actual jouranlism (in the sense of investigating and looking for the story) and tends to comment more on the work others have done. Commentator, yes. Jouranlist, maybe. Opinionist, quite possibly, but that term carries a more negative connotation than commentator. DolphinCompSci 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed on calling him a commentator. He was a journalist in his previous job at Inside Edition and his various stints at newspapers prior to his television career, so I think it's fair to refer to him as a journalist when discussing his professional past, and refer to him as a commentator in the present. --Ilyag 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree on calling him a commentator I also agree fully with Ilyag  --Kylehamilton 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too agree that he should be called a commentator, though inclusion of reference to journalist is appropriate.  He is primarily know for the Factor, which is a commentary program.  Merriam Webster's suggests that a journalist is one that investigates/presents news for distribution, whereas a commentator is one that primarily comments on the news.  O'Reilly does the latter.  Cronkite and Rather were anchors who were reponsible for reporting the news, and they partook in investigative journalism. Srcastic 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think Jonathon Stuart Leibowitz perfectly represents the problem here. Dolphin, your opinion that he does little actual journalism could easily have been applied to newsreaders Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather but look at their articles. What are they called? American journalists. I find it very strange that journalists liked by liberals are called journalists but others are 'commentators' or 'opinionists.' Not even the first sentence of the article is encyclopedic without an accurate description of this 30 year journalist's career. No wonder the rest of the article is so appalling. Fluterst 06:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Bill O'Reilly a journalist or an opinionist?

message: Okay, I agree with a lot of the edits made here recently, but what happened to the first two paragraphs?  As much of a mess this article has been in the past, the opening was pretty right-on.  Now it reads like an official bio from billoreilly.com, inflating achievements and deflating popular criticism.  
Before, it listed his occupations, mentioned his top-rated status, his claims to the political center, and finally noted that he's quite controversial and criticised for conservatism.  That was a fair overview.  Now it's a little too glowing, plus the consistent charges of conservative bias have been evened out with criticism that he's too liberal - I really don't think these claims have equal footing.  There are multiple websites and even widely-published books that accuse him of conservative/Republican bias; while certainly some of his centerfield opinions can irk hardcore conservatives, it's hardly as notable.  His show may enjoy highlighting letters accusing him of both liberal and conservative bias, but clearly his major battles come from, as he would say, "the far-left" and progressives.  Even he frequently admits to this. 
I'm restoring them as they were before Christmas, and had been for quite some time.  I will include some of that new award info, though. --relaxathon 05:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *not exactly open minded are you?--I have arrived just in time 07:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraphs - What Happened? 

message: I assume I'm addressing Flute with this one - again, some of your edits are great, but come on - the battle about his voter registration is pretty notable.  It was part of an investigative report by a major newspaper, was addressed several times on television by O'Reilly himself, and his statements were contradicted by a published copy of the forms in question.  Couple that with the fact that O'Reilly's 'independent' political status is a main selling point for his commentary -- how can you dispute the paragraph that existed previously?
First, you deleted mention of it entirely.  Then, after it was restored, you reduced it down to the following sentence: 
Now a registered Independent (after being a ticket-splitting registered Republican for six years), he is independent of both major political parties and engages in criticism of both from time to time.
Sorry, but this is spin.  Nobody knows how O'Reilly split his ticket, but we do know that he quickly changed his affiation as it was about to be revealed in print.  We do know he denied that there was any option for registering independent of a political party, but that the since-unearthed form says that indeed there was.  I don't care how you feel about O'Reilly, these are just facts, and it's the kind of sourcable, highly-publicized story that people come to Wikipedia to read about.
Anyone who feels as strongly about Bill O'Reilly as you do needs to take a break from this article.  --relaxathon 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter Registration 

message: I do not believe that discussions with Fluterst resulted in any fruitful resolutions to any of the issues that this user has been involved with relating to the article. I have already tried for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal. I believe the Fluterst issue requires formal Arbitration, as not only has this user not complied with NPOV policy (among other things, which I now consider to be pure vandalism despite my initial reaction that the user may have had valid complaints), she has also engaged in prohibited activities, not the least of which is threatening legal action, a definite no-no on Wikipedia. I have not made the request for Arbitration yet, however. I would like this to function as a survey over whether or not you believe arbitration is necessary in this case (see the article's edit history and some of the above discussion for a detailed account of reasons for this request). If the majority agrees, this will also serve as notification for Fluterst that this issue will be submitted for arbitration, as is Wikipedia's policy. If not, I will not attempt to submit this anywhere, even though I believe this user will continue to twist and spin factual information, unilaterally white-wash the article with biased statements, and remove as many items critical of O'Reilly as she can get away with (whether those items are themselves biased against O'Reilly, or are merely factual statements that just happen to say negative things about him), all the while ignoring all the lengthy attempts to get a compromise and build concensus.  --Ilyag 08:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment I support this request since Fluterst has violated WP:NLT and Assume Good Faith on this Talk page. His edits are attempts to induce a right-wing bias and are made unilaterally. I would like to be able to assume good faith, but I can't with someone threatening a class-action suit. I support this request. DolphinCompSci 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not threatened any lawsuit, I hope pointed out that a class action lawsuit is in train at wikipediaclassaction.org. I am not involved in it, although like many I am interested to see whether it can diminish the publication of libel on Wikipedia. Fluterst 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for Arbitration 

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

message: There is a detailed debate on this on the Talk page, which sets out many examples of where people engaged in identical work to O'Reilly are described as journalists. Characterizing him as a commentator is meant as a pejorative, it seems. Fluterst 12:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support He's a journalist, under any definition. Anderson Cooper of CNN is described as a journalist so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples above of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called journalists. The fact that this even has to be debated shows a pretty serious problem on Wikipedia... I encourage those voting in opposition to address in particular the inconsistency of the application of the word 'journalist' in this article compared with those I've listed above.  Fluterst 13:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting that Horace has emerged to vote on this issue but seems not to have ever edited an article before. A quick learner perhaps? Fluterst 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, is there a rule in wikipedia stating that new users cannot vote?  Interesting that Fluterest would take the time away from inserting his right-wing extremist views into wikipedia articles to make such a sarcastic comment.  Thanks for the welcome...Horace Walpole  14:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, your vote doesn't count anyway. I'll be disregarding it. Would be interesting to see if you are linked with another user who will presumably come and vote as well. Vote early, vote often as Ted Kennedy says. Or was that Tom DeLay? Fluterst 14:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A journalist who makes a mistake is a commentator, is that the logic? Dan Rather is described as a journalist and yet he is retired and was forced to resign after broadcasting a story about President Bush based on forgeries. Fluterst 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rather was forced to resign his high post for the error.  Hence the high price for inaccuracies when you're an actual journalist.  Anchors like Rather, Brokaw and Jennings helped to oversee their network's newsrooms, broke major news stories regularly, and frequently went out into the field.  O'Reilly makes no bones about the fact that he now primarily provides commentary and 'no-spin' analysis.  The incidents of original reporting on his program can be counted on one hand, and came from investigations into opinion pieces he had done that stirred up controversy.  True, O'Reilly was once a journalist, but thats not what made him famous and has made this article so significant.  It's his role as a commentator, which is not an insult at all.
*Oppose - Two reasons for vote: 1) O'Reilly's current role is a host of a television debate show, in which he himself is one of the debaters. The show's entire point is that O'Reilly himself debates against his guests, rather than ask them questions and follow-ups. This separates him from the likes of Tim Russert, who conduct interviews and moderate debates, rather than participate in the debates themselves. 2) O'Reilly does not present news. His job is to mention a news story that has been covered elsewhere, and then present his personal opinion on it. This is how he differs from the likes of Dan Rather, who actually do present the news (as per the dictionary definition of the term journalist). --Ilyag 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Actually, this suggestion (I just noticed) was subject to a previous move request.  Is there any change in opinion now? I just wanted to bring it up as a possible way to diffuse this situation. -Scm83x 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Good idea. Fine by me. Fluterst 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Sounds good to me too. I don't even see a talk page on the other Bill O'Reilly so it's probably safe to assume that this one here is more prominent. Mithridates 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh-oh, look here...we're repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Mithridates 14:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed that. The more things change, the more they remain the same. DolphinCompSci 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As one of the people who suggested a move to Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer is apparently extremely notable to cricket fans.  So there's no way that you're going to get that move done successfully :)  Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support He's a journalist, under any definition. Anderson Cooper of CNN is described as a journalist so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples above of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called journalists. The fact that this even has to be debated shows a pretty serious problem on Wikipedia... I encourage those voting in opposition to address in particular the inconsistency of the application of the word 'journalist' in this article compared with those I've listed above.  Fluterst 13:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that Horace has emerged to vote on this issue but seems not to have ever edited an article before. A quick learner perhaps? Fluterst 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, is there a rule in wikipedia stating that new users cannot vote?  Interesting that Fluterest would take the time away from inserting his right-wing extremist views into wikipedia articles to make such a sarcastic comment.  Thanks for the welcome...Horace Walpole  14:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cool, your vote doesn't count anyway. I'll be disregarding it. Would be interesting to see if you are linked with another user who will presumably come and vote as well. Vote early, vote often as Ted Kennedy says. Or was that Tom DeLay? Fluterst 14:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A journalist who makes a mistake is a commentator, is that the logic? Dan Rather is described as a journalist and yet he is retired and was forced to resign after broadcasting a story about President Bush based on forgeries. Fluterst 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rather was forced to resign his high post for the error.  Hence the high price for inaccuracies when you're an actual journalist.  Anchors like Rather, Brokaw and Jennings helped to oversee their network's newsrooms, broke major news stories regularly, and frequently went out into the field.  O'Reilly makes no bones about the fact that he now primarily provides commentary and 'no-spin' analysis.  The incidents of original reporting on his program can be counted on one hand, and came from investigations into opinion pieces he had done that stirred up controversy.  True, O'Reilly was once a journalist, but thats not what made him famous and has made this article so significant.  It's his role as a commentator, which is not an insult at all.
*Oppose - Two reasons for vote: 1) O'Reilly's current role is a host of a television debate show, in which he himself is one of the debaters. The show's entire point is that O'Reilly himself debates against his guests, rather than ask them questions and follow-ups. This separates him from the likes of Tim Russert, who conduct interviews and moderate debates, rather than participate in the debates themselves. 2) O'Reilly does not present news. His job is to mention a news story that has been covered elsewhere, and then present his personal opinion on it. This is how he differs from the likes of Dan Rather, who actually do present the news (as per the dictionary definition of the term journalist). --Ilyag 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Actually, this suggestion (I just noticed) was subject to a previous move request.  Is there any change in opinion now? I just wanted to bring it up as a possible way to diffuse this situation. -Scm83x 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Good idea. Fine by me. Fluterst 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Sounds good to me too. I don't even see a talk page on the other Bill O'Reilly so it's probably safe to assume that this one here is more prominent. Mithridates 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh-oh, look here...we're repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Mithridates 14:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed that. The more things change, the more they remain the same. DolphinCompSci 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As one of the people who suggested a move to Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer is apparently extremely notable to cricket fans.  So there's no way that you're going to get that move done successfully :)  Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: *Comment. Perhaps we can move this page to simply "Bill O'Reilly" and put a comment at the top that reads something similar to some other pages: Bill O'Reilly is also an Australian cricketer. I am unaware how notable the cricketer is and would appreciate comment on what everyone thinks of this (hopefully) simple solution. -Scm83x 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, this suggestion (I just noticed) was subject to a previous move request.  Is there any change in opinion now? I just wanted to bring it up as a possible way to diffuse this situation. -Scm83x 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Good idea. Fine by me. Fluterst 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Sounds good to me too. I don't even see a talk page on the other Bill O'Reilly so it's probably safe to assume that this one here is more prominent. Mithridates 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh-oh, look here...we're repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Mithridates 14:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I noticed that. The more things change, the more they remain the same. DolphinCompSci 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As one of the people who suggested a move to Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer is apparently extremely notable to cricket fans.  So there's no way that you're going to get that move done successfully :)  Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A new suggestion

message: I think it's time to stop with all of the "controversy" subsections and just make a controversial remarks section?
===Discussion===
:Add any additional comments
===Result===
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't it time for just a controversial remarks section?

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

message: I want to know why everyone keeps deleting my VAILD ARTICLE POSTING. Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed he did not have option to register as an independent, correct? The article is from a vaild source in  
MediaMatters.org, correct? It is not an article from a small third-party news source, correct? Bill O'Reilly was not being honest, so why can I not post this article on here? If you like Bill, then fine. If you agree with him, then fine. But not everyone views him as being completely honest with his viewers. So why can I not post a vaild article listing such a case? It is a realy article, not slander. I think others on here have nothing else better to do then sit around deleting things they do not like. If I am posting it in the wrong way, then tell me how to correct it. Or you can make the changes yourself. But I am sick of seeing the listing deleted because some people want to act like little, power hungry children. Enough already! The article is vaild, so just leave it be.
_________
The source of most of the controversies surrounding O'Reilly or criticisms of him is Media Matters, a known left-wing political website. Is it unfair to call the article neutral if the source of the controversies is itself a questionable or neutral source. Other sources are needed (non left-wing).
Who says it is a known Left-Wing web site? That is your opinion, show me proof. If you do not agree that is one thing, but I posted a vaild article.
Here is another article pointing this out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml
But I don't think it will matter to those conservative people in here. They will keep looking at Bill as being 100% honest, and an independent. Show me proof that Bill did not registered as an independent. Until then, there is still articles claiming that he did.
SJ7700
I feel that the Political Beliefs and Point of View (renamed from "bias" - isn't a commentator supposed to have a point of view? O'Reilly constantly points out that he does not do "straight" news, but rather "news analysis") is somewhat fair, but the "bias" in the heading was just too much.
Also, the controversies section seems unfair. Of thousands of shows, it seems stacked in favor of O'Reilly's most negative moments. 
As someone who is ambivalent about the guy, overall I think this is a negative article. He's the most-watched personality in cable news, yet the article has an unfairly negative bias.
I feel some of the article editors have allowed their obvious dislike of the guy to creep in here.
TIA, Uclajd 09:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, but ANYTHING is to the left of Fox News. Why people insist on labeling newspapers which aren't myopically "conservative" as "liberal" is beyond me. Let's not get into this argument here, in any case.  Let's deal with what's said by O'Reilly, what others say about him (relevant quotes, please), and facts.  For example, can you back up "the most watched personality in cable news"?  I agree that we must be very watchful of this article, but a balanced view of the man's professional career is the way this article should be.  Your criticism of the article based upon a dislike of the balanced view given seems somewhat ironic.  --ABQCat 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Second what ABQCat said -- except for first sentence. (While I *personally* am a centrist, AND have a similar viewpoint to ABQCat's as to Fox News' clear and demonstrated bias (and allowing for hyperbole) -- that is ALSO not the point.) I DO think a case can be made that, as a group and individually, the journalistic standards and guidelines of the {NY Times, LA Times, WashPost, BBC, CBC} regarding objectivity is EASILY defended as being far more stringent than that of Fox News, which has been quite well documented as having a conservative agenda from Murdoch & Ailes on down. This is not Red-Said-Blue-Said -- it's clearly documented and on record, beyond dispute, that Fox News instructs its reporters to express a particular (conservative) viewpoint, down to prescribing particular phrases. Former Fox News reporters, staff, producers, and more have testified to this, on camera. NO comparable allegations involving this "liberal media cabal" are documented, on record, or known. (And, the recent Jayson Blair and Judith Miller affairs show the NY Times, e.g., has NO problem airing its own dirty laundry.) --A Doon
I believe the neutrality of the article is in question because the bulk of the text is a debate of where people believe O'Reilly stands on issues; rather than sticking to factual information, the article focuses more on controversy and interpretation of O'Reilly's beliefs.  It goes without saying that all journalists/commentators have opinions - but I don't see the same scrutiny given to other pundits who some argue have a liberal bias.  In a sense, this wikipedia entry is doing exactly what the article/authors are accusing O'Reilly of - letting their perspective on events become the news story, rather than simply providing an account of facts. -- Jedunc 18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of NPOV tag

message: Hello all -- I have removed the NPOV (actually "totallydisputed") tag from the article because I have been unable to find specific discussion of the issues on the talk page.
Please, it is OK to replace the tag, but you are expected to discuss your reasons for doing so, with particular examples of facts or statements you find POV or untrue. I encourage others who find the tag replaced without discussion here on the talk page to go ahead and remove it.
Note that the possibility that the page may become NPOV later is not an acceptable use of the tag. The tag should only be on the article when the actual text of the article is POV. If you find someone has stuck in a chunk of POV, the best thing to do is go over the edits to regain NPOV.
Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll get no opposition from anybody on this, as the only person who insisted on the tag being there was Fluterst.Hal Raglan 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV tag

message: OK, um, again -- someone just put in the "disputed" tag, questioning factual statements in the article. Again, I've gone ahead and removed it because no discussion has occured on the talk page regarding factual inaccuracies in the article. If you find a factual problem, best thing to do is just fix it yourself -- either remove the statement, or find a source to prove it. Second best is to complain on the talk page. 
Please use tags sparingly, and find ways to do things without them!
OK, Sdedeo (tips) 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Disputed tag

message: I reverted the removal of the disambiguation of Bill O'Reilly the cricketer may by user:Ilyag.  It seems very reasonable to have it here.  Steven McCrary 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it again for one reason: That comment was added as per Fluterst's attempt to rename article from Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to Bill O'Reilly. That attempt failed in a vote, and the article was returned to normal. The mere fact that the article's name says "(commentator)" means that this is NOT an ambiguous article. The article where this disambiguation statement belongs is in Bill O'Reilly, which is currently an article on the cricket player. A statement linking to THIS article is needed THERE for disambiguation purposes, not the other way around. Bill O'Reilly is ambiguous (and therefore needs disambiguation). Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is NOT ambiguous (and therefore does not need disambiguation). --Ilyag 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one else objects,  I will persue this no further, as my objection is minor, and I tend to agree anyway.  There really is no need to capitalize (it is considered shouting), bold or italics would be a better choice.  Happy New Year.  Steven McCrary 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was capitalizing for emphasis, not to shout. I think that capitalizing the whole sentence is considered shouting, not individual words. But, sorry again. --Ilyag 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly the cricketer 

message: I'm so glad I'm Canadian.
: That's an interesting take on all this. :) DolphinCompSci 03:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: The first two paragraphs (now) do not improve the quality of the content of the introduction.  As it was, the introduction was succinct and fair.  The introduction does not need the long discourse about the CBS News piece.  Take it out!  Steven McCrary 13:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained what I thought (and I did not say that it was unfair): the discourse about CBS News is too long for an introduction.Steven McCrary 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure -- push it somewhere else as you see fit. It's not necessary (IMO) to discuss good-faith edits like that on the talk page first. Sdedeo (tips) 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank-you.  I will consider it. Steven McCrary 14:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Oddly enough, one result of the increased chaos around here has been a much improved article.  Flute's questionable deletions resulted in other users coming in and re-writing, re-sourcing and re-organizing the article to great effect.  Obviously, Flute is vocally objecting to the results but what do other editors think?  I personally feel that the cleanup tag can come down.  The article is more balanced and succinct right now than it's ever been.  Sign on...
Vote to Support or Oppose removal of the cleanup tag:
* Support --relaxathon 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps not, but the opening paragraph gives a pretty good idea.  Also, the 'Political Opinion' section is fairly representative.
* Support Hal Raglan 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE: Removing the Cleanup Tag 

message: Greetings all, 
:*I have considered this long and hard, and I know that I am going to have to spend hours defending it, but I must voice my objection to the title of the page. I am replacing the POV tag because I believe that the bias against O'Reilly is slanting the POV of the page. 
:*O'Reilly is a journalist regardless of his current job.  
:**The O'Reilly Factor is FOX News version of the newspaper "op ed"; and we certainly consider "op ed" to a part of the news.  Yes, it is commentary as well, but that is the nature of this type of journalism, and we do not characterize editors as commentators. In addition, the show does more than provide commentary.  Even though it is a filtered look at the news, it is still news.  Granted, it is not a news show like Paula Zahn or Anderson Cooper, but it is still news.  Plus, the fact that this show represents a mere portion of his life should be sufficient enough.
:**The word commentator implies that he is some sort of a ring-side sports analyst.  This is certainly not what the show is about.  Again, the show is about analysis, but not like a sports commentator.  
I strongly object to the use of this word! Sincerely,  Steven McCrary 14:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sdedeo for the considered response.  I agree, that the show is largely op-ed and commentary, still it is journalism.  Yes different from typical new shows, but still news.  Yes he is part of the debate, so what, that does not make it any less newsworthy.  It is op-ed news.  I guess my main concern about the title is that is disparaging to the career of an individual who has spent a lifetime in journalism.  I know that the majority of previous editors were against the move, and I have read their reasons, but I believe that those views only point to a POV that needs to be fleshed out.  Sincerely, Steven McCrary 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag-The commentator 

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

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

message: Response to Hal and Ilyag regarding why "commentator" is a negative term: Greetings gentlemen.  I appreciate the POV expressed in the paragraphs immediately above, but find that I am in stark contrast to them.  This is in no way meant to be a personal attack on holders of that view, but I cannot characterize professional journalistic expression of opinion as mere "comment", and believe it to be an incorrect POV of the American political system.  Please do not say to me that I am defending the honor of O'Reilly, or that I am an O'Reilly supporter.  Because, I often find that he is overbearing and rude, but that does not minimize the role that he plays in American politics.  In my view, to say that "comment" is not news leaves a distorted impression both on the role of journalists in the American political system and on the entire political process in America.  In the American system of politics, the "comments" are dominantly the news.  Look at what happened to Dan Rather and CBS News for not getting the story (really the source) right this summer about President Bush.  In this case, the journalist became the news.  Can we really say that journalists views on abortion (for example) are unimportant?  I hope not.  In a society where give-and-take and opinions are both paramount to decision making, calling people mere "commentators" is an insult, because all of us are participants, especially the journalists!  In a sports match, the game occurs between the participants on the field (for example) only, people on the sidelines are observers, nothing more.  But in American politics, the game is not merely between the politicians, the press plays a critical role, as do all Americans (if we are interested).  Yes, the politicians are where the decisions are finally made, but their decisions are not made in isolation, but rather they are part of the give-and-take that is American politics.  That give-and-take includes op-ed pieces, news shows, debate, etc; and those events are news worthy.  Therefore, it is paramount that we recognize the subtlety of each individual's and each organization's POV in its presentation of political events.  To ignore POV in news presentation, to call it mere "comment," is a naive position that I cannot agree.  And to say that O'Reilly is a "commentator" is an insult, not just to him, but to the profession of journalism, to the entire American political system, and to its participants.  Well, I have gone on for too long, I am Respectfully Yours, Steven McCrary 14:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments on O'Reilly's status as a "journalist" are in no way referencing any kind of POV I may have of O'Reilly as an individual, or his politics. I believe that O'Reilly is in no way different from a typical Internet blogger. What does a typical political blogger do? They post links to various news stories, and offer up their own comments on the matter. This is essentially what O'Reilly does; I believe it is entirely the same. O'Reilly presents a brief summary (or short video clip) of a news event that has been covered elsewhere, and then proceeds to comment on it (and engage in debate with his guests). If one is to call O'Reilly a journalist for doing this, then one must also refer to all political bloggers as "journalists". I do not believe he's a journalist any more than I believe bloggers are journalists (I know many of them will disagree with me). The fact that his opinions are broadcast over a major television network is irrelevant. He himself does no journalistic work, and neither does any member of his staff (other than to put together so-called "links" to the news stories to be discussed on the show). I should also point out that my references here to "bloggers" are not meant as insults in any way. I can just as easily compare him to any highly successful political commentators on talk radio, and guess what? None of them are considered journalists either. Neither Sean Hannity (conservative) nor Alan Colmes (liberal) are referred to as journalists on Wikipedia. Same goes for Rush Limbaugh (conservative), Al Franken (liberal), Howard Stern (Libertarian), G. Gordon Liddy (conservative), Michael Savage (conservative), Neal Boortz (Libertarian), Ed Schultz (liberal), etc, etc, etc! O'Reilly can no more be compared to a "journalist" than Al Franken (whose radio show is virtually identical to O'Reilly's, but happens to have a far-left liberal slant to it). I continue with my strong objections to calling O'Reilly a journalist, if for no other reason than consistency. --Ilyag 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: *I believe that Bill himself considers, er, himself to be a commentator, not a journalist.  He comments on topics and issues of the day, not facts and events, as a journalist (should) do.  He should be listed as a commentator.
:MSTCrow 09:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur as per Vector4F DolphinCompSci 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: I think it should be made clear that O'Reilly said that he would fight the whole affair in court to th end and "vindicate" his name.  He said he woudn't settle.  Yet he did, out of court.  Why is this not mentioned? It is clearly another of countless examples of his hypocritical nature.
: I dont understand what this has to do with o'rilly this would not be NPOV --Kylehamilton 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was actually a much more detailed section on that a while ago. But due to recent actions they were removed. One of those users: User:Fluterst was permanently banned so it might be possible for this page to start healing. Here's an older version that has most everything intact:  and here's the difference between that version and the current version . -- Mr. Tibbs 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I noticed that Guettarda reverted some details that I had edited earlier today. I am not an O'Reilly fan, but I believe the article should remain as NPOV as possible.  Could Guettarda, or anyone else,  please explain why it is believed that the following is relevant to an encyclopedia?:
-"After the show, O'Reilly screamed at Glick, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to f_ _ _ _ _ g pieces."    I think its very possible that O'Reilly indeed made this threat but from what I understand the only source is Glick himself, who has said that it happened after the cameras were shut off and there were no witnesses around.  I think if this line is reinstated it should say something like "According to Glick, after the show O'Reilly screamed at Glick, etc" and that should be immediately followed by a link to a source of information.  This is pretty inflammatory material to have without a source, don't you think?
--"On the air since the advent of the Fox News Channel in 1996, The Factor gained its popularity in the late 1990's through O'Reilly's relentlesss attacks on Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal."  I don't believe this is NPOV.  As is, the sentence indicates that it is completely unquestionable that O'Reilly relentlessly attacked Clinton; I believe my change is superior: "On the air since the advent of the Fox News Channel in 1996, The Factor gained its popularity in the late 1990's through what some critics described as "O'Reilly's relentlesss attacks" on Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal."   Again, the way I feel about O'Reilly convinces me that he probably did rant against and attack Clinton but this is an encyclopedia and should not have such a negative tone.  
--"According to the Rolling Stone, the Factor serves as the "centerpiece" of "a cable channel [that] operates as little more than a PR arm for the Republican Party: putting a negative spin on anything to do with Democrats and issuing a steady stream of upbeat, often factually inaccurate, cheerleading for the Bush administration." Despite the fact that this is sourced, I think there's plenty of info later in the article strongly suggesting that O'Reilly is a conservative and a supporter of the Republican party.  If you believe its important to retain this sentence, it should be moved to the more appropriate "Political Beliefs" section.
--"O'Reilly denounced Franken as an "idiot" and screamed his now-signature comment: "Shut up!" Fox then sued Franken and his publisher for using the words "fair and balanced" in his book's subtitle, claiming infringement of Fox News Channel's trademarked slogan. To no one's surprise, a judge called Fox's suit "wholly without merit" and threw it out."  The details are not at issue, as the linked video makes clear, its the hyperbolic, overly emotional tone of the writing I have a hard time with.  Please "To know one's surprise"?  I will try to rewrite, keeping the details but toning down the melodrama.  Then you can tell me what you think. 
:Looks like someone else thought this section had some problems as  changes have been made since I posted; additionally, I've changed one sentence.  Its not needed to state that O'Reilly "denounced" Franken and the video reveals that O'Reilly did not "scream", although the expression on his face indicates that he probably very much wanted to.200.122.158.40 20:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with just about everything you've written.  Guettarda is an admin and you would think he'd know better than to just blindly revert things without logical explanation.  I notice he earlier reverted  some obvious vandalism ("Whether or not the general public would actually have an interest in O'Reilly's private life has yet to be determined.") that had been understandably removed, claiming that the removal was "unexplained deletion of material."  I've removed the line again.Hal Raglan 04:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply reverted a large number of edits by an anon who seemed to be engaged in a wholesale deletion of sourced material vaguely critical of O'Reilly.  Whitewashing is pov-pushing, pretty close to vandalism.  It seems pretty extreme to call that "blind reverting".  Guettarda 05:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda, if you are referring to the edits that the above anonymous user made, I don't think his/her changes were what you describe at all.  The explanatory comments discussing the reasons the edits were made make sense to me.  Anyway, since you've replied I'm just wondering why you reinserted the line I mentioned above about O'Reilly's private life.  The original sentence seems like pure vandalism to me and I'm curious why you thought it should be reverted.  Thanks.Hal Raglan 05:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at your edits, and they looked good.  There were two sets of edits after your - one by an anon who reinserted material which was in the article previously (and Saginaw) and a second anon who had removed a lot of material critical of O'Reilly.  Every so often someone comes along and removes criticisms of O'Reilly, and as I have been doing for months, I reverted the deletion.  Deleting text without explanation is often considered vandalism.  I was simply undoing vandalism, I have no interest in engaging in an edit dispute about whether the Saginaw material should or should not be in the article.  Guettarda 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, makes sense.  There are a whole slew of users who've been making massive and questionable edits to this article very recently and I know its going to take admin like you to help sort things out.  Thanks Hal Raglan 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts By Guettarda 

message: The following two sections are extremely similar and largely redundant: 
* "Campaigns and recurring themes"
* "Highly publicized disputes"
Please consider removing one of them and merging the content together to provide better structure for the article. --Ilyag 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging sections 

message: I removed the following:
"The O'Reilly Factor is also available internationally from various local television providers, including Sky News in Europe. On occasion, the show is broadcast live."
The show isn't carried on Sky News. The Fox News channel itself is avilable via the Sky Digital pay tv system, which is run by the same company as Sky News. Matthew Humphreys 00:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shown on Sky News? 

message: In regard to the recent addition here (where O'Reilly called Franken an "idiot" etc.) - I believe they both interrupted each other in that debate from what I saw. Comments? WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All accounts I've read about the incident indicate that as well. --72.224.182.201 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not been able to recently watch the video, but from what I have read, Franken spoke for some time without O'reilly saying anything. O'reilly claimed Franken spoke for 35 minutes, however it supposedly was more like 22. Anyway, I do not know if it was O'reilly's turn to speak or whether he just got fed up with Franken, but when O'reilly started talking, Franken kept on trying to cut him off. That's when O'reilly told him, "Shut up. You had your 35 minutes. Shut up."--129.252.176.46 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Someone has added a section on Keith Olberman's criticism of O'Reilly three times, referring to Olberman calling O'Reilly the "Worst Person in the World", and I removed the paragraph each time. My reasoning has nothing to do with POV. The fact is, O'Reilly is criticized by many people in many different venues. This is no more a "controversy" than when anyone else attacks O'Reilly. It clearly does not belong under the topic of "controversies", as it would be the ONLY part of the section that in NO WAY deals with anything that O'Reilly said or even participated in, and only deals with what Olberman said about O'Reilly. For whoever wants to keep adding this section: Please add it to Olberman's article, as it far more pertains to him than O'Reilly. And, if the defense for adding this paragraph here is that Al Franken has a section (he too criticises O'Reilly), the reason THAT belongs in this article is because there is a constant back-and-forth debate/fight/controversy in which both O'Reilly and Franken participate frequently. With Olberman, the only way O'Reilly has ever participated was by insulting Olberman's show over having low ratings.
To sum up, what Olberman says about O'Reilly is not O'Reilly's "controversy". If it is a controversy at all, it's Olberman's. If your intention is to merely catalogue a list of people or instances when O'Reilly has been attacked, please add a seperate section on that and include other instances as well. However, this would likely turn the POV of the article as a whole significantly into an anti-O'Reilly piece, and I don't think I'm the only one who would strongly discourage the formation of such a section, especially since the number of people who publically criticize O'Reilly numbers in the hundreds and even thousands (starting with almost every Democratic member of Congress, most well-known comedians, and about a million newspaper editorials), and would flood this already-lengthy article to death. So, please, don't even start that section at all. --Ilyag 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there should be a short bit about it, its substantial at that - Mike Beckham 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, would you then go to the Wikipedia articles of every other individual that Olberman has called "Worst Person in the World" and make a reference to it, or isn't it much easier to go to Olberman's article and compile a list THERE of all the people he has given this title? And second, exactly how is it O'Reilly's controversy in any way? The section's subtitle is: Over the years, there have been some ongoing controversial issues highlighted in O'Reilly's print and broadcast work. How does Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" bit fit into this description in any way, shapre, or form? --Ilyag 07:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Refrain from using bold as it appears as a way of "yelling" instead of using caps lock. - Mike Beckham 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bolding was used to emphasize a quote, not to yell it out. --Ilyag 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just added a Keith Olbermann section due to O'Reilly's recent petition campaign to have Olbermann's show removed. In case yo didn't know, Olbermann's show plays at the same time as O'Reilly's. Sysrpl 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I added a paragraph to the end of the Olbermann section related to O'Reilly's curious neglection to refer to Olbermann by name. You can read O'Reilly's petition here  and see that Olbermann is never mentioned. It is obvious that O'Reilly is refering to Olbermann because he is the only personality at the timeslot mentioned. Additionaly, I have sourced an audio clip of O'Reilly dumping the sound of someone who attempted to mention Keith Olbermann's name. Sysrpl 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the weird things about that call was that there was no indication that the caller liked Olbermann, and may have been about to criticize Olbermann (unless there was a part of the call was heard by O'Reilly and not heard by the public).  Schizombie 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not edit out the fact that O'Reilly has and continues to not name Keith or Countdown in his complaints. Editing the topic sentence of the "complaints towards MSNBC" to "did not" infers a single incident. This is not true. It is an ongoing practice as sourced. I have editied the paragraph to say "complaints towards MSNBC continue to not mention" which could be worded better. I am open to suggestions. Sysrpl 16:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Olberman 

message: May I request this page be archived again, it is starting to freeze the browser (long articles do usually) Im not on a slow  connection so I know its the length. Mike 06:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I hope this page is more readable now. --Ilyag 06:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is thankyou :) Mike 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Again 

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

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

message: Did this really happen?  I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything to back up the claim that this interview ever took place.  It was a quick search, mind you, so maybe it is there and I just didn't find it.  The thing is, this section has been added before, and then deleted after no source or citation for the "controversy" could be located.  If you believe this section should remain in the article, please provide a link to a reliable source that indicates this is not just a hoax.  Thanks.Hal Raglan 06:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did another search and still couldn't find anything.  This would be all over the internet if it were true.  I'm going to remove the section.  If anyone can find a link to a reliable information source showing that this interview ever happened, then by all means reinstate it.Hal Raglan 06:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Burke 

message: /* Peabody Award */removed, citation offered no proof..said  "Apparently, O'Reilly had mentioned in multiple interviews that his old syndicated tabloid.........
Key word is "apparently". The source does not offer it as fact, so i removed the section until the author can provide a reliable source for the claim.24.11.154.78 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted.  This is an old, non-controversial fact, backed up by multiple authors and archival recordings. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is non-controversial, then why is it in the "controversies" section?????  ALso, if it is backed up by multiple sources then go ahaead and cite them. 24.11.154.78 17:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blanking sections is a form of vandalism; do not do it again. The actual content is non-controversial, that is to say, it is not disputed.  However, it appears in a section entitled "controversies" due to its treatment by O'Reilly.  The sources are cited in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 
How is it vandalism when I am discussing it? I am not trying to vandalize the article and I take exception to your accusation that I am. I will leave it alone since you are so adament about it, but I would hardly say it is not disputed since I am disputing it now. A simple solution would be for you to replace the section WITH appropriate citations to sources, then I would not have any grounds to dispute it, nor would I want to. All I am asking for are a few sources so I can verify the validity of the claim 24.11.154.78 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: In one such exchange O'Reilly characterized columnist Bob Herbert of the New York Times as a "terrorist helper" because of his criticism of the war in Iraq and his support of the ACLU. (O'Reilly 2005b)
Again, I read this cited article and no where does this exist in it. The cited article never even refers to Bob Herbert at all, so accuse me of vandalism again if you want, but I am deleting this until a proper citation is listed. It is a false citation.
::Not a false citation but an error by the editor who added it.  I've since fixed it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that O'Reilly characterized Herbert as a "terrorist helper".   In the cite, O'Reilly states, "So Bob Herbert is most likely helping the terrorists..." —Viriditas | Talk 00:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Mackris later revealed an audio tape of a telephone call in which O'Reilly made lewd sexual suggestions towards her.  
I deleted this because as I said before there is no public evidence of any tape. If there is, please present it and cite it when you put this line back in.24.11.154.78 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, old news.  This was covered by TSG some time ago and is cited in TSG links. Please leave this page alone until you are able to inform yourself on the issues. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a battleground for your POV.  We merely report the facts. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I've added the appropriate refs which substantiate the claim. —Viriditas | Talk 01:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be specific.  The sources support the claim that the transcript was "thought to be based on an unreleased audio tape".  —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Harrassment Lawsuit 

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

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

message: This is a little on the threshold, but I went ahead and deleted scare quotes surrounding a couple of words that I thought weren't appropriate for NPOV.  While scare quotes can be used to try to distance Wikipedia from the views of Bill O'Reilly, they also usually sound like sneering or sarcasm.  It's usually best to attain NPOV through the text and not through punctuation.  "Bill O'Reilly believes he defends American values," is better than "Bill O'Reilly defends American 'values.'"
:I agree with the removal of these scare quotes. However, now that they have been removed from the "'Saving' Christmas" section, I don't think the section title is sufficiently neutral. "War on Christmas" seems like a good change. Rhobite 00:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch the scare quotes 

message: The overall disputed text in this part appears to be this overall text :
This, in part, has lead many to view Bill O'Reilly as a closeted conservative Republican. According to imdb.com, "Politically he has always claimed he is a registered independent on The O'Reilly Factor. But it was later revealed O'Reilly was actually a registered Republican in Nassau County from 1994 to 2000. O'Reilly re-registered as an independent soon after."
To a certain extent, this text may be a good addition in that it adds understanding to earlier references to O'Reilly being a Republican but this text addition is still in dispute by some, including myself. For the moment, all I have done is revise the link formatting for the section since having a full quote as a link seemed kinda pointless. Anyway, lets talk about this hear instead of having an editing war on the main article! Chris 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic information and the same linked source are already in the article, as Calton has correctly noted.  One contributor is repeatedly attempting to place a redundant paragraph  into the "Alleged Liberal bias in the media" section, where it doesn't even belong anyway, so it quite naturally gets deleted each time.Hal Raglan 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition Under "Alleged Liberal bias in the media" 

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

message: Would it be OK to move the Controversy section to its own new page? Crumbsucker 04:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. It seems to be up to about 20 mini-sections at this point. --Vector4F 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I was hoping somebody would get around to doing this.Hal Raglan 14:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Great idea.  Thanks for being bold. WP:SIZE has the following rule of thumb - >50KB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) - and this article was 58KB just before the move.  The summary on the main page also meets the "guideline" for breaking out a controversial section.  --Spiffy sperry 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: Does anyone know this gentleman's compensation from any of his employers?
--66.81.192.82 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary 

message: The sentence below (yes, it is a single sentence, although not a properly formed one) shows the problem caused by lots of people adding qualifications to a statement without refactoring the prose:
:Some of O'Reilly's more liberal viewpoints include his mild criticism of free-market economics in the oil industry and support for a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and perhaps his support for civil unions, however he has not taken a clear position on this issue, and supported James Dobson's push to stop the Rhode Island legislature from legalizing civil unions in 2006 (he supports voter-decided marriage definitions whether homosexual, polyamory, etc (however, O'Reilly is inconsistent with his openess to redefining marriage and falsely criticized Sweden for legalizing same-sex marriage when in reality they only legalized civil unions), and his opposition to capital punishment (although some say he has been inconsistent ).
This gave me a chuckle, so I had to point it out.  (I didn't refactor it yet...but I will if nobody else does soon.) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a mess. It's probably good advice for encyclopedia writers to stay away from parentheses altogether. They're more often abused than used correctly. Rhobite 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is known as "Weasel Words".  There is generally no need for fact based encyclopedias to need words like "although", "however", "but", etc.  Simple sentences that state facts are much preferred.--Tbeatty 05:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The O'Reilly Refactor 

message: O'Reilly is a conservative, no doubt about it (I am, too).  But he has said before that he is against the death penalty.  Wouldn't this count as one of his rare non-right wing views?  He's also good friends (professionally, at least) with Ed Asner, a self-avowed Socialist.
BTW, even Dubya acknowledges global warming is a fact.  There is no scientific consensus as to its cause, or to the dangers it will bring, and Bush hasn't weighed in with a strong opinion in these areas.  Acknowledging global warming has occurred over the last three decades is hardly a liberal POV.  Lots of other conservatives have done the same. -- Gerkinstock 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Reilly's political views

message: Watching this article on my own Watchlist, it seems that O'Reilly is having nearly constant revisions having to be done due to various IPs and possibly users adding POV statements into the introduction that do not add anything to the article, labeling him an idiot and changing some descriptions. I am wondering, does this page need to have some restrictions on editing to stop all of this constant changing? 
Chris 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking / Restricting Page 

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

message: I would like to suggest that the section discussing O'Reilly's political views be organized.  I have created a page and edited it, putting it into a more organized format.  It's certainly not in finished form and is open to editing/feedback.  Please see  O'Reilly Political View Section Format  and let me know your opinion.  Thanks. Lawyer2b 00:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody reverted my big change to the O'Reilly political view section and, in fact, have been editing it, you're all welcome.  :-P Lawyer2b 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new format for Political View section 

message: Needs reference or POV - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "generally regarded as conservative" 

message: This article is a mess - should all this stuff be in an encylopedia? So much of it is not NPOV, or just plain odd... EAi 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur and edit as per EAi Some of this stuff just isn't encyclopedia worthy. DolphinCompSci 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A mess

message: THis section needs to be re-titled or re written, otherwise it faces deletion as being original research.Mrdthree 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the title when I the re-did the entire section format awhile ago.  When I changed the format I didn't want to delete anything from that section (lest I be accused of trying to bias it through reformatting) and I came up with the name after seeing all that stuff listed and saying to myself "these really don't state or prove what his views are." I have absolutely no problem with it either being retitled or deleted entirely.  Some of the things in that "evidence" section, if noteworthy, may be appropriate for other sections of his entry, though.  Lawyer2b 18:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could do a second section like pro-Republican vs. pro-Democrat stands O'Reilly has taken on issues. It seems to me alot of the stuff in the paragraph is about how he helps republicans more.Mrdthree 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the section should be retitled endorsements by partisan groups or partisan statements by Bill Oreilly, or some clever mix of both like Partisan learnings and political endorsements or some such. Then it is statements of fact, rather than a call to infer bill oreilly's politics.Mrdthree 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This section is necessary but it is a tough thing to present in a NPOV context.  The template is great and keeps POV edits contained.  There is still need for improvement but it is a step in the right direction.   Since O'Reilly has claimed many times that his is an independent, it would be interesting to have a section that shows which of his opinions are Democratic talking points and those that are Republican.  It may be a good alternative to the "implied" section.  MrMurph101 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mrmiscellanious, I think you have a very good point regarding "implications".  They probably don't have a place in wikipedia.  However, your last edit removed a bunch of stuff at least a couple of things of which I think should be included somewhere, e.g. O'Reilly's voter registration.  It is at least, an interesting set of events.  "What say you?"  :-)  Lawyer2b 21:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think overall Oreilly is center-right. I think gay marriage is liberal, I think dont ask dont tell is moderate.Mrdthree 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence that implies hes conservative

message: I do not believe this section contributes much to understanding O'Reilly, but is merely a seratim list of people he allegedly views as "far-right" or "far-left."  Except for the Ayn Rand Institute, the people he views as far-right are universally regarded as such.  We might as well say "O'Reilly believes in gravity.  The list of people he regards on the far-left is missing cites.  Some of the cites that are included do not support the proposition that O'Reilly thinks they are far-right.  I will go through the list and remove those names without citation.
Generally, even if we are left with some names on the list, I do not know that this contributes all that much to an understanding of O'Reilly. --JChap 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the only citation that had confusion is the Ayn Rand institute. It didnt say strictly he considered tehm far right, but close enough. He has said it on his show tons of times. He also considers Michael Savage far right, but has a policy of not speaking his name so it must be inferred (like Al Franken). Mrdthree 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people believe nazis are as much left as right (socialist authoritarians). He called air america far left so I'll retract what I said about franken.Mrdthree 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on political extremists

message: Added new section on the second time O'Reilly has claimed that American soldiers were responsible for the mass murder at the Malmedy massacre. The claim is false and disgustingly paints the murdered American soldiers as war criminals. Also, note that FOX News has editied the witten transcripts for the interview replacing the words "Malmedy" with "Normandy", even though in the video transcripts show he was unmistakable referencing Malmedy. References for both the first and second claims should be online shortly. Also since the original newsite is editing the written transcript, what is the policy for officialy quotations in this matter? Sysrpl 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something should be added to Malmedy massacre? Fishhead64 06:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MOre likely you should move it to the controversies page. Mrdthree 07:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I added this citation:  A summary of a segment by Keith Olbermann on the TV show Countdown with Keith Olbermann on June 1, 2006. Also includes a copy of the Countdown segment as Quicktime video clip and Windows Media video clip, plus a transcript of the segment.  There is a "See Also" reference to the Bill O'Reilly article in the Malmedy Massacre article, and I think that's sufficient for there. This controversy is really about O'Reilly, not the historical events of Malmedy. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malmedy massacre