Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 7

message: Please remove the statement "(But claims this is only a philosophy, not a religion.)" following "Roman Catholic" next to Religion on the side box that gives brief biographical information on O'Reilly. If you follow the link on the citation, O'Reilly says that Christianity is a philosophy but that Christian denominations are religions. By O'Reilly's statements, Roman Catholicism is a religion and the parenthetical statement is incorrect.
131.204.254.71 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Done  Arzel (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 December 2012 

message: Is Bill O’Reilly a Democrat or a Republican?
3/7/2013 10:38, D3323  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.1.37.197 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He states that he is neither, but I think few would ever think that he was a Democrat.  Arzel (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: "On December 6, 2000, the Daily News in New York reported, however, that he had been registered with the Republican Party in the state of New York since 1994. When questioned about this, he said that he was not aware of it and says he registered as an independent after the interview."TMCk (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to NYS Board of Elections website he is registered with the NYS Independence Party.  Look it up here https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/ .  Manhassat's zipcode is 11030.Racingstripes (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: On the 3/12/2013 OReilly show, Stossel seriously said to him, "I don't understand how such a big person can have such a tiny brain."  Could this be added to the article as it is notable to include what other Fox hosts think of OReilly's intellect? -64.136.27.163 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not say so because they always joke in such a way...75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill OReilly and John Stossel interview notable quote 

message: Please consider removing or placing more nuance on the label "historian" in the opening paragraph of this article. Bill O'Reilly lacks the academic qualifications of most historians today (usually an MA and/or doctoral degree in history or a very closely related field), and moreover his "historical" works do not meet the stringent standards of academic historians today (objectivity, proper sourcing and citations, the peer editing process, etc), and are closer in spirit to works of polemic. This is not a political indictment, but calling someone who does not meet these standards and has no more qualifications than a BA in the field a historian (with all that that implies) is an a lie and an insult to the historian's discipline. Calling him a historian is like calling a homeopath a physician. If merely having written pseudo-historical polemic qualifies him for the title of historian in popular eyes, at least consider adding nuance to the job title by prefacing it with amateur- (as it is not him main job, and he doesn't meet the accepted standards of the profession) and/or popular- (as works of popular history do not necessarily always meet the stringent standards of academic works, though most good ones do). 'Writer of popular history' might be the most appropriate option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.76.8 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm inclined to agree with 74's position, though I think that calling it a lie/insult is a bit much. Being a historian, at least in contemporary times, is something generally done by academics, publishing under some sort of peer-review standards. Do others agree we should either remove or alter the phrase? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle, but I have found in practice here that this is a rule that is not followed.  If a reliable source calls him a Historian, than he is, regardless of what the correct academic usage should be.  Arzel (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historian 

message: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/
Has a lot of info.  It's a liberal POV but not a hit piece or full of cheap shots.  173.55.140.132 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Salon article 

message: Bill O'Reilly is old enough to have served in Vietnam, how did he miss out on his tour of duty ?
58.6.193.57 (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an edit request--that's for asking for a change to the article. If you have questions you'd like answered, try the WP:Reference desk. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 9 July 2013 

message: The following line under Controversy, Joy Behar/Whoopi Goldberg does not appear to have a source.
Former host and progressive commentator Rosie O'Donnel stated on her radio program that the incident was an example of what she viewed as regular hateful statements. O'Reilly responded by citing O'Donnell's earlier statement about claiming the threat from radical Christianity is similar to that of radical Islam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinbreed (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: The archiving for this page doesn't seem to be working properly. There are completely empty archives in 7,8 and 9. Could someone who understands these things please take a look? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archiving 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bill O'Reilly which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Shouldn't Martin Dugard be listed as a co-author for Killing Kennedy? 2620:0:2820:2212:CC22:7B94:4C33:5D1F (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably so, since he is. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 2013-10-04 

message: I would love to share the great views of Bill O'Reilly considering the differences of other Fox News Team
Cheek.dylan1 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill O'Reilly 

message: Why is the Ludacris comment listed under Controversy? There's no mention in that section of it being controversial, or anyone being opposed to his comments. He called for a boycott of some products because they associated with someone that didn't align with his political position. Said person was then disassociated with the producer of said products. 
There's no mention of concern or controversy at all. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There doesn't seem any point to having it there, except to beef up a near-empty section. 122.164.8.127 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ludacris isn't controversy 

message: So why isn't the background of his parents mentioned in the Early life section? It certainly of interest, and it is almost always mentioned early on in the biographies of other people on Wikipedia. Apparently, Bill likes to portray himself as "lower-middle-class", but his dad was a former naval officer and oil company accountant, earning a respectable wage, while his mother was a physical therapist, according this article on NNDB. The part about him being an accountant is mentioned, but only later on in this article, together with his salary, but it is not adjusted to inflation, which is somewhat strange and also a bit misleading, IMO. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind these choices, if there is any. Gavleson (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Parents

message: The article states that Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown. That is simply untrue, his house was in South Westbury (sometimes called Salisbury). I grew up nearby and there is no doubt where Levittown is and where South Westbury is. O'Reilly's house was in the area covered by the Westbury post office, but not in the village of Westbury. 
74.108.20.53 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hometown 

message: The article states that O'Reilly was a member of the Chaminade H.S. "varsity hockey team," citing Marvin Kittman's biography. There was no varsity hockey team at that time at the school, as evidenced by the absence of any reference to it in the sports section of the 1967 Chaminade yearbook. He was a member of a club team, however, as is correctly noted in his brief senior biography in the yearbook (presumably a venue he was not likely to embellish). This proposed change from "varsity hockey team" to "club team" is topical in view of O'Reilly's recent walk off in a radio interview and Keith Olbermann's commentary yesterday awarding him his "worst person award," in part for overstating his athletic career as a punter on Marist's varsity football team, when it also was only a club team at the time.Pverby (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Early Life 

message: While working on :Category:Climate change skeptics, I noticed that this article has been added to that category, yet there is no mention in the prose of this article that this article's subject is considered a climate change skeptic (complete with reliable sources). A quick online check showed that reliable sources do exist showing this to be the case. Please add this to the prose to this article or delete the category from this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need mention of Climate change skepticism or delete category 

message: I just realized there's an issue with the archives for the talk page. Archives 8 and 9 do not exist. The history for those pages shows that the content was moved to Archive 4? I'm not really sure what that's all about but someone with more understanding should probably fix it.
Also, the controversies section seems odd to me. I haven't even heard of the Ludacris controversy. On the other hand, O'Reilly has had a number of quite notable controversies such as claiming that he won a Peabody Award when he didn't and claiming that US soldiers carried out WWII atrocities that were, instead, carried out by Nazis. Both of those were quite notable when they happened and attracted quite a bit of media attention. The second moreso because he doubled down on the claim despite it being clear he's wrong. Ayzmo (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives and Controversies 

message: The following was deleted from the article claiming Media Matters is not a reliable source:
"Media Matters collected seven more examples of O'Reilly talking about the Falklands War coverage. Some of the quotes created the impression that he claim he was in the actual Island by using the words "war zone" or "combat situation". But in other quote he stated he was in Buenos Aires covering the story and not in the Falklands: "And then in the Falklands War, I just didn't see you in Buenos Aires or Montevideo. I was there, but I didn't see you."."

I think they count as a reliable source. The quotes from the Media Matters investigation can be fact-checked by the video they made, where you listen to the voice of Bill. So per WP:Verifiability, I'm in favor of re-adding it. NPOV is other question. Instead of "Media Matters collected..", we could start the text as "Progressive media watchdog Media Matters collected.."--Neo139 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be in favor of re-adding it, but I would add that I prefer that Wikipedia not use subjective labels about news organizations.  We have no need to insert personal beliefs in articles. It should read "Media Matters collected" and people can make up their own mind.  Quote the source, move along.  Great work by everyone who contributed to the new Falklands section.  It reads well and seems very neutral.  Thank you!  Lipsquid (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, please restore what was removed. Of course Media Matters is a reliable source; it just has a political slant in one direction which editors of a different slant would object to. And yes, of course it should be reported here neutrally. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Media Matters is not a reliable source at all, especially for that information.  The Falklands dispute has been recorded in enough reliable sources that we can use those. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Thargor Orlando. Media Matters is BARELY a WP:RS, and if the info is available from more reputable RS's it should be used. As Thargor stated, this particular topic has been discussed and recorded by plenty of RS's, and they should utilized, not MM.  Vyselink (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just double-checked WP:RS and of course Media Matters is reliable, just as Fox News is reliable. WP:BIASED on that page has the relevant guideline. Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: MMfA is a self-published organization with limited editorial oversight and a history of getting things wrong.  Their bias is only part of the problem, and discussions at RS/N have leaned against using MMfA.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: That sounds very sensible, Vyselink. As long as the MM source is not the exclusive source of the information, in which case, we would have to consider using it, just try to state it neutrally. I would hope that all editors in this discussion are putting aside their personal political stance and are approaching this with no agenda, but I know that quite often that may not be the case. (My Fox News mention was an attempt to say that information needed for the article could come from either side.) Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media Matters investigation 

message: Bill O'Reilly May Have Covered-Up a Massacre.   "Earlier this month, Greg Grandin, a columnist for The Nation magazine, found evidence that O'Reilly, who in 1982 was a foreign correspondent for CBS Nightly News, may have deliberately ignored the massacre of hundreds of people by U.S.-backed death squads in El Mozote, El Salvador, thus helping deflect attention from war crimes backed by the United States."  --- IjonTichy  (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professor [[Greg Grandin]] on El Salvador 

message: it needs to be updated to show that O'Reilly assaulted his wife, as per court documents.
107.77.76.124 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: http://gawker.com/court-transcripts-bill-o-reilly-s-daughter-saw-him-ch-1704717356 193.169.204.11 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015 

message: In light of the extent of material on the issue, I think the passage on the domestic abuse allegation needs to be more transparent and comprehensive. How about:
::
— Base664 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015 

message: This still stands. The passage on the domestic abuse allegation is too brief and imprecise. I think it should be changed to the following, which explains the episode in more appropriate detail, whilst remaining objective. If you do not think this is acceptable, please enlighten me as to why.
::
Base664 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015 

message: O'Reilly's maternal ancestors are described as being from Northern Ireland, which is a political entity that didn't come into being until 1922, which I assume is long after his ancestors had left. Something to the effect of "elsewhere in Ulster" would be accurate and serve the same purpose unless a more specific source can be found.Otanerlives (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism in Early Life section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070504040310/http://newsinfo.iu.edu:80/news/page/normal/5535.html to http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/5535.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP noticeboard

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201024432/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog/ to http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130120125908/http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/muslim-dilemma to http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/transcript/muslim-dilemma
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090703201430/http://www.stateofthemedia.org:80/2009/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=1 to http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/narrative_cabletv_audience.php?cat=1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080930090431/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/media/cablenews/hume.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/cablenews/hume.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090112164240/http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv:80/2007/06/14/the-oreilly-factor-from-nickname-to-brandname.aspx to http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2007/06/14/the-oreilly-factor-from-nickname-to-brandname.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080318180631/http://www.talkers.com:80/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44 to http://talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090325092745/http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreillyjourstud07.pdf to http://journalism.indiana.edu/papers/oreillyjourstud07.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150311051029/http://jfkfacts.org:80/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/ to http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061208093737/http://www.billoreilly.com:80/pg/jsp/general/newspapercolumn.jsp to http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/newspapercolumn.jsp
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111013122952/http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/spinfacts01.htm to http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/spinfacts01.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604013458/http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808461887/bio to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808461887/bio
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Was the best picture that could be found of this man one with a dour, glum, scowling expression on his face?
How about a neutral, non-biased picture, instead of one posted by a liberal stooge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.53.26 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimate picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804235005/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/07/fox-news-dominates-july-contest-bill-oreilly-again-tops.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/07/fox-news-dominates-july-contest-bill-oreilly-again-tops.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270001?f=h_latest
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319015828/http://gawker.com/5990571/bill-oreillys-divorce-is-so-ugly-god-got-involved to http://www.gawker.com/5990571/bill-oreillys-divorce-is-so-ugly-god-got-involved
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: O'Reilly also worked at WCVB in Boston from 1985-1986 (possibly 1987)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCVB-TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqkK68t7pXQ
Jaco66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Early Life 

message: Could somebody change the "in" to "on" in the fourth sentence so that it says, "The couple separated on April 2, 2010, and were divorced on September 1, 2011."? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done JTP (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017 

message: Where the entry now says:
"In February 2016, O'Reilly lost a bid for custody of both of his children.[124]"
It should say:
"In February 2016, O'Reilly lost a bid for custody of both his children.[124] However, by then his daughter had already become emancipated from having turned 18." 66.62.180.228 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This would contradict the Independent article cited as a source, and the Gawker article cited by The Independent. Court documents linked by those sources give the daughter's date of birth as March 21, 1999, which means she does not turn 18 until March 21, 2017. If there is a reliable source stating the daughter was 18 in February 2016, please feel free to reopen this request. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017 

message: Can someone add in a section on all the previous example of race baiting comments and racism.
Will be good for future historic reference, to compare and contrast the various comnments from Bill O'Reilly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race baiting and racism 

message: Can someone add in a long section - comparing historical racists, through time in the media, and then see how Bill O'Reilly matches up.
NPR - Tom Ashbrook had program talking about long history of alleged racist comments by Bill O'Reilly.  
Good to understand this context, when looking at some of the history books written by O'Reilly.  How do views on race fit in?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical context of racism 

message: Non neutral sentence: "Shortly after Ailes was fired, Fox News settled yet another sexual harassment claim...". Please remove the "yet" to make the sentence neutral.104.163.140.228 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "yet another" 

message: O'Reilly is executive producer, as well as an on-camera commentator for the above series.  This needs to be included in the article.  Thx, 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4869:17E3:7C7B:7451 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Legends & Lies]]'' 

message: On Anderson Cooper's CNN show tonight, former FoxNews contributor Christine Powers  that it was well known how O'Reilly mistreated/abused women for years.  Yet all these powerful Fox host's, like Greta, Megan, Shawn, and contributors, like Heraldo, who once said anyone who disrespects women is a "punk", did little or nothing to put a stop to this abuse.  Shouldn't that be included here so readers can understand this behaviour did not happen in a vacuum of ignorance at Fox News and they all share some responsibility for looking the other way when this kept happening time and time again? 172.191.14.155 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be a case of original research that is not allowed in articles. Rather, if there is a significant commentator or news source that makes this observation, that might be something that could be cited in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox host/contributors were enablers, did nothing to stop this 

message: NO need to have political commentator
followed by 
political commentary
in first sentence and then again in 2nd sentence.
This is redundant.
Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political commentator followed by political commentary 

message: Roughly 1/3 of the lead describes the recent sexual allegations. Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, I believe this should be adjusted to better reflect the article's contents as well as O'Reilly's life and career. I hope we can make the lead a bit more "fair and balanched." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox let him go today, tho'  HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mr Ernie. It needs to change. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

text: User:HammerFilmFan that's fine, but it is important to note the lead should be an accurate reflection of the article, and not overly focus on recent events (see also WP:LEAD and WP:NOTNEWS). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead? 

message: In the Other work subsection please add:
O'Reilly is executive producer, as well as an on-camera commentator for the Legends & Lies docudrama series.
(Feel free to change wording at editor's discretion) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Sagecandor (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your pick of any of the nine sources referenced in the article or either external link. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind; evidently, neither sapience nor sentience is required for editing Wikipedia. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017 

message: In the 'Early life' section, following  "O'Reilly has a sister, Janet", please replace "citation needed" tag with the following reference:
*  2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4869:17E3:7C7B:7451 (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017 

message: At least two of the coauthors in the 'Books' section have articles that should be linked (ie: |autherlink2=...). See: Martin Dugard (author) & James Patterson.  Source for Patterson: .  —Also, O'Reilly is last/first format and coauthors are first/last format; shouldn't they be consistent? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4D89:B08:717F:6935 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coauthors 

message: Should sexual harassment be addressed under his career instead of personal life? He has been accused of harassment in the workplace and it is what caused his departure from Fox. There is also the ongoing investigation into whether Fox improperly paid for settlements for O'Reilly and Ailes. To me, it seems more appropriate to deal with the topic near the O'Reilly Factor portion of the article than it does to leave it under personal life. Thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider it a personal life issue. There is a mention of his departure and related sexual harassment issues in the section on O'Reilly Factor. I think that's enough for that section. Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a mistaken way of looking at it. It was his professional behavior in the workplace that was at issue, not what he did at home. And it was part of a corporate culture at FNC that tolerated/promulgated such things. This belongs in the professional sections as much as anything else. 2600:1002:B112:A076:6538:E236:18B4:7286 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Directly tied to career and workplace and former company and former employer. Sagecandor (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  I agree and have boldly moved. If anyone wants to challenge it, we can of course discuss it further, but this belongs under "Career" for three reasons: (1) the incidents seem to be all workplace-related (i.e., the women concerned were guests on the show plus coworkers); (2) Fox and 21st Century Fox paid some of the settlements, and (3) most importantly, it was the sexual harassment claims that resulted in O'Reilly's ouster from the network. Neutralitytalk 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

text: See this discussion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life or career? 

message: I've noticed that since my last edit (4/17/2017) that the entirety of the public disputes section has been erased from O'Reilly's article. This contained information on the dispute with the Anti-Defamation league, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, and Ludacris. I can't seem to understand why this section was erased, along with its sources (where no source or text was merged into another paragraph) . Is there a reason why this section was removed? TheTrashMan (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See this edit. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor removed criticisms from the Anti-Defamation League so I removed his spat with the women from The View and merged what was left in "Public disputes" with "The O'Reilly Factor" section.LM2000 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Was the Public Disputes Section Erased? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shockwavemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=234%3Amurderdolls&catid=38%3Amusicians
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006193652/http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/06/01/dont-smear-oreilly-with-tiller-assassination/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/06/01/dont-smear-oreilly-with-tiller-assassination/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040210-0550-campaign-bush-oreilly.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think it's correct to say that his political party is the Independence Party of New York in either the infobox or the Lead.
Yes, it's correct to say that he's a member  (assuming he hasn't fixed it yet), and it should certainly be discussed in the Body.  However the cite in the Lead makes it pretty clear that it's a mistake: "But when he did so, it appears that O’Reilly checked the wrong box. Again. This time it looks like an honest mistake . . .".  Surely his membership of the IPoNY, apparently by accident, is not material enough for inclusion in the Lead?  
Likewise, there's no requirement to put Political Party in the infobox.  The rubric on the template says "if relevant", and it's not really relevant for (ex?)news anchors who claim no affiliation.  If it's determined to be relevant, then it probably should read "Independent", because that what he consistently claims, and he's a better source than Board of Elections’s database when an explanation has been given for the discrepancy.  That said, I wouldn't support that, as he's clearly not a swing voter, hence my suggestion that we skip the field.  Just as we skip the religion field, unless it's relevant.  Or perhaps it should read "Conservative", as that's what he really is,  is how RS describe him, and is more useful to a casual reader trying to quickly access information on his likely bias.  Mind you, c.f. Rachel Maddow, who isn't infoboxed despite being, and claiming to be, Liberal.
One could argue, and I would, that his historic membership of the Republican Party isn't really relevant, from an infobox POV (certainly it should be in the Body).  Perhaps if in the period 1994-2001 he is on record as saying he was a Republican, but even then I'd avoid it.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox & Lead: Political Party 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://collection.europarchive.org/nli/20110221210200/http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1970/1970-11-19.pdf to http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1970/1970-11-19.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004013138/http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/22/News/The-Real.Colbert.Talks.At.Lisner-3046562.shtml to http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2007/10/22/News/The-Real.Colbert.Talks.At.Lisner-3046562.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is quite a bit of content here detailing the various lawsuits. Perhaps it would be better to move the content to a separate article and include a multi-paragraph summary in this article. Any thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this post was written nearly two years before mine, but I will answer anyway. I would argue no because that violates WP:CONTENTFORK. Those allegations, whether true or not, definitely ruined O'Reilly's career at Fox News. However, I do not see many very many noteworthy lawsuits surrounding the political figure to the best of my knowledge, especially since his departure. Such an article would definitely need POV checks, but more specifically, I think to create such an article would be to repeat the same information as in this article. If we were discussing Bill Cosby sexual assault cases, that would be different. The allegations are so everywhere that it is impossible to not associate the comedian with them. If that article were not already started, I would agree 110% to create it. Gamingforfun365 00:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split lawsuits into separate article? 

message: Bill O'Reilly has a new book out titled The United States of Trump that came out in 2019 and is not listed under his bibliography. 2601:1C0:5A00:B90:F5C5:78C7:2C20:A5B7 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019 

message: Add Bill O'Reilly's new 2019 book "The United States of Trump: How the President Really Sees America" to this page's bibliography. 
https://billoreillyhistorybooks.com/books/also-by-bill-oreilly/the-united-states-of-trump/
Safarkea95 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019 

message: Removed this sentence from bio: "During his time at BU, he also was a classmate of future radio talk show host Howard Stern whom O'Reilly noticed because Stern was the only student on campus taller than he was." Stern was an undergrad when O'Reilly was in grad school. To hear O'Reilly talk on air, he and Stern were friends and classmates. Stern is adamant that they never crossed paths, much less were classmates or friends. scooteristi (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern 

message: change "near the 9//1 memorial site" to "near the 9/11 memorial site" Vadalover (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 

message: The article states that Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, however, this is not true. He's a political pundit. I would like to change "journalist" to "political pundit" to reflect the true nature of his career. Cbellur (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020 

message: In the Books by O'Reilly section, please link the 1st instance of Martin Dugard to Martin Dugard (author). — 2606:A000:1126:28D:ACA9:E77B:5BDD:7ACA (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Terasail[Talk] 21:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. The arguments for the move were that the political commentator was the primary topic, based on pageviews and Wikinav. However, opponents argued that the cricketer had more long term significance due to their impact on the sport and pointed towards the fact that the views could be attributed to the commentator being alive. As such, there is no consensus regarding the primary topic here, and therefore this is closed as not moved. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) →  – When I saw that this article was distinguished with "(political commentator)," I was surprised -- "who else has a page called 'Bill O'Reilly'?," I thought to myself. I looked up Bill O'Reilly, which redirected to the disambiguation page William O'Reilly, which features only one other article titled Bill O'Reilly, about an Australian cricketer. Between the fact that the article about the political commentator has thousands of page views in the last month alone while the cricketer's page just barely cracks one thousand in that span of time, Google searching "Bill O'Reilly" nearly exclusively showed results about the political commentator. To me, this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, without question. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 July 2023 

message: * This RM is predictably a mess of opinions that will satisfy no one. First, the RM should acknowledge there are 3 rules-based possibilities: 1. No primary topic 2. WP:PT1 for the American and 3. WP:PT2 for the Cricketer. Then, each voter should explain why those chose one of these three, and why the other two should not be chosen. This will give the closer a better sense of which are the stronger arguments, by forcing voters to examine all the facts.  -- GreenC 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion