Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 3

message: I deleted the paragraph before the United Way section.  It was just a summary of the United Way section.  Tomhormby 11:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph Deletion 

message: I don't think it is appropriate to make a "sexual scandal section" in his personal background.  That section is a a good personal bio/history and any great detail of recent events (good or bad) would be out of place there I think.  There is a whole page devoted to his controversies where the scandal is already listed and somewhat fleshed out. Lawyer2b 02:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your comments.--Dcflyer 03:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was reinserted/reverted by 24.87.13.224.  But now it is actually NPOV.  -- Dcflyer 03:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get into an edit war over it because I can partially see User:24.87.13.224's point (even though he doesn't SIGN HIS TALK PAGE EDITS ;-) but if that's where its going be, then we should take the entire section from the controversy page and put it there because it is a much more complete accounting.  Lawyer2b 03:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, instead of having selective and/or POV coverage of the same issues in multiple articles.--Dcflyer 04:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nice job guys --- the "editing war" guy
It is incorrect and in violation of Wikipedias policy to label O'Reillys taped remarks as lewd-- There is no context to O'Reilly's taped remarks, nor are his specific words quoted, so describing them to them as 'lewd' is without citation-- in violation of Wikipedia's policy on articles about living persons. Sean7phil 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: His specific words are quoted in the complaint, which is cited. The complaint also describes the contexts in which the remarks were made. These remarks clearly fit the definition of the word "lewd". Moreover, the complaint specifically uses the word "lewd" to describe his remarks. The statement as written is undeniably factual and verifiable. Lagringa 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The rules are pretty stringent on bios of living people.  Adding details of the sexual discrimination suit such as "falafel" runs the risk of violating WP:NOV.  In addition, there are problems with verifiability and sourcing of those claims.  Granted the accusations were made, reprinted heavily, and was widely disseminated, there is still the issue for Wiki editors to come up with a reliable source discussing this stuff. Ramsquire 20:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Scandal section in Personal background section. 

message: Can this talk page be archived again please, it is getting too long. Mike Beckham 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so since the other archives have far fewer discussions.  MrMurph101 22:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ilyag 02:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Again? 

message: I see a great description of Media Matters for America's opinion on this commentator, and an even greater amount of descriptions on the controversies page.  While this is generally considered "counterweight" to the opinions that this commentator professes, I believe there is a line between counterweight and promotion.  Between the two articles, the watchdog group is mentioned 20 times, and has over 24 links in the articles.  I believe this is quite excessive for a group that isn't even associated with O'Reilly - these instances should be reduced down to a mention or two (we don't need to know their position on everything), and the rest moved to their article for reading.  --Mrmiscellanious 03:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MMFA is the only free archive of O'Reilly audio and video so dont think of it as something necessarily reflective of point of view.Mrdthree 07:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of them are just expressing MMFA's opinion on the subjects.  This belongs in their article, not this one.  --Mrmiscellanious 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing the opinions of MMFA in articles 

message: The ombudsman for public radio was talking on a local public (Jeffrey devorkan??)
kcur "up to date" about O'Reilly's appearance on Fresh Air. --Gbleem 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ITs in bill oreilly controversies.Mrdthree 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Air 

message: Someone categorized belief in global warming as a liberal position. Global warming is a scientific fact. There have not been any scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen. Are you saying believing in science makes someone liberal? Sysrpl 10:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth.  I'm not on the same premise as you here.  Global increase in temperature is fact, but the causes and concerns are highly debateable, otherwise it obviously wouldn't be listed as a POLITICAL VIEW.  The solution is to clarify that his viewpoint on "global warming" is consistent with liberal viewpoints on causes and concerns, rather than simply the observation of temperature increase.  I'll do that now.  Psycho Master (Karwynn) 15:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, Global warming is not a scientific fact.  If you understood science you would understand that it is a method.  THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT HAPPENING.  All you are doing it appealing to authority and claiming that if most scientists believe it, it must be true.  Before a reply, I urge to research and look into the history of theoritical science and how many theories have come and gone.  In all of those research articles, fact and certainty were words frequently used.  Science is a very broad subject and and many scientists believe that earth is cooling down.  In fact, I was just reading an article by a Dr. Peter Dorman.  I quote, ".. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica.  When the scientists noticed that 'glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." Science shouldn't claim anything as fact unless it can be empirically tested.  If you can show that the earth AS A WHOLE, NOT SECTION MEASUREMENTS, is warming up and is doing so more and more, then it will verify at least that the theory holds much merit.  Much more testing has to be done and for a much longer time.  I am pretty sure that I was taught in Biology class that the early earth was much warmer than today.  Anyway, I am not debating you or even  disagreeing with you, I am just showing you that you could be wrong, and learn not jump the gun in science.  All we can do right now is gather clues and try to make sense of the whole picture.  We don't have the full story. --RyanDaniel 03:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RyanDaniel wrote and claiming that if most scientists believe it, it must be true.  This is exactly how humans define truth.  When the world presents a repeatable proposistion that is consistent with surrounding facts, then we call this proposistion "true".  When the proposistion is not consistent with surrounding facts, we call it "false", and if the proposistion is not repeatable, then we are unsure if it is true or false and keep studying things.Jmd2121 06:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am pretty much a scientist (will defend in a few months), know a bunch of scientists and I am very pro-business and I gotta say I know no one that would try to argue that mean global temperatures are decreasing. There is a very powerful argument that mean global temperatures are rising. THe data as you point out shows local variabilty such that antarctica is colder and much of the US is warmer than average. Points of debate are whether the greenhouse effect is the determinant of current and future global temperature trends . Science folks from poor countries seem to discount it too (their predisposition is not probusiness but more like the trouble ahead couldnt match the trouble I've seen). My position is that there is room for doubt regarding the human impact on global warming because historical fluctuations from causes other than the greenhouse effect have led to temperature variations that exceed currently observed variations, suggesting these variables exert greater control over the climate (solar variation theory). Mrdthree 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will qualify that by saying mean global surface temperatures are rising (like <10000 feet altitude?). There are issues about temperature trends at medium and high altitudes, which do not always reflect this trend. Mrdthree 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your statement implies much more than what it actually says.  "Heat island effect" is a well known man-made warming.  Growing cities get hotter.  Except it has nothing to do with CO2 or greenhouse gasses or fossil fuels.  What is disupted is the correction factor applied to heat island warming to arrive at global warming.  What is also disputed is the role CO2 and greehouse gasses have on overall warming as well as what effect increased moisture will have (will it warm or will it cool?).  The models for warming have been useless (witness the Hurricane predictions for just this year).  What is not debated is that Media, Politicians and established Environmental Thinktank/fundraising orgs have a vested interest in maintaining a State of Fear.  We are in the middle of a lexicon switch because Global Warming is about to peter out (because glaciers are, on average, growing and ocean levels are not rising).  The new lexicon is "Abrupt Climate Change".  It will become the new "fear" word just as Global Warming replaced New Ice Age from the 1970's.  What has not changed is the culprit (man) or the solution (wealth redistribution as is the case with Kyoto). --Tbeatty 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming is Science Fact 

message: I do not think that this needs to be included: 
::"O'Reilly allegedly forced Mackris to stay on the phone with him as he detailed a sexual fantasy and masturbated.  The fantasy involved O'Reilly and Mackris travelling to the Caribbean, getting drunk, and showering together.  O'Reilly described fondling Mackris' breasts and genitals, first with a loofa and then with a falafel.  This was all detailed in Mackris' complaint."  
It is addressed in the section in general and provides the reference to these details.  If others think it is ok to include this I will accept that.  MrMurph101 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are good points Crazyd.  I withdraw my objection.  If no one else objects, then it should be put back in.  As for where to place this, the Bill O'Reilly controversies article is too bloated to put there (for now) and this looks like it fits fine in the "personal life" section.  The Red Cross and United Way section are duplicated in each article also.  Maybe there should be a vote to decide which article should have the respective sections. MrMurph101 05:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Details of Sexual Harassment suit

message: The editor Cyde seems to think I'm removing just Anti-Bill links.  Well, I didn't.  I left official SmokingGun documents that make Bill look like a pretty bad guy, and deleted the other junk and media files per WP:EL.  It's not my fault that the Other Links I'm removing are all Anti-Bill.  I would do the same if they were PRO-BILL, as they have no place either.  That's not the point here, the point is getting links off articles that do not belong.  Wiki is not a directory for links and media files related to the subject of the article.  --EmmSeeMusic 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing junk links 

message: I made some changes to the bullets conservative, moderate, and liberal bullet points. Please use this section to discuss changes to those bullet points.
I contend that supporting a George Bush blitz of stump speeches is NOT a liberal position. If the Republican President Bush decides to tackle immigration coming up with a half baked plan, to label that plan as liberal simply because it's nutty is wrong. If anything, support of that plan is to stand behind the Republican President in spite of what the  public wants.
I contend that opposition to prostitution is still opposition to prostitution. Anyone can rationalize your opposition to a policy, but it doesn't change the fact that you are against it. It's with this in mind that I moved opposition to prositution out of the liberal column.
Opposing a flag burning amendment is not a liberal position. Republicans control both the houses and the Presidency and attempts to pass this legislation failed again. So it would seem that Republicans decided not to pass this ammendment, which by the way was pushed by a liberal Senator. Sysrpl 07:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to let people make up their own mind. I am going to put those entries back in.  I do not see where taking out that section affects anything.  MrMurph101 02:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for Conservative, Moderate, Liberal Positions 

message: ::In another of his bold assertions, he said on one program in 2004 that if al-Qaeda is able to bring a nuclear weapon or any other kind of mass-destruction across the border, that "Bush is done"... a sentiment all but echoed by other America-first commentators such as Pat Buchanan.
Would the "bold assertion" be considered sarcasm?
I think its pretty clear this entry is biased, but shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? --andrew leahey 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sarcasm? 

message: I would like to determine the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on whether or not this article should explicitly describe Bill O'Reilly as a journalist in its very first line (as it currently does). Please clearly state your vote, and a brief justification for it.
:No -- The work Bill O'Reilly has done over the past decade both on his television program and in print (books, newspaper columns, etc) cannot be described as journalism based on the definition of this term. A pundit is not a journalist. The fact that O'Reilly started his career as a journalist should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, not in the very first line. --Ilyag 23:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- His work is journalism just as Dan Rather's work is journalism.  So is George Stephanopoulous.  It's a different brand of journalsim than straight reporting but it is journalism nonetheless.  He does newsworthy interviews and has a degree in broadcast journalism.  He does magazine style reporting and this is well within the realm of being a journalist.  --Tbeatty 14:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes -- His shows are a mixture of news, commentary and analysis. His reportage and commentary are more balanced and more highly researched than that of other uncontested journalists such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. His program involves analysis (talking points), interviews of experts on topical issues (Top Story or factor follow-up usually addressign crime waves, science or social issues, facts of Sudan crisis, facts of bombings, etc.). FOllowing these there is usually some a pundit-style interviews (Impact Segment) and more variable or topical segments. Mrdthree 01:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to have a dubious tag or remove the journalist label.  He does journalistic work and he has a degree in broadcast journalism.  His program is a cable news program that has in depth coverage of current events.  He is historically a journalist as well.   There is no reason to remove it or tag it dubious as it is easily verfifiable that he is a journalist.  Dan Rather is also a journalist yet he has no job in journalism.  It is also in the first line of his bio.  Journalism is a broad field.  Andy Rooney has been doing commentary for many years and guess what?  He is a hjournalist and it says so on the first line of his bio.  Your personal feeling that O'Reilly is not doing journalism now does not mean that he shouldn't be described as a journalist.  He considers himself a journalist among other things including commentator, author, etc.  I removed the dubious tag after supplying the reference that he has a degree in broadcast journalism.  --Tbeatty 23:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. This debate was already hashed out when naming the article title. --Vector4F 01:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it this is about the title.  This is whether he is a journalist at all.  There is no doubt that he is a commentator.  That may even be his main job.  But he is also an author, radio talk show host, columnist and journalist.  We don't need to rename the disambiguation title, but the reality is that he is more than just a commentator and that should be reflected (as it has been) on the first line.--Tbeatty 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "dubious" tag stays until there is concensus. Please stop removing it. I have removed the term "journalist" before, only to have you revert that edit. So, in an attempt to be fair to your opinion, I'm no longer removing this term because at least SOME people (namely, you) oppose the term's removal. I have taken the next logical step in an attempt to re-concile this matter: I added the "dubious" tag to draw attention to the fact that this term is disputed (you cannot doubt that it is disputed, because I'm telling you right now that it is -- by me) and urging people to see the TALK page and participate in this very discussion, in an attempt to reach a concensus. Once the concensus is reached, I propose that one of these two actions be taken: 1) The removal of the "dubious" tag, or 2) the removal of the term "journalist" from the article's introductory sentence. You voted for choice 1, I voted for choice 2. I don't see a third choice here. You can't "win" this debate by deleting people's complaints to make it seem as if there is no disagreement among Wikipedia's editors. There is disagreement. Until more editors express their views and a clear majority concensus is reached, the "dubious" tag stays. --Ilyag 19:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to read the  tag descriptor.  Dubious implies unreferenced and I supplied a reference.   is similiar to .  You cannot simply claim dubious because of your personal belief.  It seems there is no evidence you will see that will change your mind which implies an improper use of dubious.  Do you have a problem with the reference?  Regardless, I also came up with a third choice.  It simply changes "is" with "has been".  It conveys all the same information yet it whould remove your complaint about the term journalist as he certainly has been one even using your logic that he isn't currently a "jounralist."  I believe he certainly qualifies as a journalist as a descriptor of who he is and this is the normal way a bio references someone.  Again, Andy Rooney is journalist.  I haven't seen any "journalism" from Rooney in a long time.  --Tbeatty 02:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  WHen he interviews public figures he functions as a journalist. For instance when he interviewed president Bush, Rumsfeld, William Cohen. That was journalism, he disseminated news rather than analysis or commentary. Mrdthree 08:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journalist? 

message: The section Discredited claims by O'Reilly in the article appears to be very biased to me.--Will 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Discredited claims by O'Reilly' may be vandalism 

message: The section on Ideology has a long history and was first conceived as a compromise to a large paragraphs describing Bill's positions on issues in relation to differing political ideology. The discussion of the reformating are in the talk archives. If you want another major reformat, check back in the talk archives and present an argument for your ideas for better format, then listen to what others have to say before reaching a conclusion. Sysrpl 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unsourced POV.  Who says it is conservative, liberal or moderate?  Without a source on the particular opinion it is just a guess.  The labels by themselves are "weasel words" in the passive voice because they wouldn't stand up to their active voice version.  His views should not be labeled unless a reputable source labels them.--Tbeatty 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Editors keep shulffing around where to put certain entries.  It is better just to leave the labels out.  Readers can decide for themselves. MrMurph101 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Calling him a centrist makes no sense whatsoever, concidering the fact that a great number of people would disagree. Never call him a centrist. Quote others calling him a centrist. Quote him calling himself a centrist. But never call him a centrist. -- Ec5618 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology 

message: Regarding the claim about O'Reilly children's book, is there such a category as "best selling non-fiction children’s book" in any reputable book poll?
I was unable to find a category like this anywhere. FinFangFoom 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may simply have been on the list of childrens best sellers. I couldnt tell when I rewrote the section couple months ago. I will look in to it over hte next couple days. Mrdthree 19:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: right now the source is Mrdthree 04:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up I'll post that.Mrdthree 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Best selling non-fiction children’s book"? 

message: There are many things in this section that are presented without any support.  For living people we NEED supporr for anything we write here.  The bullet list of things he supports or opposes needs a great deal of work.  --Blue Tie 15:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: His Personal Views Section

message: As much as I enjoy the site, do we really need all these links to the site? Some of them seem rather irrelevant. Rsm99833 16:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crooks & Liars 

message: What is the consensus on whether the section regarding Oreilly's Concluding Remarks is wiki-worthy. It seems rather irrelevant to his role as a commentator/journalist, and is more or less some trivial knowledge about his show.
::it is trivial.  --Blue Tie 01:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already in The O'Reilly Factor article, it's more relevant there.  MrMurph101 02:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluding Remarks 

message: Alright I heard that he choppes up and edits his shows, you guys have 3 days to put this in, or that's it, I will. -the bird
With that sort of introduction, you will not be successful.  Your changes will be reverted if you post that it is something you "heard".  It has to be referenced or sourced.  Moreover, there really should be some reason that this is an encyclopedic bit of information. --Blue Tie 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal insults and assume good faith.  I do not think that everyone knows that he edits his stuff.  Maybe he does, maybe not.  If really everyone knows it, then it would be irrelevant to post it here.... sort of like putting in the statement that "water is wet" in the article on water.  However, if it is not common knowledge, it must be referenced.  As far as bias, what are the problems you see?--Blue Tie 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I said it has to be referenced.  I did not say it had to go in.  Even if referenced, it does not seem to be very encyclopedic and that would also suggest it should not go in. Do you understand the rules of wikipedia?--Blue Tie 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry.  WP:RS applies even in the face of threats.--Tbeatty 17:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read this gentle introduction to how it is we have rules, when anyone can edit which will cover most of what you don't understand about wikipedia.  Common knowlege should be easily referenced to a reliable source, right?  Without reliable sources, and verifiability the project just won't work.  If you have a reliable source that can be referenced and verified, you could state that Australia has thousands of people who state on official forms that their occupation is "Jedi".  No matter how common the knowlege, it needs a reference, and even very startling and unsuspected facts are includable with a reliable source that can be referenced and verified.  Please take the time to look around and get to know the place before you start raging around, it will be a more pleasant experience for everyone including you. User:Pedant 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys got only THREE days to add the following... 

message: The Page Bill O'Reilly controversies appears to be a redundant POV Fork.  I have nominated it for deletion.  If anyone wants to comment, the comment page is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill O'Reilly controversies (second nomination)
It seems this proposal is hasn't got a  "snowball's chance in hell".  I am thinking of withdrawing it.  --Blue Tie 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for Delete on a Related Page 

message: omg, listen to this guy! --Striver 17:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My new hero!

message: What is the purpose of this sentence: and anyone to the left of rush limbaugh, sean hannity or himself. after the list of who Bill O'Reilly sees as being on the far left? Seems like a rather strange line for a scholarly work. Bagginator 11:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Deletion 

message: IT has been made inconvenient to get to the Bill O'Reilly (commentator). I think a solution that is good enough for Michael Moore is good enough for Bill O'Reilly. Mrdthree 16:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should put an afd for the disambig page and see what happens. MrMurph101 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This situation has previously been discussed and there was no consensus to change from the status quo. Nothing has changed since then. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation

message: I say that because of the vandalism concerning Bill O'Reilly's father. Will 06:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We protect only in cases of persistent vandalism. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 16:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may need protected 

message: I was under the impression that a quotes section was against wikipdia policy.  Is this correct?  I realize that the quotes in this section are meant to show the irony in his Letterman appearance so perhaps the name should be changed, or it could be mentioned in a paragraph form somewhere higher up?  It just looks bad all by itself at the bottom like that.  Anyone agree? --Roccyraccoon 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those quotes belong in Wikiquote. Ramsquire 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotes section 

message: I've noticed the article contradicts itself in regard to O'Reilly's views of President Clinton.  In one section, it states that O'Reilly has endorsed Clinton and extracts a quote of him praising the former President.  But two paragraphs later it states that O'Reilly has criticized him.  The cite to the criticism is mainly about O'Reilly's views regarding John Ashcroft.
How should we fix this?  I don't want to resort to blanket reverts as both positions are verifiable?  Should we try to explain the apparent contradiction? Ramsquire 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice 

message: IN order to make this page the first page that comes up when you type 'Bill Oreilly' 
There is a new vote on the Bill O'Reilly page to change its name to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation). The old vote was archived before it was completed.
With this change the search term 'Bill O'Reilly' will be automatically redirect to Bill O'Reilly (commentator). 
This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page
The reason for the change is convenience; the usage of the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page is at least 100x greater and google hits of local and international web pages pull Bill O'Reilly (commentator) before and more frequently than Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) in every english speaking country except Australia where it depends on how you spell bill oreilly.  Mrdthree 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny I just came here to suggest this. As you've had no objections for several weeks I will proceed. Move to Bill O'Reilly with a dablink for the cricketer Glen 05:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should mention the vote failed. 12 for the change 10 against. Mrdthree 05:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've reverted Glen S's move, since there was no consensus for it. (See Talk:Bill O'Reilly#New Vote on Disambiguation page.) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to REDIRECT Bill OReilly to Bill O'REilly (commentator)

message: I have removed Ann Coulter and the Ayn Rand Institute from O'Reilly's list of "far right" people/groups as the current grouping is quite misleading. The way it was structured, it looks like O'Reilly grouped Ann Coulter and the Ayn Rand Institute with David Duke and Neo-Nazis, whereas he actually used the term "far right" in different contexts. LaszloWalrus 06:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont wipe blemishes off his photo. THats how he thinks. He thinks nazis are far right.Mrdthree 15:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Both the "far right" and "far left" lists just chronicle each time he used those labels.  Using your logic, the "far left" list should be truncated also.  I would say to take out the nazi's and put back Rand and Coulter since they have both been cited as O'Reilly proclaiming them "far right." It might be good to go over the lists and keep what is really notable and weed out the ones that aren't so notable or ones that may be put out of context.  With the length of that far left list, it looks like something like that would be quite an undertaking.  MrMurph101 18:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just made the "far left" list a spinoff article.  If someone objects they can always put it back.  It helps with article size.  MrMurph101 00:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list has already been afd'd.  Anyone can make comments there if they want to.  MrMurph101 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list should be merged back into the article.  As a separate article, completely out of context, it appears to serve little purpose.  In the main article, it clearly helps to define O'Reilly's political stance.-Hal Raglan 00:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but I remember a quite a while ago the Homer Simpson article documented every injury he suffered.  It cleary defined that he was injury prone but was probably not the best way of presenting it.  It was linked to the talk page for a while like we have here for the "far left" list but that is now gone or at least put somewhere else.  MrMurph101 18:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  far right? 

message: It looks like the spinoff article is going to be deleted.  I'll put the entire section here for now for comments on what to do.  Should we keep it, review it first, truncate it, or just get rid of it all together.  Editors outside of this interest mostly do not believe it is encyclpedic based on the afd discussion.  Here is the section in question:
O'Reilly is generally critical of the "far left" and "far right" in American politics. However, much of his focus is on far left individuals and organizations.  When asked why he rarely addresses the far right, he believes the far right have much less influence in the mainstream American media as opposed to the far left.
Whom he considers far right: 
*Nazis 
*American militia groups
*David Duke,    
*Ann Coulter June 7 2006 Show  
*Ayn Rand Institute 
O'Reilly has identified many more to be on the far left. The following people or organizations he considers far left:
*Daniel Akaka 
*Russ Feingold 
*Charles Schumer 
*Barbara Boxer 
*Cindy Sheehan 
*Ted Kennedy 
*Bruce Springsteen 
*Bill Moyers 
*Harry Belafonte   
*Howard Dean 
*Dixie Chicks 
*Al Franken 
*George Clooney 
*Media Matters for America 
*The ACLU 
*Air America Radio 
*moveon.org  
*NY Times  
*Atlanta Journal Constitution  
*Paul Krugman  
*St. Louis Post Dispatch 
*French media 
*The Globe and Mail 
*Campaign for America's Future 
*Andres Oppenheimer 
*Amnesty International 
*George Soros 
*Peter Lewis 
*Natalie Maines 
*Rob Glaser 
*Planned Parenthood 
*Anthony Romero 
*Michael Moore 
*The Boston Globe 
*German media 
*San Francisco Chronicle 
*St. Petersburg Times  
*Dayton Daily News 
*Syracuse Post-Standard 
*Sheldon Silver 
*Hollywood 
*AfterNet 
*Jim McDermott 
*Think Progress  
*John Conyers 
*John Podesta 
*David Corn 
*Secular Progressive Movement 
*Mike Farrell 
*Robert Scheer  
*Richard Cohen 
*Brattleboro Reformer 
*Cynthia Tucker 
*Stephen Colbert 
*Michael Kinsley 
*Frank Rich 
*Capital Times 
*People for the American Way 
*Lynn Woolsey 
*David D. Cole 
*Molly Ivins 
*Bob Herbert 
*The Nation 
*The Guardian (UK) 
*Jimmy Carter 
Comments? MrMurph101 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is too inclusive for the article and not particularly useful.  Take some time to go through the references and comment on each individually.  I did that with the article a while back (before this list was added) and it works better than just listing links.  It is also POV because the reference may actually say something different or specific about his thoughts on the individual or organization. Although I applaud you for your effort in colaborating this list, it is lazy just to lump it into the article.  Bytebear 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to set the record straight I did not write this.  I don't know who did although I believe it was probably a collaboration among editors.  I once reworded it and put the content into a spin-off article (which was promptly afd'd) so I put it here for now. I was just asking what to do about it.  I'm not editing much for the moment so I don't really have time to go through all that but if anyone else wants to deal with it go right ahead.  MrMurph101 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions on Others Politics

message: Immediately after "The Factor" section, down to contoversies, the article is bloated and overdone.  All that stuff shouldb either deleted or greatly reduced.  It is trivial to the article. --Blue Tie 21:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why the controversies became it's own article.  It almost seems like the Political Views section should get it's own spinoff too now.  I'm not gonna do it though but if someone else does it I won't oppose it.  A spinoff article can go more in depth while the version here could be more concise.  MrMurph101 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have started fleshing out each bullet point of the Personal Views section and hopefully after they are more descriptive, we can consolodate them in to a cohesive organized thought. Bytebear 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is looking a lot better now. MrMurph101 02:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To much trivia

message: The anon's edits are factually incorrect.  The talking points does not say that democrats are receiving support from Iran but rather that Iran has taken initiative in Iraq to cause violence and thus affect the elections in the US.  
But...Should every talking points memo get a line in wikipedia?  If not, then why any?
--Blue Tie 02:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon 69.249.195.232 Edits

message: This citation is pretty weak.  Using the quote "Howard Dean is the biggest coward in the world" needs a better citation.
Most of the citations need to be read, and the views put into context.  How do you generalize "he opposes big American government" from an article about immigration and oil? Bytebear 02:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly's "coward" list and other citations

message: This reference is from a very bias source.  Please help me find a more verifiable source. Bytebear 05:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevada brothel program on HBO 

message: Author should be included in his opening description.
: Done, but should it say "best selling author"?  I think it should if verifiable. Based on the article on his last book I added "best selling". Bytebear 01:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add Author in the first paragraph

message: "He also thinks that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention expicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform.[35]"
I can not find a uniform requirement anywhere in the Geneva conventions. Am I missing it, or is it not there?Harksaw 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be "he claims the soldiers must be wearing uniforms".  See the citation to see if it accurately defines what he said.  I haven't looked at it recently, but I think I expanded the text at one point. Bytebear 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From the GC "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property."  which certainly implies uniforms.  Do you know any other way they can distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Bytebear 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not off the top of my head, but that certianly would require a rewrite of where the article says it "explicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform" Harksaw 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What part of the GC did you find "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." ? I've found that mentioned on websites describing the Geneva Conventions, but not anywhere within the Conventions themselves. Harksaw 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The uniform "requirement" is found in several places of the 1977 revisions, particularly Protocol I.  However it is irrelevant whether it is found there or not.  The article says it is Bill O'Reilly's reason.  Since the article is about Bill O'Reilly rather than about the Geneva Conventions, it is Bill O'Reilly's interpretation (which is pretty much the common interpretation) that is important. --Blue Tie 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't suggest that Bill O'Reilly's interpretation is "the common one". If the uniform requirement is a matter of interpretation, we need to make that clear. If it isn't, we should clarify that. So which is it? -- Ec5618 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't I say that if it is true?  It is the common interpretation.  The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniforms.  However, recognizing that some more impoverished combatants may not have "regular" uniforms, the Conventions also allow for insignias and other such items "recognized at a distance" as being functionally equivalent.  However, the most common phrasing when describing this requirement is to use the term "uniforms".  Why is this a problem? --Blue Tie 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be commonly used to describe it, but no, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically mention uniforms anywhere as a requirement for combatants. This was my main complaint about the original wording. Harksaw 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally there are some folks who do not need uniforms or identifying insignia.  These include civilians of a non-occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms to defend their country against an invading force, and have not had time or means to organize into an actual commanded army.  Also civilians who accompany armed forces (such as reporters) do not need such ID to be protected under the Conventions. --Blue Tie 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geneva Conventions and Uniforms

message: This article should be updated when "Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" becomes "Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi". The official change hasn't taken place, so this is more a heads up. Also the wording should reflect that the statement made was when she was House Minority Leader. Bytebear 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors here are usually on the ball with those kind of updates.  Sometimes they even jump the gun.  I had to do stop a good bit of that premature updating in January 2005, and during the changes on the Supreme Court earlier this year. It's very tedious, but you're right, it needs to be done. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election changes 

message: The link under the picture of Jeremy Glick should be changed from Jeremy Glick to Jeremy Glick %28author%29 to avoid ambig link.  Thanks.  Dbsheajr  15 November 2006 6:47 P.M. EST
:Done Harksaw 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeremy Glick

message: Bill O'Reilly is a good man, and of cours, people hate him. This is how good people are treated. 66.218.11.133
*He's a muckraker who brings it on himself, and loves it. "You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take Inside Edition out of the boy." Wahkeenah 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is what he gets 

message: "He also thinks that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention expicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform.[35]"
I can not find a uniform requirement anywhere in the Geneva conventions. Am I missing it, or is it not there?Harksaw 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should be "he claims the soldiers must be wearing uniforms".  See the citation to see if it accurately defines what he said.  I haven't looked at it recently, but I think I expanded the text at one point. Bytebear 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From the GC "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property."  which certainly implies uniforms.  Do you know any other way they can distinguish themselves from the civilian population? Bytebear 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Not off the top of my head, but that certianly would require a rewrite of where the article says it "explicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform" Harksaw 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What part of the GC did you find "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." ? I've found that mentioned on websites describing the Geneva Conventions, but not anywhere within the Conventions themselves. Harksaw 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The uniform "requirement" is found in several places of the 1977 revisions, particularly Protocol I.  However it is irrelevant whether it is found there or not.  The article says it is Bill O'Reilly's reason.  Since the article is about Bill O'Reilly rather than about the Geneva Conventions, it is Bill O'Reilly's interpretation (which is pretty much the common interpretation) that is important. --Blue Tie 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't suggest that Bill O'Reilly's interpretation is "the common one". If the uniform requirement is a matter of interpretation, we need to make that clear. If it isn't, we should clarify that. So which is it? -- Ec5618 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't I say that if it is true?  It is the common interpretation.  The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniforms.  However, recognizing that some more impoverished combatants may not have "regular" uniforms, the Conventions also allow for insignias and other such items "recognized at a distance" as being functionally equivalent.  However, the most common phrasing when describing this requirement is to use the term "uniforms".  Why is this a problem? --Blue Tie 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be commonly used to describe it, but no, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically mention uniforms anywhere as a requirement for combatants. This was my main complaint about the original wording. Harksaw 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally there are some folks who do not need uniforms or identifying insignia.  These include civilians of a non-occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms to defend their country against an invading force, and have not had time or means to organize into an actual commanded army.  Also civilians who accompany armed forces (such as reporters) do not need such ID to be protected under the Conventions. --Blue Tie 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geneva Conventions and Uniforms

message: This article should be updated when "Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi" becomes "Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi". The official change hasn't taken place, so this is more a heads up. Also the wording should reflect that the statement made was when she was House Minority Leader. Bytebear 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors here are usually on the ball with those kind of updates.  Sometimes they even jump the gun.  I had to do stop a good bit of that premature updating in January 2005, and during the changes on the Supreme Court earlier this year. It's very tedious, but you're right, it needs to be done. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election changes 

message: The link under the picture of Jeremy Glick should be changed from Jeremy Glick to Jeremy Glick %28author%29 to avoid ambig link.  Thanks.  Dbsheajr  15 November 2006 6:47 P.M. EST
:Done Harksaw 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeremy Glick

message: Bill O'Reilly has fought vehemently against the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-faith sludge being spewed out by the mass media. He has opposed the ACLU which has fought for the removal of God from the schools and public places and against anti-American, anti-military rants that have found a safe-haven in liberal universities across the U.S. and around the world. Of course he is wrong in some respects but I give him credit for standing up for his beliefs, my beliefs Christianity and America in general. God Bless
Bill O'Reilly is a good man, and of cours, people hate him. This is how good people are treated. 66.218.11.133
*He's a muckraker who brings it on himself, and loves it. "You can take the boy out of Inside Edition, but you can't take Inside Edition out of the boy." Wahkeenah 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is what he gets 

message: Old news by now, but I wonder what the connection is. Maybe he called them the Arabic equivalent of "pinheads", and their fragile egos were devastated. If only they had sent Dr. Phil instead of Dr. No-Spin. Wahkeenah 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTMO suicides 

message: I am almost positive that soon after Colbert's show premiered he clarified that he was satirizing pundits in general and not specifically O'Reilly.  While segments like "The Word" obviously satirize certain parts of O'Reilly's show is it worth putting Colbert in O'Reilly's article?  I apologize for the lack of sources, maybe someone else can find where Colbert said this. Martin 05:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Colbert's Parody 

message: I find references by Media Matters to be useless in this article.  Because O'Reilly criticizes them so much, we have to take any citations to their website or their stories as a violation of WP:BLP. -Will Pittenger 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered if Media Matters can be considered "reliable" as per Wikipedia policy? One would not think they possibly could be. Dubc0724 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought this issue up on Ann Coulter's page and on the WP:BLP talk page, and was told that since MMFA uses transcripts it is OK.  However, I am unconvinced.  There is a problem with using them as a source especially concerning "right-wing" persons. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not buying that, either. Dubc0724 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem with MMFA is that it often just places the defamation one click away.  So it's not at Wikipedia, but if you go over to MMFA, it's there for all the world to see. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why. The Media Matters website contains both transcripts and videos. Those are essentially primary sources. In addition Media Matters hardly inserts any commentary. The focus of Media Matters may be biased against the right, BUT, the individual articles are not. If Bill O'Reilly makes some outrageous statement and later denies it Media Matters may compile a list of dates when it occured. See this as an example. Each quote is taken from a transcript and the commentary is kept to a minimum. Most of the time, the entire transcript of a particular segment is shown in it's entirety. Can someone point out the alleged bias? Deepstratagem 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, that MMFA does its own transcripts, which bring up the reliable publisher issue regarding transcripts.  Also, their commentary is always biased against the conservative.  There have been times where their criticism has fallen flat because they're commentary has been misleading.  And then there's my big concern about using it as a source in articles; if you click down to comments, you are likely to be exposed to all manner of defamation re: the living person.  If WP:BLP is to protect Wikipedia from defamation suits and embarassing situations, should there be some consideration of where Wikipedia leads its readers? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point. Perhaps someone more familar with the purpose of BLP can address the question of where Wikipedia leads its readers. That aside, FOX News edits Bill O'Reilly's transcripts to sanitize them every now and then (frequently enough to question FOX's transcripts). From the point of view of FOX, it's advantageous to sanitize the transcripts. From the point of view of Media Matters, it's advantageous to be as accurate as possible. Thus, Media Matters' transcripts are probably more reliable (and to be sure, one can watch the videos). Deepstratagem 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Media Matters could be considered an advocacy source which is discouraged in wikipedia under BLP policy.  I believe is is ok to use Media Matters as a source as long as you do not use their interpretations and only what they source.  But it would be better to find more neutral, third party sources that aren't pro- or anti- O'Reilly.  MrMurph101 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: At this point, we appear to have a consensus to drop the Media Matters references.  I suggest that we wait for 72 more hours (from the time on my sig; I use CST at the moment).  If there are no futher objections by then, lets remove those references and the materials that refer to them. -Will Pittenger 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to point out that the goal isn't to find incriminating quotes from any single source, but to look at many sources and reflect the overall pattern of opinion of the person (in this case O'Reilly). A good example is O'Reilly's views on Jessica's Law.  Clearly he has opinions there, and they are clearly stated in his interviews, radio program as well as essays.  And he has a ton of essays.  It should be easy to find verifiable references from him without going to a secondary source.   Also, his essays are more verifiable than transcripts because they are penned with thought and not spoken in the heat of debate, and are less subjective. Not that ither sources aren't valid, but given the choice to quote Media Matters, or an essay from O'Reily, the choice is obvious. Bytebear 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how quoting from his essays is more subjective than quoting from his interviews. Transcripts contain what he said, instead of what he wants people to think (thus a more objective metric). And between choosing to quote Media Matters and O'Reilly, the choice is not obvious. Deepstratagem 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the article is not just about his opinions. It doesn't make sense to delete every Media Matters reference on that basis. Deepstratagem 12:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  but if the Media Matters article is quoting O'Reilly on a speicific subject, is is far better to find an essay on the subject and use a reference there.  If he is quoted as saying "I believe in X", find an essay written by him that says the same thing.  Go for the primary source first. Bytebear 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that's not a good reason to delete all Media Matters references. Doing so implies that all Media Matters transcripts and videos are unreliable, which no one has established. In matters of opinion, I agree that the best source might be O'Reilly's essays, though why omit what he has said or done on his show? He is inconsistent, and the best way to establish that reliably is to cross-reference. Deepstratagem 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but defamation is contingent upon false statements. As far as I know MMFA does not fall under that category. Deepstratagem 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to the defamation in the comment sections of MMFA.  If MMFA says that BO said something "baselessly" or "falsely", that is not what I am talking about.  I'm talking about a contributor at MMFA using that post to write something nasty and vile about O'Reilly that may not be true, and Wikipedia leading someone to that comment because MMFA was used as a source here. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked, all comments are hidden so that's not really an issue to be concerned about. Deepstratagem 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like you have to log in to see them though.  All you have to do is click "Show".  If it were on some separate page, that would be one thing but unfortunately it's not.  But on a larger note I have brought this issue up in a few places here and no one seems to think it is a big deal.  It's just a restriction I've placed on myself in support of what I feel is the spirit of BLP.  It's not just MMFA, I don't ever link to any Internet source that allows for general comments on the front page. If I had my druthers, MMFA would be banned as a source on this basis, not the accuracy of their transcripts.  However, I concede I have seen no consensus for my position yet. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's why we shouldn't use their commentary, but if we need proof that O'Reilly said something (without characterizing it) since MMFA has audio and video, it should be OK in that limited sense. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific? Who has accused MMFA of taking things out of context? Is there any evidence for that? Deepstratagem 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the subjects of Media Matters's posts defend themselves by saying their quotes were taken out of context. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But is there any evidence for that? - If John Kerry says his "education and troops" statement is taken out of context by FOX News, does that mean we can't use FOX News as a source? I would imagine the right thing to do would be to use accurate sources (whether they are from FOX News or not), not erase all FOX News references just because Democrats believe they are being taken out of context. Deepstratagem 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why (outside of my unrelated objection stated above), I don't think MMFA is a inherently bad source provided it is used in the narrow manner I mention.  The problem is editors here don't like to write "On X date Bill O'Reilly said Y" with a citation to MMFA.  They prefer to write "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank)" with the citation to MMFA or "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank) because he said this" with the cite to MMFA.  The first sentence seems to be non-BLP violating way to use MMFA (again outside my other objection). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, if MMFA (or any source) is going to be used, the word choice must be neutral and specific to the instance sourced. Context should be provided to avoid blanket statements. Seems that the major issue is really poor wording by editors or inaccurate blanket statements (vandalism?) rather than MMFA being inaccurate. Deepstratagem 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that in a general sense. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think Media Matters citations violate [[WP:BLP]] 

message: I just reverted a bunch of edits that added "scare quotes", expository and nNPOV section headings, and other biasing info.  Sorry to the IP editor who added them, but if you want to take issue with words like "radical", "liberal", and "agenda", adding "quotes" around the words doesn't really accomplish your goal in a good-writing way.  It just makes the article, "harder to read," and it looks a little "sarcastic".  It would be better perhaps to cite a source that offers an opinion on the way that O'Reilly uses those "words".  Don't write it yourself, but find a source and quote it briefly; Wikipedia says, "no original research."  This and other policies cover to "op-ed" writing as well.
Yes we know him, we love him or we hate him, but we have to treat even a paragon of (something either demonic or angelic) like O'RLY in a nonbiased way here on el Rancho Wikipedia.
 Erielhonan  05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scare Quotes

message: The article on the FAIR group clearly states that the group is liberal. Labeling them in this article is for the sole purpose of pre-empting any legitimate issues they might raise, dismissing them on the grounds of "liberal bias", thus pushing a personal point-of-view agenda. Wahkeenah 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Reilly frequently takes liberals to task, but he denies being a conservative, but rather calls himself an independent. He delights in reading e-mails that take him to task when he doesn't kiss up to the Bush Republicans, and warns his viewers not to expect "ideological stroking". I would say the majority of his views align with the conservative checklist, but he's totally at odds with some of them. Wahkeenah 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than having a paragraph about FAIR and the ""Oh Really?" Factor, why not use the book as a source? This article should not be about labeling either side as liberal or conservative.  That judgement should be left to the reader.  If he claims they are a liberal group, find the citation and note it.  If they call him a conservative, cite it as well.  Wikipedia presents verifiable facts, not opinions. Bytebear 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Surely dismissing issues due to liberal bias is a choice left to the reader? When judging a historical source, for example, one should not only look at the comments themselves, but also who made them. I think the addition of "liberal" helps clarify what background the issues raised are from. Is it any better if the liberal reference goes at the end of the paragraph, so that it reads something along the lines of: The book catalogues what are argued to be distortions and inaccuracies on the part of O'Reilly from a liberal perspective.? Ollie 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read the book? I haven't. But some or all of their claims about O'Reilly could be factually true even if not viewed from a "liberal perspective". An obvious example is the Peabody vs. Polk award fiasco. It does not require a "liberal perspective" to assert and prove that Inside Edition got the latter and not the former. Whether it's a mistake important enough to deserve a flogging from Al Franken is another matter altogether. Wahkeenah 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good example.  So do you write "O'Reilly lied about getting a Peabody" or "Left Wingers attack O'Reily claiming..."?  No, you write "He has been criticized for claims that he got a Peabody.(reference)  He explained his mistake that he mispoke and meant that it was a Polk. (reference)"  Now Franken may be referenced specifically if O'Reilly criticized him specifically, or talked about "Left winger" attacks mentioning this specific incident, but it is not up to us to put labels on people without references. Bytebear 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is that he (or his researchers) got it wrong in the book. Then, if you want to bring O'Reilly back to Inside Edition, you could talk about the catfight that he and Al Franken got into thanks to Franken beating that minor issue to death on C-SPAN. Or, you ask yourself if it's worth even mentioning in the article. He has acknowledged that it was a "mistake". Of course, he also says the grounds for invasion of Iraq were a "mistake". All in all, the latter mistake seems a tad more important to the course of human events than the former does. The point being: yes, stick to the facts. Labeling FAIR as "liberal" is not representing a "fact", it's an opinion. Wahkeenah 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]] 

message: An apperant vandal added "He's frequently called a bigot, naïve and narrow-minded" which was reverted by Dcflyer.  I would accept that if we can find a citation for that.  It actually sound rather plausible and in keeping with WP:BLP as we would only be reporting someone's essay on what they believe he is like.  Notice the keyword: Believe.  Does anyone agree? Will (Talk - contribs) 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd have to see the source first and make sure it's not just conjecture by the editor based on the source.  Just to make sure you're not violating WP:BLP, you may want to just provide the diff and not it's text. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I might accept this text if cited properly 

message: The final sentence in the Bill O'Reilly (commentator)#Terrorism section read "wanting to leniently try terror suspects in civilian courts." I removed the word "leniently." As it originally stood, it was unclear to me whether the word referred to O'Reilly's views, or if it was intended as a factual statement about what the "SPs" wanted to do.  Mdunford 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "leniently" in this context amounts to a NPOV violation. By using "leniently", the author is agreeing with O'Reilly. nut-meg 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single word removed 

message: There seems to be a sense of humour failure here.
Paul Marks.
 
When he stated that "Oprah Winfrey is the most powerful woman on earth" he revealed to the world that he is mentally unbalanced.  GhostofSuperslum 12:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference that calles him mentally unbalanced?  Opinions don't matter on Wikipedia, as they fall under original research.  We welcome your contributions, but please give us something useful.  Bytebear 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Reilly might actually be right about that. However, I'm also mentally unbalanced. (Too much to the left, not enough to the right). Wahkeenah 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: He put his foot into his mouth

message: As per the caption, "The image above is believed to be a replaceable fair use image. It will be deleted on 2007-01-04 if not determined to be irreplaceable."  Has it been decided that the image is usable?  I removed the image because today is 2007-01-06, after the date.  If the image is fair-use, the tag should be removed; otherwise, the reference should be removed SanitySolipsism 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder. DONE. Wahkeenah 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the image from article Bill O'Reilly controversies. It seems a bit unusual to have his picture in a sub-article about him and not the main article. Anynobody 06:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image on page 

message: Actually, as conservative as Bill is, I believe he supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, and may even support gay marriage....I remember him being sort of like "just leave gay people alone; I wish I was gay, maybe someone would ask me out" and that is very similar to what he said on his show few years ago, the radical right was shocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.116.91 (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights/marriage 

message: I removed the image of the Jeremy Glick interview from Outfoxed from the Controversy section, as neither Glick nor Outfoxed is ever mentioned in the article. Image captions are not an appropriate place to introduce topics, and certainly should not be the only place an issue is mentioned. Please feel free to readd it with appropriate in-article context. GertrudeTheTramp 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outfoxed image 

message: There's a reference to O'Reilly winning two National Headliner Awards for his work at ABC World News Tonight, where he worked from 1986-89.
But he's listed nowhere on the "past recipients" page at the National Headliner Awards website  -- which also says the award only goes back to 1997. Where did this information come from, and can we verify it? --69.22.254.111 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the information came from his Fox News bio .  Other people claim to have received the National Headliner Award previous to 1997, so I suspect that the official website just doesn't go back that far.  I will do a news search to see if I can verify this fact independently. Brainslug 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to National Headliner Awards, they've been given out since 1935. - KimmyChanga 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National Headliner Award

message: This man's views are often incoherant, uninformed, and blantantly internally inconstistant. Is there a reason that the wiki page sanitizes his opinions and career to this degree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.22.77 (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There is a sentence that reads "He has been critical of politicians such as Democratic Speaker Of The House
Nancy Pelosi and George Soros for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts." This is incorrect as George Soros 
is not a politician.
Then there is this one: "He was also critical of Attorney General John Ashcroft for CIA blunders in intelligence over 
weapons of mass destruction." First of all, it should read "former Attorney General John Ashcroft...".
Second, it makes no sense because the CIA does not fall under Justice Dept. purview and never has; the FBI does.141.156.162.171 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for yor comments. Wikipedia encourages users to be bold - why not change it youself! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under terrorism heading 

message: Curious whether O'Reilly comments on the Shawn Hornbeck case are notable enough to be included. Here's a partial transcript:
:Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here...
:Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something?
:Bill O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in.
:GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome --
:BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion --
:GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now...
:BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 --
:GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story...
:BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second.
:GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...?
:BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted.
:GVS: Some kids like school --
:BOR: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.41.89 (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased the blurb about O'Reilly's commentary on the Hornbeck case.  The previous version was phrased as such: O'Reilly...stated that a Missouri pre-teen, Shawn Hornbeck, who was abducted and held prisoner for four years by an alleged child molester... which, to be fair, implies that Delvin had already been charged with a sex crime prior to O'Reilly's comments.  I changed the section to reflect that formal charges had not been brought against the kidnapper at the time O'Reilly made his comments.  I personally disagree with O'Reilly's take on this issue, but to be fair, he was apparently speaking from the angle that no sex charges had been brought upon Delvin at the time.  Though it seems that O'Reilly is the only person around that doubted that the boy was abused.  Anyway, I hope I made sense here... --buck 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops.  The accused's name is "Devlin", not "Delvin".  I've rectified the misspelling in the article.  --buck 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounded like he always thought that the boy had been molested, but he knew that if he didn't pretend to give him the benefit of the doubt after telling off the leader of the Black Panthers over the Duke Rape Case that he would be called a hypocrite again, and that he would have no way to refute the accusations. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Reilly's comments on kidnapped boy

message: He appears to have suggested the ACLU are traitors in the 31st January? episode he asked someone if he thought they were traitors when that other person said no they're pacifists who are entitled to their opinions he said he thinks they go a bit further then that 203.109.240.93 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACLU 

message: The thing that bugs me about this article, no matter what my position on Bill O'Reilly, is that NPOV is not really being followed. There's a whole "Controversies" section (really a disguised "Criticisms" section, IMO), but yet I see nowhere that details why supporters of the program believe it is so good! This article really seems biased, in my view. And I don't necessarily like Bill O'Reilly. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is biased because no body on this site likes him. Until we get a hardcore American Republican on this site the page is pretty much screwed. -- The Hybrid 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I somehow doubt that. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, and he could write a book: The Edit Warrior. I'm a liberal-leaning sort who watches O'Reilly for the entertainment value (think Inside Edition-type entertainment) and the occasional expository piece. So that makes me a fan in a perverse kind of way. I've tried to correct vandalism and blatant POV-pushing as it arises. But it's difficult to be an Army of One. Wahkeenah 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a centrist, plain and simple. He's entertaining, and I think he's correct on some stuff and wrong on others. I'm at this page to protect it from the blatant vandalism and POV edits as you are. I'm no source to correct what has already been done. We need someone as far right as he is to piss everyone off and get wheels turning. Anyone have any friends like that whom you could convince to join Wikipedia? Cheers, -- The Hybrid 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the structure is poor, clean it up.  Get rid of the controversies and weave them into his various positions.  When I found this article, it was a bullet list of his opinions, and good thing they were referenced.  I went through the references and found the true point of each of his articles (most of the references are from his weekly column), and put them into coherent paragraphs.  So, if there is a criticism, find where it fits into the paragraphs of his beliefs and weave it it.  If a criticism doesn't fit anywhere, it is probably too vague to be referenced.  Bytebear 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't lose sight of the fact that a significant part of his modus operandi is to court controversy. Spiritually he's still doing Inside Edition. Wahkeenah 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought the controversies section was there to soften the criticism (make it less blatant). The reason it wouldn't matter if there were any "hard-core conservatives" editing the page is because you can't turn his lies into truths. And you can't present his exaggerations neutrally. His self-aggrandizing nature requires that he is always right morally or factually, even when he contradicts himself. Deepstratagem 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Deepstratagem but understand what you are saying The Hybrid about the article having an overall biased feel. We can only work with what Bill O'Reilly gives us to work with regarding his statements. I've tried but I seriously don't think it's possible to put him in a centrist light considering what he says and how he says it. Contrast him with other conservative commentators like Joe Scarborough. Seriously, give it a shot yourself to see what I mean. Perhapos you'll actually write the neutral sounding article we are all hoping for, or you'll understand why the page reads the way it does. Either way you win. Anynobody 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O'Reilly shouldn't be portrayed as a centrist. He is a traditionalist, and that is what he should be portrayed as. However, since in the minds of many, including myself, traditionalist = conservative when a bunch of liberals have to write the article (this talk page confirms that) it is going to be biased. There is no way to avoid it. I know that it hasn't been done on purpose, but it still happened. 1,000,000 monkeys will write Shakespeare, but 1,000,000 communist monkeys will write the Communist Manifesto ;). Something along those lines happened here, but it was 1,000,000 liberal monkeys, and it was about Bill O'Reilly. We need some conservative monkeys to balance this out. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I know that's a weird metaphor, but let's just roll with it ;). Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard him refer to himself as a traditionalist, but that is a very vague label considering his views on certain traditions. For example I understand he would support civil unions for homosexuals, which seems to acknowledge he doesn't mind a homosexual couple pledging to live together in monogamy as long as it isn't called a marriage. "Traditionally" speaking a gay couple  seeking recognition of a marriage-like situation might get beaten or killed. Can anyone point to a page that expands what should define a traditionalist as O'Reilly sees it. Anynobody 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Traditionalist" is pretty slippery as a label, but that's what he calls himself. He is by no means a gay rights advocate. I think he sees civil unions as a reasonable alternative to the presumed sanctity of marriage. It's safe to say that in general, he is not happy about the "gay agenda" being pushed. Wahkeenah 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You know, I've figured out what bugs me about this article.  

message: It may not yet be worth noting in the article, but their statement seems to imply his cancelled appearance may not be so much about his comments about Shwan Hornbeck as it was popular demand. NCMEC annoncement 09 Feb 07 Anynobody 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but the NCMEC has left itself an "out" by not citing the specific comments they were receiving. I wonder if they fear a lawsuit from him, otherwise I'd think that an organization like NCMEC wouldn't let anyone in the media say the stuff he did without voicing a reaction. Anynobody 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NCMEC Dinner