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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Removal of previously stable and properly sourced content

Regarding Bytebear's edit summary, there is absolutely no BLP question here -- the content is diversely sourced, there is no libelous statement, and it's roundly and neutrally presented. Furthermore, it's been in the article for at least two years. ByteBear knows that, and he also never misses an opportunity to try and cull negative information about O'Reilly. Don't be a BLP charlatan, it's so 2006... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because there is clearly a discussion about whether the content should be included, and if so, how that inclusion should be done. BLP does have specific rules about content, and your personal attacks toward me are against wikipedia policy. Basically, you reverted other editors judgment, so I am not alone in this decision. I am just concurring with other editors. If the personal attacks persist, I will report you. Bytebear (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Blax, I think you mean that the material in question (for good reason) was in the now defunct O'Reilly Controversies article for two years. It wasn't in the regular bio. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Some editors don't like it, but there are no issues with sourcing or defamation, so Blaxthos is completely right that citing BLP as if it mandates removing the content is way off base. He's also right that a lot of the editors who seem to believe that it must be deleted tend to be ones who "never miss an opportunity to cull negative information about O'Reilly." If there's anyone whose actions are out of line here, it's those who just started deleting the content because they couldn't achieve a consensus that agreed with them. Croctotheface (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
More personal attacks. I could say the same about another band of editors. I will also remind you and Blax that consensus can change. Bytebear (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The (incredibly foolish) material on O'Reilly growing up in Westbury rather than in Levittown (even though where he lived was part of Levittown until 1963 when O'Reilly turned fourteen) lacks a "live" source, so what is the basis at this point for keeping it? Badmintonhist (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sources don't "die" with hyperlinks, Badmintonhist. Regardless, the process is not to delete years-old content in the middle of a discussion when consensus is not clear. Consensus should be achieved before a contentious change. If this were new content things might be a little different, but this is years old stable content. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As I just mentioned above the material was in the O'Reilly Controversies article, not the regular bio so I don't see why it should "grandfathered" in on that basis. No editor has yet addressed the substance of my complaint which I have already made quite clear. IT'S CRAP!! Badmintonhist (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you consider yelling IT'S CRAP substance? It's not. O'Reilly's home/upbringing is clearly relevant, in large part because of his own focus on it---e.g., Bold Fresh Piece, Culture Warrior....His "regular Joe" persona is at the core of his appeal, and the questions about that persona are a significant starting point for his critics. The sourcing is varied and valid.Jimintheatl (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget that the criticism article was largely a WP:FORK and there is no reason that every aspect of that fork to be included into the main bio. Simply weighing down the main bio with a bunch of juvenile antics about whether or not BOR was born in Levittown (he was) doesn't do us or WP any service. Just because some on the left take issue with his upbringing in a never ending attempt to paint BOR as a hypocrite doesn't mean that we should now turn his main bio into an attack page. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Revisionist history alert! One, this content was always present in the parent article, and you've not once objected in the last three years. Two, the criticism article was written due to WP:SIZE -- it had absolutely nothing to do with a POV fork. I'd call this a willful misrepresentation, given your long history here Arzel. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, no addressing of the substance of the argument against inclusion. I only yelled "IT'S CRAP" after explaining what was wrong with it and getting no response. O'Reilly lived in a Levitt built house, in what was then Levittown, for about twelve years. Introducing doubt about that fact in a section on his "early life" isn't all that much different than bringing up the idiotic "birther" theory in a section on Barack Obama's early life. There may be a place for such info in some context somewhere in Wikipedia but not in those places. In the "early life" section the simple factual statement (minus any hint of accusation) that the area of Levittown where O'Reilly grew up became part of Westbury in 1963 might be included. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that this meets with core policies WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, and that it does not violate WP:BLP, can you please point us to the policy that justifies removal based on "I disagree with the critics"? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Gee, that's a tough one Blax. Let's see. How's this? One could insert into the "Early life" section of the Obama bio neutrally stated WP:NPOVand reliably sourced WP:RSinformation about birther claims; not material that "bought into" those theories, but just "neutrally" presented them. However, one should not do this because material on the subjects early life should be well documented information about said subject's early life, not unfounded speculation by said subject's enemies however "neutrally" presented. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I ask for a policy, and I get a hypothetical comparison to an unrelated article. Quod erat demonstrandum. //Blaxthos ( t / c )
Forgive me. But I'm confused. Is there any other evidence that O'Reilly grew up in Westbury beyond the Washington Post article? If not, than it seems like this is a simple misquotation as O'Reilly claimed. If it is a simple misquotation, then I don't think it should be included. Do wiki entries really need to mention contraversies arrising from misquotes? In my mind that doesn't seem to add to the value of the article. It's a tempest in a tea cup.NickCT (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I find it pretty hard to believe that Westbury would just pop up in someone's head as a "misquote." Westbury is probably more accurate in a technical sense, and O'Reilly said that he grew up in the "Westbury section of Levittown," with the point basically being that it was a Levitt house even if it ended up being considered a different town. It's basically misleading to say Levittown with no mention of Westbury, and especially considering that this is all in service of the narrative that O'Reilly is looking to push, it goes to his credibility and so forth and therefore deserves coverage in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it deserves coverage (in a section on Early life?) if one is a POV pusher who doesn't like O'Reilly. The fact of the matter is that when it comes to place names there can be all sorts of confusion for perfectly innocent reasons: sections of one town extend into another town; different levels of local government with various place names overlap; county, town, and township lines get redrawn. People living in some localities in Rhode Island for example (and we're probably less complicated geographically than New York) could easily give two or even three different names when asked for the town that they live in. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You illustrate the problem brilliantly, Badmintonhist! As you note, one could draw all sorts of conclusions given the facts. So let's present the facts and leave the conclusions (or the assumption of conclusion) out of it. No whitewashing or omitting facts based on assumed conclusions, and no conclusions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No dice, Blax. The same could be said for everyone growing up in area with a complex political geogaphy. The only reason this is included here is to cast aspersions on O'Reilly's account of his home neighborhood. However I'm willing to meet you well... if not half way then about a third of the way. Omit the silly stuff about Franken and the challenges to O'Reilly's account. Simply state what we know to be true, that he grew up in... say eastern Long Island in a development built by William Levitt now part of Westbury (if indeed it is part of Westbury...better get the present official name of the town right). Badmintonhist (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The only reason for this is to imply (or explicitly state) the perceived hypocrisy of O'Reilly. This is blatant POV. Bytebear (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The only reason you're arguing against it is to try and keep O'Reilly from looking bad. I'm not advocating any sort of statement of conclusion, but given that it's part of a larger theme in O'Reilly's self-given narrative (and criticism thereof), I'm not willing to let you guys excise sourced, verifiable facts that have long been unchallenged and accepted. The text goes out of its way to explain the circumstances and both sides neutrally, and I don't think there is anything more here than an effort to make sure to portray him in the best light possible. Present verifiable facts, explain both sides, and let the reader decide. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This has less to do with the narrative that O'Reilly has created for himself than it does the narrative that folks like Blaxthos are trying to create for him (and on Wikipedia, at least, have largely succeeded in doing). The issue is not whether Wikipedia neutrally presents the material questioning O'Reilly's description of his childhood neighborhood, the issue is whether it should be presented at all, and particularly in the "early life" section of the article. O'Reilly asserts that he grew up in a section of Levittown. He has presented some evidence to indicate that. The fact that the house was built by Levitt's company is uncontested. Levittown is listed as its location on the mortgage. Where's any real evidence to the contrary? His mother using a different place name in describing their home's location? As I suggested above, there are any number of plausible explanations for that. At present, Blaxthos and company are simply basing inclusion of the O'Reilly-doubting material on the fact that its existence is WP:Verifiable. The existence of the anti-Obama "birther" movement claims are also WP:Verifiable, but that doesn't mean that we should present those absurd claims in the "Early life" section of Barack Obama's Wikipedia bio. To do so would give them undue weight WP:UNDUE, and the same problem exists here. Mere speculation is being given undeserved status. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you have now thrice persisted to make an argument using a false analogy to a hypothetical change on an unrelated article as "justification", I'll finally put that cow to pasture... The (obvious) difference is that there are zero reliable sources that give credibility to the WP:FRINGE assertion about Obama's birth certificate. In this case, there are reliable sources that have: (1) quoted O'Reilly, (2) quoted critics, and (3) explained the circumstance from both perspectives. Now, how about some policy instead of some hypothetical, irrelevant comparisons? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you're wrong, ...again. There are any number of reliable sources WP:RS who tell us that the birthers exist and have presented their basic argument and perhaps even quoted birther spokesmen. That, of course, is much different than asserting that the birthers themselves are reliable sources WP:RS. Do I think that the O'Reilly-doubters on this issue are as wacko as the birthers? No, but I don't find them particularly credible, either. The mere fact that an O'Reilly-doubter may have been quoted or given a forum by some WP:RS doesn't mean that their view carry sufficient weight WP:Due to be included in a half-way decent encyclopedia biography. When it comes to their views about O'Reilly's childhood neighborhood I see nothing here except sheer speculation. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, Badmintonhist, the difference here is that the birther thing is verifiably false by any metric -- there is no question that the assertion is prima facie false (as adjudicated by every court and government agency with jurisdiction); this O'Reilly incident is verifiably true and factually correct -- only the interpretation is in question, which is why it should be left up to the reader given it's part of a larger pattern and narrative. Big big difference. The policy WP:UNDUE is the closest to your target, however I assert that given the larger scope of Bill O'Reilly's "I am Bill Everyman you don't come from any poorer than me" self-narrative, I think this has sufficient weight within that context for mention. That will likely just be a point on which you and I disagree, but I think that given there are a good number of editors who seem to agree I just don't see any consensus for excluding previously stable content based mostly due to the "It makes Bill look bad" logic. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any impressive number of editors taking your side on this one Blax. In fact, in this particular discussion my contention seems to have the numbers edge. As to your last point, it has not been my practice to protect O'Reilly in this and other Wikipedia articles when his words and/or deeds have earned him grief. Clearly, in the Andrea Makris affair O'Reilly cooked his own goose. Even in the case of his exaggerated "you can't come any lower..." statement , which his Wiki biography could just as easily ignore as not very important (economically successful people commonly puff their "humble origins"), one can make the case that he said something publicly about himself which was a clearly in error and that his Wiki bio should call him to account. In the issue at hand, however, there is simply no real evidence that O'Reilly is either prevaricating or even exaggerating when he says that he grew up in Levittown. The "case" against him here is basically half-assed conjecture, which is why it shouldn't be included in the article.
By the way the curious thing concerning this "debate" about whether O'Reilly grew up in Levittown, is that assuming it to be true actually undermines, rather than supports, the notion that O'Reilly grew up impoverished. The fact of the matter is that Levittown and developments like it in the early post-war years were not built for the lowest echelons of American society, and represented a big step "up", not "down", for most of the adults who inhabited them. They were built for a growing middle class or, at least, a growing lower-middle class, generally consisting of skilled blue collar workers and lower and middle echelon white collar types such as O'Reilly's father. O'Reilly grew up "poor" only in the sense that, like most of us, he did not grow up rich. If you want to harp on O'Reilly's tendency to exaggerating his humble beginnings, accepting the fact that he grew up Levittown actually helps your case. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That you take two paragraphs to explain your conclusions is, I think, exactly why we should leave this up to the reader. In the end, I'm completely unconcerned with whether this helps this viewpoint or that; I am concerned that editors (such as yourself) are reading the facts, drawing their own conclusions, and then using their conclusions as justification to remove the content (giving no consideration to the possibility that others could draw a different conclusion). That's not how Wikipedia works (or should work). Since you clearly grasp the larger issue of O'Reilly spinning facts to tell the narrative he wants to sell, I have to insist that this _could_ be part of that larger issue (or not, as you point out), and so (again) we should present the facts neutrally and clearly, and leave the conclusions to the reader. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope. What you're presenting is only the "fact" that some people have conjectured that O'Reilly didn't live in Levittown. Other than O'Reilly's mother once giving a different place name for her neighborhood in an interview (very thin gruel) you don't present any facts impeaching O'Reilly's assertion. You do present a couple of facts that seem to support O'Reilly, but the point is that there just isn't enough here to raise the question in the first place. If there had been a really big headline grabbing story a few years back calling O'Reilly's "Levittown" bona fides into question, then putting such material into O'Reilly's Wikipedia bio might be justified, even if the evidence against O'Reilly turned out to be nothing of substance. However, in the case here, it was never a big story except for overwrought O'Reillyphobes and O'Reillyphiles. I also find it quite relevant that you have all but admitted to trying to develop an essentially anti-O'Reilly theme in this bio, presenting a narrative that you want readers to grasp. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the "fact" is that his mother did give the answer reported by The Washington Post. That you don't believe it, or that O'Reilly says she must have been mistaken/misquoted, isn't justification for exclusion. Given that it directly ties into the larger selling of his "you don't come from any poorer than me", that it's verifiable, all sides are presented, and it's reliably sourced, there is no good reason grounded in policy to exclude it. In the end, it's exactly what ByteBear said earlier... the concern here seems to be for keeping his reputation in a certain light (rather than presenting the facts and letting the reader decide). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The fact that his mother once gave a different place name in describing her neighborhood counts for essentially nothing. Levittown, as built in the early post-war years, extended into a number of localities that go by various place names besides Levittown. It's like claiming that Billy Joel didn't live in Levittown because his home is in what is now known as Hicksville. As you well know, place names overlap. I've already explained this quite nicely and am not going to do it again. The plain reason for including this ephemera is to develop an anti-O'Reilly theme in the bio. Again, I have no objections when substantial facts tend to cast O'Reilly in a bad light. But trying to cast doubt on whether a person grew up in the Ozarks because his mother said that they lived in Missouri is bogus. Moreover, I think that you actually know that it's bogus. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, that's all based on your conclusion (not policy). The circle is complete; no need to rinse and repeat. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's see what others say. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I moved it under public perception, seems more appropriate. --Tom (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


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

What's in a place name?

Should O'Reilly's mother's statement that their family lived in Westbury be placed into the article as the sole basis for questioning O'Reilly's assertion that he grew up in Levittown? Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I say no. It seems like a minor minor contraversy with limited circumstantial evidence. At best it should be on the "contraversies" page.NickCT (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I also say no. This was not a headlines grabber a wasn't a notable story to anyone other than the O'Reilly-haters and left-wing blogs. Badmintonhist has made many good points for removal in the above section. Happyme22 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The question as framed here completely misstates the issue. First of all, he DID grow up in Westbury. Second, the issue is about whether O'Reilly's dubious statements about his past should have this issue as part of the supporting evidence. Croctotheface (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If I may interject here, I think that you've missed the point, Croc. My point was not that O'Reilly's mother was in error when she said that the family home was in Westbury. My point was that living in Westbury doesn't contradict living in Levittown, much like living in the Missouri doesn't contradict living in the Ozarks. Identical locations can have a variety of place name. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Canada Stop sign.svg

Loaded question much? I question the validity of this RFC, as it quite obviously is stated to pander to a certain viewpoint. I have no good faith that any effort was made to neutrally present this issue, and I refuse to participate in such a shamelessly transparent attempt to secure an outcome that meets with Badmintonhist's POV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, we won't miss you, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I've yanked the {{RFCbio}} template, as the request clearly made no attempt to comply with WP:RFC. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. Unlike the talk page subtitle: Removal of previously stable and properly sourced content. The capacity of a certain editor for blatant hypocrisy is absolutely stunning. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Please learn the difference between a talk page and an official wikipedia process (which is governed by policy). Also, please note my objection was a procedural one -- you don't go yanking out years-included content slap in the middle of a heated talkpage discussion about that content. If you need examples of how to properly construct an RFC check my contributions for RFC's I've submitted over the years. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Right. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the material about what AL Franken says what about what O'Reilly said and what his mother said added to this article a month or so ago? The sub articles usually are ceespools and best avoided. --Tom (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Page Name

Is there ANOTHER Bill O'Reilly article on Wikipedia? If so, we need a disambig. If not, then we need to move all the content on this page Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) to plain old Bill O'Reilly. (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is another Bill O'Reilly. Look at Bill O'Reilly (that you linked). "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." (disambig). the "(disambiguation)" tag that you sometimes see in the title is only used when there is a primary topic for the term. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Critical of O'Reilly

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

Latest revision was false and said that Bill O'Reilly was a professional liar which is his opinion and does not belong in the article.

{{professional liar}} Factsnotlies (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question was vandalism. Thank you for calling attention to it, but feel free to be bold in the future. Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New picture of O'reilly

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

Content from public image article

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

Bill O'Reilly

The article on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) should state that "on 10/10/2009 Bill O'Reilly was awarded the Tex McCreery Award for Excellence in Journalism. The award is given out by the Medal of Honor Society, which is comprised by many living recipients of the nation's highest wartime honor". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1257 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than the transcript from O'Reilly's show, I can't find any mention of this in any reliable source -- self-serving press releases (and one Texas Republican's webpage) aside, are there any sources that can be used to attest to the significance of this "award"? I've never heard of the "Tex McCreery Award for Excellent in Journalism", and it seems like before O'Reilly started trumpeting this "award" no one else had either... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Jim1257 probably means Tex McCrary, "a journalist and public relations specialist who invented the talk-show genre".
A somewhat biased source is at Bill O’Reilly Lies And Smears During Journalism Award Acceptance Speech
The John Reagan "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism is an award given by the Medal of Honor Foundation, an organization "founded by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society which consists exclusively of the living Medal of Honor recipients." Note however that those in the Foundation are not necessarily recipients of the US-CMH.
On a personal note, I do find it amusing that a group made up of US-CMO recipients would give an award to someone who skipped the country, avoiding the draft during the war in Vietnam Kid Bugs (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
"At their reunion in 1997 the members of the Society introduced their new "Tex" McCrary Award for Excellence in Journalism and presented it to CNN news anchor and former Marine Bernard Shaw. The 1998 Award was presented to CBS News Correspondent Mike Wallace."
Here's a roster of those who have received the award. It doesn't include O'reilly but it hasn't been updated in 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ink Falls (talkcontribs) 23:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


I believe I've added a sufficient number or citations to the apology section. Sysrpl (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added to more citations, one from the Seatle PI (Associated Press) and one from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Do you need more? Sysrpl (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Where he grew up

I have rmved the section that seemed to be deemed irrelevant by consensus save for the usual Blaxthos/Croctotheface cabal. Soxwon (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion? There was plenty of support for including the section, and even the edits at the time did not remove all the text as you have just done here. Furthermore, the way you talk about me is just so rude and obnoxious that I'm almost at a loss to respond to it. It must be easy to believe you're right all the time if you just dismiss people who disagree with you out of hand. Croctotheface (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It appeared the majority (though I know WP:NOTADEMOCRACY is going to be cited), thought that the hometown portion was simply nitpicking. Soxwon (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Revisionist history not based on consensus will be swiftly reverted. There is no cabal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read the two discussions above on the subject, the concensus was that they should be left out. Soxwon (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I see no such "concensus", nor do most others -- if that consensus had been clear, the edit would have been done quite a while ago. I fear this may be another episode of Don't agree with the results? Just wait a few weeks and then do what you wanted to do anyway... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
According to my count, in the past two discussions seven editors; Badmintonhist, Bytebear, Arzel, Soxwon, Happme22, Threeafterthree(Tom), and NickCT basically took the side of removing the material about the "debate" over O'Reilly's neighborhood. Four opposed it; Croctotheface, JamesMLane, Jimintheatl and Blaxthos. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
After a lengthy discussion upheld a long consensus with which you didn't agree and a failed attempt to start a poisoned WP:RFC, I find it hard to believe that you're now asserting this in seriousness. It's over, just because the three of you won't stop squawking about it doesn't mean that consensus is in your favor. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Now we're getting revisionist history from you, Blax. At the end of the last discussion the "Where did O'Reilly really grow up" material was moved, without objection from you by the way, from the "Early life" section of the article to the "Political beliefs and public perception" section of the article. That was a modest improvement and one that showed some "movement" away from your presumed "consensus". However, on reflection, this just isn't enough for an agenda-driven political animal such as myself. I recommend we scrap all of the silly Levittown versus Westbury nonsense for the reasons that I have already admirably delineated. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, you are correct in stating that the discussion ended with an (acceptable) move to a more appropriate section. The point is, Badmintonhist, that you and Soxwon simply won't accept anything less that complete removal (as you so clearly stated above). Even though the consensus appeared to be stable, here the two of you come a few weeks later making unilateral edits in defiance of that (and previous) agreement(s), and now are pretending like it's okay to do so. I have a real problem with editors who, when dissatisfied with a consensus, have a modus operandi of waiting a few weeks and then pretending they didn't hear previous (settled) discussions and just making unilateral edits in defiance of said consensus. It reeks of agenda driven bad faith editing and shows a complete lack of respect for other editors and any viewpoint other than your own. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre controversy

I suggest including this incident in the article:

I know that the reporter doesn't hide his dislike of O'Reilly, and that O'Reilly fans might find this provocative. However, I feel that such evident tampering with the truth is an important facet of the man.

Best wishes,


09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Hi Daniel. This incident used to be covered in the article; it was later moved to an article covering all of O'Reilly's controversies. However, that article was later delete and the content was never merged back into this article (due to the same size guidelines that mandated the split in the first place!), so unfortunately the article is severely deficient in covering Mr. O'Reilly's controversies and criticisms. I agree with your assertion, and will support any efforts you make to re-incorporate this significant controversy into the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can be found here: Jamie Kitson (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

"Tiller the baby killer" comment removed

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

Took me 2 minutes to find and fix the link.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
O'Reilly may have at some point referred to other people's characterizations, but he very often used the "baby killer" phrase without any kind of qualifier. His claim to the contrary is simply untrue. Croctotheface (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The link that supposedy proves O'Reilly specifically called Tiller a baby killer offers no proof at all. The writer offers no broadcast date for such a comment, no transcript, nothing. Your claim about "....without any kind of qualifier" is equally weak. I admit to being a fan of O'Reilly's, but I would be the first to criticize him if the situation warranted. As a regular viewer, I can state categorically that I never heard him use the baby killer comment "without any kind of qualifier". I think it only fair to use more than one source - Brian Stelter in the New York Times - to support this claim. Elsquared (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Go look at transcripts from O'Reilly's show. Here's a video: . Sometimes he throws in a very quick qualifier like "known as", but you can see multiple times were he does not. Croctotheface (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yes. The Daily Kos. The symbol of fair, objective commentary. I'm not going to watch the video, because I know what's going to happen. It's going to be a carefully edited video, highlighting O'Reilly's use of the words "baby killer", with little else. And the Kos commentary will likely make some ridiculous claim like how O'Reilly's comments sponsor terrorism. Even if O'Reilly had called Tiller a baby killer face-to-face, it's only his opinion, based on his belief that a late-term baby (or fetus, if you prefer) is a valid human life. And since it's only his opinion, I have no problem. Leave the Wiki article as is, if you want - O'Reilly did use the phrase "baby killer", I can't argue with that. But I think your analysis of the context is wrong. Elsquared (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
If you demand that other editors bring you sources, then refuse to watch the sources that are provided, then you're not approaching this discussion in good faith, and trying to talk to you is not a useful way for me to spend my time. Croctotheface (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I am approaching this discussion in good faith. I require not just a source, but a reputable, reliable one. The Daily Kos is neither of those things. Elsquared (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Refusing to so much as look at a source before you make (untrue) assertions of fact about it is not a good faith approach. Croctotheface (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen enough commentary in the past from the Daily Kos to make a fair judgement on their credibility. You may wish to believe their rhetoric without question, but I don't. As I said previously, I am confident that the Daily Kos website will (1) accuse O'Reilly of something like sponsoring terrorism, and (2) show a carefully edited video that highlights the words "baby killer". I'll watch the video, but I know what to expect. If I'm wrong, I will gladly apologize. But if I'm correct, will you? If one is to be fair, one must admit the possibility they're wrong. Elsquared (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
It cuts together sequences of baby killer and usually includes the qualifier. Soxwon (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Right, Soxwon, that's what I said in the first place. He usually qualifies it (albeit very quickly and with two words "known as"), but sometimes he does not qualify it. Elsquared said, "O'Reilly himself at no time addressed Tiller in this way," which the video shows is plainly untrue. Croctotheface (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why there should be an argument here. A New York Times article already provides a reliable source for the the "Tiller the baby killer" quotes. The Daily Kos clips of "O'Reilly's program don't have to be used. They do provide his actual words on the show (so would you-tube) for Elsquared's benefit, however using a clearly anti-O'Reilly source in his Wikipedia bio should probably be avoided when possible, just as using a clearly anti-Olbermann source in his Wikipedia bio should probably be avoided when possible. As I said, The New York Times article already provides the required source. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what others will think, but the Pulitzer winning Politifact (operated by a newspaper, the St. Pete Times) also has an article regarding O'Reilly claims that he was just reporting what others had said about Tiller. See . This article documents 8 times in 2009 where O'Reilly refers to Tiller as the baby killer without attribution of the perjorative term to any person/group. I will let others decide whether this article merits citation in the main article. (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A query...O'Reilly's claim to be a combat veteran?

According to this Youtube clip O'Reilly defends himself from a caller who questions him over claims O'Relly made saying he has seen combat: to wit he is inferring he was military veteran who may have served in the Armed Forces.

O'Relly can be heard admitting all this, though he then qualifies this by adding "that people were shooting at me" and he was a journalist at the time in Central America.

It must have touched a nerve as he then tells the caller to "shove it!".

This is very serious stuff in my opinion. He qualifying his opinions by saying he has experienced combat, with the obvious inference that he did this as a soldier - when else would you "face combat" - (but when challenged he qualifies the claim with the answer that he was there as a member of the media).

That's a big, big difference. And one that needs to be examined in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like O'Reilly has more combat experience than the last three U.S. Presidents. Problem I see is a lack of reliable sources. Youtube clips don't cut it, Daily Kos is the best WP:RS(not sure) I see, and that's only a rough transcript. One would assume we'd run into notability issues as well, but maybe that's just "my opinion." (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the clip is from O'Relly's own show, so if you can't accept his own spoken words on this, why do you need to attest his words to another source? It sounds like you wouldn't add much weight to them either. Besides what has notability got to do with anything? O'Reilly is a well known commentator who claims to have seen "combat" but when challenged denies that he meant he had served in the military. But where else would you assume a person sees "combat"? (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to bite my head off. There are certain things you need to know about Wikipedia. Youtube is considered original research, which is not allowed in a biography of a living person. Notability also serves a major purpose. O'Reilly is notable, but what about his show is notable? He has a bio filled with truly notable events... What does your grievance have to do with his achievements, and/or controversies? This article is fine without your opinion, regardless if you served your Queen. Personally, I have no issue with O'Reilly's words, but me being a U.S. Marine doesn't factor into any requests or denials of biographical materials. (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC) is ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a newbie who has joined specifically to participate in this thread. the controversies section has to be replaced, as per my understanding of wikipedia. So, can we talk about how to achieve this in a correct, NPOV manner? Coldrockrand (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)coldrockrand

Well just to reiterate the point because I see I am being railroaded here, this is what O'Reilly said:
"I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first."
This implies that O'Reilly is associating himself with the military because he has "been in combat". An assumption that is not corrected till the caller questions him. It's obvious from O'Reilly's hostile reaction he has been caught out. But that is what happens when people are disingenuous with the truth.
I don't understand why is this not suitable to be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
When you describe yourself as a "newbie who has joined specifically to participate in this thread,", you are giving more information about yourself than would be advisable. It gives the impression that you might simply have an anti-O'Reilly, or, more broadly, an anti-conservative agenda. In any case there are a number of problems with including this tidbit in the article. Most importantly, I think, is that it is basically a mere tidbit, one of the many, many, things that O'Reilly (in common with other political talk show hosts and pundits) has said which both stretch the truth and offend some people's sensibilities. The purpose of a Wikipedia bio is not to develop a compendium of every half-assed statement that its subject has made. They are not intended to be attack pieces. As such statements go, by the way, I don't happen to think that this is a particularly egregious one. Yes, O'Reilly should have said from the outset that he had "seen" combat at close range in his role as a reporter rather than leaving the impression that it was as a member of the military. However, he corrected this impression quickly when challenged by the very next caller (thus, literally, within seconds). The other problems have to do with WP:Notability, WP: Reliable Sources and WP:Undue. Youtube and other sites which merely show clips are not considered reliable sources for the purpose of making Wikipedia information notable. One needs to find the information displayed and/or discussed in bona fide secondary news sources. One should also consider the appropriate amount of weight given in an article to various sources. For example. an article on, say Keith Olbermann, should not be heavily loaded with right-leaning sources such as Newbusters, The Fox News Channel, National Review, etc. Similarly, an article on Bill O'Reilly should not be heavily loaded with left-leaning sources such as Media Matters, the Huffington Post, and MSNBC. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. Yes, I do in fact dislike many things about Mr. O'Reilly's career. I did specifically sign up because as some one who monitored him during the Bush administrations, I have personal, first hand knowledge about Mr. O'Reilly's work, which I found to be objectionable. He is not a journalist, but he dons the raiments, with the suit and pen and desk, but he is a lurching, Bizarro version of a journalist. This is what the right wing does, they co-opt institutions they dislike, and create these upside down versions of them, in order to demean the institution altogether. I know you could give !-all about my opinion, but just for some context. I am not a nut, per se ;), I understand that "Bill O'Reilly" is a character on television, played by William J. O'Reilly. I am not crazy with hate. The map is not the terrain. But this "character" has certain traits and hallmarks, and methods and history and patterns. These are notable, and with regards to that, as Mr. o'propaganda likes to say, "there's no debate". I don't mean to bother you guys with so much of what you must consider my opinion, I just want to participate. I am sure there are people here agree with his tactics. So I want to, with the proper guidance, participate. Even the combat thing, illustrates how he is very often dishonest by omission. He makes some pronouncement, and then unless he is held down and made to address it (good luck with that), then he lets stuff like that lie NPI. So my bottom line is, an article about Mr. O'Reilly that does not contain an objective and honest addressing of "Bill O'Reilly"'s controversies and tactics and patterns, is most definitely incomplete and IMHO, dishonest, by omission...coldrockrandColdrockrand (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"He is not a journalist, but he dons the raiments, with the suit and pen and desk, but he is a lurching, Bizarro version of a journalist."
Statements like that won't and don't help you achieve your goal of disparaging the subject of a WP:BLP. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your response; to clarify, I know that this is not the place to disparage the subject. There are alot of places on the net to do that. I don't even necessarily think that I should participate here. I love Wikipedia. I consider it the record, in many ways. I think alot of you folks put in alot of time and effort to keep these things on the straight and narrow. The fact is, friends, that this article is sorely lacking because it does not address Mr. O'Reilly's controversies, methods and practices, which are unique in many ways, certainly to the world of journalism. Have there been others who are similar, like Fulton Sheen et. al? I think so. But you have no mention of mr. O'Reilly's style, which is certainly notable. I think history will show that we as a nation presided over a dark day when O'reilly walked on the Tiller thing. Mr. O'Reilly, my friends, you must all agree, enjoys being PART of the news and until you resolve that, this article is glaringly, disrespectfully omissive... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldrockrand (talkcontribs) 09:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

First time I have ever heard O'Reilly compared to the late Bishop Fulton J. Sheen whom I'm old enough to remember. I'm sure O'Reilly would be pleased by that, even from if it came someone who didn't admire either of the two men. However we're getting pretty far afield here, Coldrockrand. You're as free as anyone else is to make edits in the actual article, but you should be prepared to justify them according to Wikipedia rules of the road. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

...well, I am sure he would appreciate the comparison, but the comparison is well removed, like saying that Rubens was the genesis of bondage pornography. The truth is, his more direct antecedent is obviously someone like Wally George, or as I wrote O'reilly in an email years ago, "you are nothing more than the second coming of Morton Downey Jr..." Sorry to bother you guys, but I couldn't let that comparison stand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldrockrand (talkcontribs) 13:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Duplicated Paragraph

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


A part of this article reads:

In a 2003 interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio, O'Reilly said: “ I'm not a political guy in the sense that I embrace an ideology. To this day I'm an independent thinker, an independent voter, I'm a registered independent... there are certain fundamental things that this country was founded upon that I respect and don't want changed. That separates me from the secularists who want a complete overhaul of how the country is run.[10]

Would it be a good idea to mention that America was founded as a Secular Republic? Chairmaneoin (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If you mean in the article on O'Reilly, Chairmaneoin, no, it would not be a good idea. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
If you have some sources, it would make an excellent addition to America's page. Let me and Badmintonhist know how it turns out (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

dumbass comment

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

 Done Arzel (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism page needed

Bill O'Reilly is one of the most controversial figures in the public eye, we all know this. There are sources everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE on the internet for his ill-behavior and frowned-upon beliefs and personality. You can literally type in his name on youtube and you will find hundreds of videos depicting his poor behavior, from losing his temper to insulting people who call his show, the list goes on. It boggles my mind that NONE of this has been addressed in the article let alone there is no dedicated article for it. --Radicalfaith360 (1/19/2010)

Read WP:POVFORK plz. Soxwon (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:POV plz. The user above has a valid problem: this page used to have an extensive sourced section on O'Reilly's (negative) public image. Then it was pushed out into a separate article (this one: [1]) by O'Reilly fans, then there were 7 (seven!) deletion attempts of the public image article (all but one of which ended with a "keep"), and last year a single admin simply removed that article without consensus. (He "merged" it here, but the content strangely didn't arrive...) If that isn't pushing of opinion (some would say "whitewash"), I don't know what is. -- Marcika (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point, you do not correct a lack of criticism by simply creating a POV "Criticism" page or a POV "criticism section." If you feel that the material should be added back into the article, then by all means do so. However, do so in appropriate places rather than letting it all accumulate in one particular section of the article. Soxwon (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That would make for an extremely unorganized article, such as this one right now (honestly, look at this article, and a revision four or five years ago, and tell me which is more informative). Also, I've given up on getting into pointless edit wars with political zealots on Wikipedia sometime back in 2004, so I won't get involved here. -- Marcika (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
item only list 2 refuted points by Franken, I guess intelligent people know the truth, and dumb people wont be swayed but any facts anyway. gadfly46 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A tale of two articles

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

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

Preposterous that this is missing a criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy, criticism, parody section

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

lead should mention more about why he is controversial

This section needs to be better represented in the introduction, per WP:lead. Only the final sentence there hints at it: "Over the years, O'Reilly's print and broadcast work has drawn both praise and criticism." By comparison, Glenn Beck's article has the following adjectives to describe him in its lead section: "polarizing, provocative, controversy and criticism, notorious for conspiracy theories and incendiary rhetoric." PrBeacon (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Infobox template

I notice that the infobox template for O'Reilly is "person," while the infobox templates for Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow are "journalist." O'Reilly, for one, would seem to have a more legitimate background as a journalist than Maddow. In fact, the cable TV commentators on MSNBC generally have the "journalist" infobox while those on FNC do not (Ed Schultz is one exception). One option could be to create an infobox for "political commentator", but in the meantime, might this be a form of bias? RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Likely not. You would have to explore what the differences are in the items they cover, as your starting point. Nobody reading the article sees the "name" of the template, other than those who open it for editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, the whole point of different templates is to provide a visual reference for the article. "Journalist" generates a yellow bar for the infobox title background. RadioBroadcast (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Main photo is at a bad angle

I personally dislike Bill, but I feel that the photo of him in this article:

  • is taken at a sufficiently indirect angle as to make recognizing him from the photo difficult
  • has his eyes pointing nearly orthogonal to the camera
  • is particularly unflattering (due to aforementioned issues, as well as his expression at the moment of capture)
  • is non-iconic. These photos have a more iconic feel: [2] and [3]

Please note I'm not suggesting we actually use one of the linked photos, but it is clear that photos taken like that - straight on, under proper lighting, no grimace, are more recognizable and better convey his visual presence (important for a TV personality).

Once again, I totally hate the guy, but... is there a reason someone can't find a suitable image? - JustinWick (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not obligated to reveal that you "totally hate the guy," however, if that's the way you feel about him, imagine how the folks who decided to use that the photo in there now felt about him! Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Heh, just didn't want to sound like a fanboy - those types of requests are often ignored. - JustinWick (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have previously brought up that this was a bad image but when I brought in a new image it was removed for being copyrighted. As it stands this image(which is a derivative of a larger image) is all we have. If you can find a free license image to upload to wikicommons and then bring that over to here it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Ink Falls 19:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Added NPOV Tag, Due to Overall Bias in Article and Failure to Put all Controversy in the "Controversy" Section

Rather than having a standard Wikipedia "Controversy" Section', citations critical of O'Reilly are woven throughout the entire article, which is manipulative and unbalanced.

People who are critical of O'Reilly should be aware that manipulative writing reflects more on the writer than it does on the subject. Readers recognize it very quickly.

It's also unethical to write like that. For this reason, Wikipedia calls for putting all incidents of controversy together, under one "Controversy" section.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you did open a discussion. Please disregard my edit summary. As for the criticisms "woven throughout" the article, it's actually better than having a Controversy section. That kind of section can never be balanced and usually serves as a troll magnet. TETalk 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the tag on the grounds that your sole rationale in favor of it completely misstates WP policy. In fact, "weaving criticism throughout the entire article" is explicitly preferred to a dedicated section. Croctotheface (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Uh, Sean7phil, merging Controversy sections into the main text is the preferred style and in no way indicates a POV problem. If there are other POV problems in your view, we are happy to hear them. Ashmoo (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

We had some bold changes there, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Next, the discussion. First, the "widely considered conservative" line was a compromise that was hashed out through arduous discussion. It has the support of consensus, and I don't think a weaker statement ("some") would have the support of consensus. It may be OK to spell out some of his "non-conservative" positions, but I don't think I'd put them in the lead. I'd leave out the death penalty thing, too--we're not explaining the instances where he is conservative, after all. Also, a description of the ins and outs of his position on organized labor isn't really appropriate for the article lead. It's possible that it would be appropriate for elsewhere in the article. The other sentences that were added either have inadequate sourcing or misstate their sources. An interview with Brit Hume is inadequate to source a statement like that, and he didn't say anything like that in the interview anyway. We can probably work his description of himself into the "traditionalist" sentence. Croctotheface (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the new edits elaborated a little too much on positions he has for the lead, but I prefer the statement: "O'Reilly is considered by some to be a conservative commentator although others view him as an outspoken Centrist.[1][2]".
I guess it's time to take a new poll.
Support change to the above statement. Ink Falls 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You realize that we don't do things by voting, right? I think what you want to do is reopen the discussion. In the spirit of that, what support do you have for the notion that he is not widely considered conservative? "Some" is very weak--it could mean one or two people. A large number of people consider O'Reilly a conservative. Croctotheface (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No, a "new poll" is not needed. The burden is on you to show that consensus has changed. In holding with longstanding Wikipedia guidelines, deference is given to his self-chosen designator "traditionalist", however there is no question that the majority of the sources (and people writ large) consider him to be "conservative" -- sourcing is sufficiently strong to overcome the "some" / "many" distinction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Blaxthos on this one, sources clearly indicated conservative label. Soxwon (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We do things by consensus and compromise. Consensus is seen through voting, and here is my compromise: "O'Reilly is largely considered to be a conservative commentator although others view him as an outspoken Centrist.[3][4]". That is a more fair description. Ink Falls 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You realize that neither of those sources call him a centrist, right? Croctotheface (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Are we just making things up now? Did you really just assert that Country Music Television is a solid source for the intro, right next to the Wall Street Journal, even when the source doesn't contain the language you advocate? Also, why do you continue to assert that "consensus is seen through voting" when it clearly is not? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If everyone votes yes, then there is a consensus. You realize that one of the current sources doesn't say anything about O'reilly's political position and the other only just calls him "the conservative commentator" once. That alone is hardly evidencethat he is "widely considered" conservative. Unless you can find proof otherwise, I recommend changing it to some consider him conservative. Ink Falls 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that we reach consensus through discussion, not brute force voting. But problems with your conception of voting vs. consensus aside, so far nobody else has "voted yes," let alone "everyone." Otherwise, you seem to want us to cite 75 different sources that call him conservative, but over-citation of contentious material does not improve the encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Inkfalls, your position is unsupported by policy, sources, or consensus. If you seek "evidencethat[sic] he is 'widely considered' conservative", I have a few recommendations:
  1. Take the personal initiative to do an evaluation of the number of reliable sources that consider him conservative, versus those that consider him "centrist".
  2. Do a raw comparison of "bill+o'reilly"+conservative "conservative" ghits (565,000) versus ""bill+o'reilly"+centrist ghits" (43,600). Call it a 13:1 ratio. Postscript: it appears the majority of the "centrist" ghits are actually sources blasting the "O'Reilly is centrist" meme as invalid on its face.
  3. Consider the responses of your fellow editors, who have shown no support for your position.
In no case should you continue to bring up points that have been clearly settled, or to continue to ask for "proof" when consensus is against you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nolan getting fired material

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

Barry Nolan

Could someone explain how O'Reilly getting a fellow journalist fired is not worth mentioning here? The Columbia Journalism Review devoted an entire article to the incident. Rd232 talk 20:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because its a non story. Did some taking heads mention this or just the CJR? It looks like Nolan got himself fired. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't minimise or trivialise this. The gory details are in Barry Nolan, and it is abundantly clear that O'Reilly got Nolan fired by threatening Fox's business relationship with Comcast. He did so because Nolan had embarrassed him at that Emmy awards dinner, with the flier of quotes from his shows (and the harassment lawsuit), which led to some audience boos for O'Reilly. Columbia Journalism Review devoted an entire article to this. How is it not notable? Does O'Reilly make a habit of getting critical journalists fired (and hence this one is not worth noting)?? Some other media mentions Patriot-Ledger [4] Boston Herald [5] Philadelphia Inquirer [6] UPI [7] ABC News [8] FAIR [9] Harper's [10] There's also plenty of blog coverage, as Google easily demonstrates. And coverage of this is blooming because the CJR article is recent. Rd232 talk 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"gory details" lol. Nolan got himself fired. End of story. It seems like it is covered in his bio where this non story belongs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Has nothing seemingly to do with O'reilly the person. It would make more since to include it in his shows article. As for Nolan, I've never even heard of him.(unless by some chance he is the inventor of the Nolan chart)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether you've heard of Nolan (neither had I). The point is he was a fellow journalist who O'Reilly got fired by threatening the business relationship Nolan's employer had with O'Reilly's.

After the dinner, O'Reilly wrote to Comcast's CEO mentioning the mutual business interests between Comcast and Fox, and saying " was puzzling to see a Comcast employee, Barry Nolan, use Comcast corporate assets to attack me and FNC."[4] He said that Nolan had attended the Emmy Awards "in conjunction with Comcast," and declared it "a disturbing situation."[4] This led to "memos ... flying from one jittery Comcast executive to another".[4] Nolan subsequently sued Comcast for wrongful termination, in a suit which remains outstanding.[4] In response to a question raised as part of that suit, Comcast wrote that "… Mr. Nolan’s protest at the NATAS Award Ceremony and of William O’Reilly as the recipient of the Governor’s Award jeopardized and harmed the business and economic interests of Comcast in connection with its contract with Fox News Channel, and its contract negotiations with Fox News that were ongoing at the time."[4]

(from Barry Nolan). Now tell me again how this is "nothing to do with O'Reilly the person" and "Nolan got himself fired, end of story". Fact: the Columbia Journalism Review article is titled "The O’Reilly Factor: How the Fox host used raw corporate power to crush a critic." Seeing as Wikipedia doesn't care what Wikipedians think, but what reliable sources say, please address the verifiable facts. Rd232 talk 22:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Facts? Thats a good one. Just because you keep saying O'Reilly got Nolan fired doesn't make it true or what the source said. The source even admitted that it couldn't prove Nolan was fired because of BO's letter. Also you keep using your POV "threatening". I guess it's a good thing that ol Billo is smater than you and didn't directly threaten anybody. Anyways, keep this "material" at the Nolan article where it belongs. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I love it when editors start talking about what's true. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Snide comments aside, I said it doesn't make it true by repeating a questionable statement, not about the "truth" being inserted into this article...--Threeafterthree (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you're really missing the point. The concept of what is "true" has no relevance to this (or any) Wikipedia content discussion. Full stop; read again. The concept of what is "true" has no relevance to this (or any) Wikipedia content discussion. If you don't understand that, then you shouldn't be participating. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you really that brain dead? I said that repeating a statement over and over and over does not make it "accurate" or "factual" or "whatever". Is that clear enough? --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(You know, I've never interacted with you before, and so far you have been on the rude side of abrasive, as well as given a vague impression of working for O'Reilly's PR dept. Anyway...) The CJR article (as its title makes abundantly clear) argues that O'Reilly's letter, whilst "a carefully worded, lawyerly letter" was clearly intended to be read as a threat, and as the later Comcast quote makes clear, was so read. The article goes to some effort to explain the weight and gravity of the implied threat. You are correct of course to say that O'Reilly was not foolish enough to say something as clumsy as "fire the fucker or we'll ditch you"; that doesn't alter either the sequence of events or the CJR's interpretation thereof. Rd232 talk 23:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
rude side of abrasive, i've been accused of alot worse, so no offense :)..seriously, did BO's letter/viledthreat/listenhereguys/whateveryouwanttocallit get Nolan fired? Well it sure didn't help the guy out, but to flat out say as FACT that it DID get him canned is not supported by RSs. The CJR article is an opinion piece about the events, timing, emails, ect, ect. I would actually have more sympathy for Nolan if he had picketed outside the event or the like. To be an invited guest and then dump some "material" on the guest tables and run doesn't impress me, and most folks would have their job in jeopardy if they had done the same after being warned to "tone it down". Anyways, I can assure you that Iam not on BOs PR team :). Also, being a past NYCer, I wouldn't have sent a lawyerly letter but would have kicked this guys azz right then and there. So much for PR :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's not get distracted by this back-and-forth about whether it's "abundantly clear" that O'Reilly got Nolan fired or that "Nolan got himself fired". We're not here to adjudicate a hypothetical Nolan v. O'Reilly lawsuit, or to decide whether we're impressed by Nolan's conduct. The point about this incident is that it differs from the many cases in which someone has disagreed with O'Reilly and O'Reilly has fired back at his critic. It's unusual enough that O'Reilly communicated with the critic's employer, and still more notable that O'Reilly's letter mentioned the business relationships between the two corporations. Add to that the fact that Nolan was fired, and the whole incident merits inclusion.
On the other hand, to call the letter "threatening" is, as Rd232 admits, an interpretation. Granted, it's an interpretation by CJR, a well-respected source on journalistic matters, but still an interpretation rather than an objective fact. I would replace "threatening the mutual business interests" with "referring to the mutual business interests". It would be legitimate, and consistent with WP:NPOV, for us to report CJR's opinion without adopting it, but that would be getting into more detail than the incident deserves. Linking to the CJR article is sufficient. JamesMLane t c 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with that. "Threatening" isn't in the current description at Nolan, or in the blockquote above; I used it in my comment but not in the text, where the word is "mentioning". (Clarification: "threatening" was in the text originally, but threeafterthree changed it, and I'm OK with that.) Rd232 talk 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
To say he was fired due to Bill's letter is also not supported by the citations. Just keep this in the Nolan bio since it primarily involves him and as pointed out, there was no legal action, ect invovling O'Reilly. If more develops, maybe revisit. --Threeafterthree (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Pretty clear what happened. Nolan did something stupid. BOR wrote a letter complaining about it. Nolan got fired for doing something stupid. Others now blame BOR for writing a letter that exposed the stupid thing that got Nolan fired. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Arzel, I have no doubt that it's pretty clear to you what happened. The difference is that CJR is a reliable source about events in the journalism field, and a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor isn't. Anyway, even on your view, Nolan would not have been fired but for the O'Reilly letter, so the phrase "as a result" is fully supported by the citations. (Also I note that no one has produced any source, of any degree of reliability, contending that Nolan would have been fired even without O'Reilly's intervention.)
Nevertheless, in an attempt at compromise, I will remove the well-supported statement that ties the firing specifically to O'Reilly's action, and instead say merely that Nolan was fired as a result of the sequence of events. That leaves it up to the reader to decide the relative importance of each thing that happened, along with the assessment of moral culpability (was Nolan being stupid, was O'Reilly improperly intimidating Comcast, or maybe even both). JamesMLane t c 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Its still undue weight/not that notable enough for this bio. Please feel free to go off on Nolan's bio since this mainly involves him. Also, see Jimbo Wales talk page where he comments about editors like yourself who let their personal beliefs/opinions override NPOV. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)ps no one has produced any source, of any degree of reliability, contending that Nolan would have been fired even without O'Reilly's intervention, when did you stop beating your wife?, right? Also Nolan would not have been fired but for the O'Reilly letter, citation for that? Didn't think so, since its like the same thing you asked for, proving a negative. Anyways, all of this is non issue since this material is undue weight in overall scope of bio, except to people with an agenda to push. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This part is truly amusing: "Also, see Jimbo Wales talk page where he comments about editors like yourself who let their personal beliefs/opinions override NPOV." Right, you yourself are pure as the driven snow, all edits you make are strictly for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, anyone who disagrees with you is letting personal opinions override NPOV, and Jimbo himself said so. Believe all that if it makes you happy. The fact is that many of the NPOV disputes on Wikipedia revolve around questions of importance. O'Reilly's conduct toward Nolan is an example. The passage you deleted is reasonably NPOV, although somewhat tilted O'Reilly's way by obscuring facts embarrassing to him, so the issue is whether the brouhaha triggered by his letter to Nolan's employer is significant enough to be included at all.
You and Arzel had no interest in continuing the discussion of that question for the past several days. As long as you were getting your way, you couldn't be bothered to address the latest comments or my proposed rewording. I conclude that there's not much room for productive discussion here and we'll have to take this to RfC, because otherwise you and Arzel will just keep deleting the information and repeating your previous points on the talk page.
For the RfC, I suggest that we present participants with three alternatives:
  1. A full discussion of the incident, including the CJR conclusion that O'Reilly did indeed get Nolan fired;
  2. The compromise language that I put in place with this edit; and
  3. Your preferred alternative of omitting all mention of the matter in this article.
There would also be a statement in support of each position. Does that seem like a good approach? JamesMLane t c 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
obscuring facts embarrassing to him and those "facts" would be what exactly? Also, the issue is whether the brouhaha triggered by his letter to Nolan's employer is significant, ah, no, the brouhaha was started by Nolan's actions. Do you mean was O'reilly's letter in response to Nolan's actions significant enough to warrant inclusion? Also, your "compromise" includes mention that the sequence of events got Nolan fired, which is still OR/synthesis and unsourced. Anyways, I always welcome more input, so RFC away if you want or maybe the BLP board?. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
See the BLP board. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent):I noticed this on the BLPN, and thought I'd come take a look. I'd like to offer a 4th possibility, but first let me lay a little groundwork. First, let me say that Rd232 is very correct to refer to the fact that truth is absolutely irrelevant here (WP:V couldn't really be more clear on this). I have no idea if O'Reilly got Nolan fired. I have a guess, but my guess isn't really relevant, either. What is relevant is whether or not we can verify that someone believes this, which we can. Second, however, is that ThreeafterThree makes a good point that the real thing we need to decide is how much weight to give this issue. From the perspective of O'Reilly's career, this is but one small thing he did in the midst of building/protecting his own reputation and/or potentially attacking the reputation of others. Nonetheless, it does seem to be a small but relevant part of the story of that award, and of O'Reilly's overall perception within the field. So, I'd like to propose a third option, which you might call 2.5, as it includes the info but cuts it down even further from version 2. So try this on for size:

In protest Comcast's Barry Nolan, attending the dinner, distributed a self-prepared flier with quotations from O'Reilly's shows, and with quotations from a sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly.[5][6] After the dinner, O'Reilly wrote to Comcast about critical of Nolan's behavior; some sources, such as the Columbia Journalism Review, have said that O'Reilly's letter and its reference to the business interests between Comcast and Fox may have had a direct impact on the subsequent decision of Comcast to fire Barry Nolan.[7]

Does this (compromise?) version seem any more acceptable to the involved parties? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you're not accusing other editors of letting their personal beliefs/opinions override NPOV, but instead you're making a constructive suggestion of specific language? What a concept. OK, as to the details, something seems to have gotten a bit garbled with the phrase "about critical of Nolan's behavior"; it needs rewording. More substantively, your language reports the contents of the O'Reilly letter but the CJR assessment is interpolated within that report. I suggest rearranging to keep all reporting of the letter together. How about:

In protest, Comcast's Barry Nolan, attending the dinner, distributed a self-prepared flier with quotations from O'Reilly's shows, and with quotations from a sexual harassment lawsuit against O'Reilly.[5][6] After the dinner, O'Reilly wrote to Comcast, criticizing Nolan's behavior and referring to the business interests between Comcast and Fox; some sources, such as the Columbia Journalism Review, have said that O'Reilly's letter may have had a direct impact on the subsequent decision of Comcast to fire Nolan.[7]

With these changes, I could live with this version. Thanks for the suggestion. JamesMLane t c 05:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Uh, yes, on the "about/critical part." That slipped past my proofreading; I imagine I was considering both phrases and forgot to take out the one I didn't like. Your revision seems fine by me, basically moving the part about "business interests" from one phrase to the other. Interested to hear what other editors think. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, except I think we're a little heavy with the commas in the first and second sentences. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of the last two short proposed texts reduce the O'Reilly involvement to mere CJR opinion. The Comcast letter (cf Barry Nolan) makes it quite clear why they acted: they believed their business interests threatened. So at least add "..., particularly as Comcast later stated that they had fired Nolan for jeopardising its business interests in relation to negotiations with Fox News." Rd232 talk 11:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading the CJR article more closely lets go over the events. Nolan was upset that BOR was getting an award. He tried to get the board to take back the award, he wrote at least one article complaining about BOR getting the award, he told others that he didn't think BOR deserved the award, he also tried to contact KO about coming to the ceremony (as an act of protest one would assume). Clearly, Nolan was goind beyond the normal journalistic methods with regards to BOR. He was told by several not to disrupt the awards, but he attempted to do so anyway. Clearly Nolan did just about everything he could to get himself fired. Almost two years after the event a sympathetic ear at CJR wrote an article to try and bash BOR for getting him fired, but even that article can't ignore the many facts that show Nolan is wholly responsible for his own firing. So, how is this relevant to BOR? One could easily conclude even from the CJR article that Nolan would have been fired even if BOR had said nothing. Nolan got what he deserved and has noone to blame but himself. That someone at the CJR is sympathetic to him isn't notable in the least. They don't have any proof of anything, only assumptions, rumors, gossip, and therefore not suitable for a WP:BLP. Arzel (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but that misrepresents what the CJR article says. In particular, it's quite clear that Nolan didn't disrupt the event itself, beyond quietly handing out some flyers. Equally, it's clear from Comcast's later letter that it was specifically their business relationship with Fox which was the issue, not Nolan's behaviour at the event - and their business relationship with Fox was only put into question by O'Reilly's letter. Beyond that, you appear to assume that it is acceptable for an employer to fire an employee for expressing an opinion; somehow, I find it hard to imagine O'Reilly supporters taking the same view had the tables been turned. Rd232 talk 22:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
RD232, you are also interjecting your opinion into this. and their business relationship with Fox was only put into question by O'Reilly's letter is your unsourced opinion unless you work for Comcast or can provide reliable sources to that effect. The CJR makes it very clear by admitting that they can't "prove" anything, which probably wasn't added to the article by accident. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Other documents, however, filed in connection with Nolan’s lawsuit strongly suggest that O’Reilly’s letter to Roberts was a key factor in his firing. Once Comcast was in receipt of the O’Reilly letter, e-mails, talking points, and memos went flying from one jittery Comcast executive to another. Should they call O’Reilly? Who should call? Should they send a letter? Who should draft it? Who should sign it? And don’t forget to CC Roger Ailes. Roberts himself was very much in the loop, but waited until May 22—two days after Nolan’s firing—to send O’Reilly an apology letter of his own. (Except for Nolan, none of the other parties would agree to talk for this story. Comcast issued the following statement: “As a matter of policy we do not comment on litigation or on other legal matters, but stand by our actions and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.”)

In December 2009 Comcast executive vice president David L. Cohen insisted to Matea Gold, a Los Angeles Times reporter, that Nolan wasn’t fired for speaking his mind, and affirmed the importance of journalistic independence. “Professional journalists need to have the right to express their opinions without fear of correction or retribution from a corporate parent,” he said.

Perhaps he should have added—except when it involves the corporation’s business interests. Documents, filed with the court, reveal that Comcast and Fox were involved in “ongoing” contract talks at the time, with Comcast fearing Nolan’s protest “jeopardized and harmed” its business dealings with Fox. In response to a question posed by Nolan’s attorneys in his lawsuit, Comcast’s written response, dated Aug. 5, 2009, states:

… Mr. Nolan’s protest at the NATAS Award Ceremony and of William O’Reilly as the recipient of the Governor’s Award jeopardized and harmed the business and economic interests of Comcast in connection with its contract with Fox News Channel, and its contract negotiations with Fox News that were ongoing at the time.

From [11]. I don't see how you can read that without concluding that the CJR is saying that it was O'Reilly's letter which made the business relationship an issue. Especially in conjunction with "On May 12, 2008—two days after the Emmys—O’Reilly went on the offensive against what he called Nolan’s “outrageous behavior” with a carefully worded, lawyerly letter to Brian Roberts, the chairman and CEO of Comcast, which distributes Fox News and entertainment programming, to its subscribers. The letter was written on Fox News stationery and was copied to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Pointedly, O’Reilly began by noting their mutual business interests. “We at The O’Reilly Factor have always considered Comcast to be an excellent business partner and I believe the same holds true for the entire Fox News Channel. Therefore, it was puzzling to see a Comcast employee, Barry Nolan, use Comcast corporate assets to attack me and FNC.” Telling the Comcast CEO that Nolan had attended the Emmy Awards “in conjunction with Comcast,” O’Reilly apologized for bothering him but let him know he considered this “a disturbing situation.”" Rd232 talk 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I think both sides are off again. Arzel, it's flat out wrong to call this " only assumptions, rumors, gossip...." As far as I can tell, CJR is a legitimate news sources, and meets all of the qualifications for a reliable source. This means that even if it is "merely" their opinion, we are allowed (assuming this meets WP:DUE) to include their opinion in this article. Excluding them because you think they draw bad conclusions is no different than someone in another article excluding Fox as a hyperpartisan source; consensus discussions in other places have shown that unless a source as a whole is clearly and definitively hyperpartisan, we can't exclude it as a source of opinion/analysis. Rd232, it is not correct to say that " it's clear from Comcast's later letter that..." followed by anything, because that's an interpretation of a primary source. We need to stick only to what CJR (and/or other reliable, secondary sources) say. Threeafterthree is very correct to note that neither us nor even CJR can prove anything, only that they strongly believe something to be the case. My "plain reading" of the CJR article is that it is very clear that they want to imply that it's O'Reilly's fault that Nolan got fired, but, at the same time, they very carefully do not say that with certainty, because they do not believe they have the proof to do so. This is why we still have to report the issue (if we report it) as CJR's opinion.
So let me clarify, again. As an outsider, I only see one issue here: is this event important enough to O'Reilly's life to be worth including, and does CJR's opinion have sufficient weight to meet the burden imposed by WP:DUE? My feeling was that it was notable enough to be worth two sentences next to the description of the award, since it's not like that's a very big portion of the article. It "fills out" the story of the award ceremony, it shows O'Reilly's importance in a corporate/economic sense, and it is connected to a lawsuit (although not one O'Reilly is directly a party of). But I can see why that position is debatable. Could I get a succinct, clear explanation of why some think this is UNDUE? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How can you say it isn't assumptions, rumor, and gossip? The CJR states itself that.

O’Reilly’s letter and Nolan’s suspension letter went out on the same day—May 12—but because no telephone logs are among the court documents, it’s not possible to draw absolute conclusions about the connection between the two.

There you have it, that is the strongest link that Terry Ann Knopf makes. She claims a bunch of other stuff, but there is no evidence to back up any of her claims other than the word of Nolan. Nothing. That Nolan wasn't disruptive is his opinion, he clearly was trying to make a point. If Nolan had been fired for asking the board to recind the award, or for writing his comments in the Boston Herald gossip coloum Inside Track then you might have something. His own supervisor told him directly not to make a scene.

Five days before the awards, Eileen Dolente, Nolan’s supervisor, traveled from Comcast’s Philadelphia headquarters to Boston and warned Nolan not to make a scene.

But he did anyway. If Knopf is the best light that he can get for his point of view, then he should probably have kept his mouth shut as well, because the CJR article isn't doing him any favors. Arzel (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand...I feel I'm explaining something wrong, because you're not addressing my question. The author in the CJR is expressing an opinion. That opinion is based on an examination of evidence which we don't have access to (court filings, to be specific). The drew the conclusion, not provable, but that, in their opinion, O'Reilly's letter was in part or significantly responsible for the filings. It states explicitly, just after the part you quoted, "other documents, however, filed in connection with Nolan’s lawsuit strongly suggest that O’Reilly’s letter to Roberts was a key factor in his firing." This is not a rumor or gossip (in the sense that it's unfounded information) and it's not an assumption (any more than any other interpretation of court documents by a non-judge is an assuption)--it's the CJR author's interpretation of primary documents. It's an analysis; it's a news report. So, again, the only question is, does the CJR's opinion have DUE weight to be included? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The intial premise is that BOR got Nolan fired, and the CJR article was being used as a source for this. However, the CJR article does not make this statement. Nolan, through the CJR article claims that he was fired because of BOR, however there is no evidence to back up this claim as of now. Nolan sued Comcast, but that suit has not been resolved. To include the claim is a BLP violation because it is nothing more than an unproved allegation at this time. Not only do we not have the court filings, Knopf doesn't either. That Knopf's opinion is that BOR's actions caused Nolan to get fired are not notable. If Nolan were suing BOR then you could at least might be able to say that this is a notable event that BOR is involved in, but that is not the case either. If this deserves mention it is on Nolan's article and/or Comcast's article because they are the two parties involved in the suit. Just imagine how full of (more) crap wp would be if every time someone blamed someone else for something that it would be included in their article. The most important question to ask is if this is notable with respect to BOR, and I submit that it is not, certainly in relative weight to everything else in BOR's life. Arzel (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
While Arzel isn't phrasing it exactly the way I would, I think I'm beginning to feel we may in fact hold the same view. I agree it would be a BLP violation to include the statement as fact, since it is an unfounded accusation. What I was wondering was whether or Knopf's view, in and of itself, was sufficient to include the article. It is very common in articles to have a noted authority (individual or organization) to provide non-factual commentary (opinions) about the subject of a BLP (or other article subject). As an example of where this happens, although it may have gone too far, is all of the criticism of Helen Thomas on her page. So we can include Knopf's theory if either Knopf himself or the CJR are reliable authorities on the subject; alternatively, if the claim was repeated across multiple sources, we could include Knopf's statement as one of many.
Looking into the source further, I don't see any reason to credit Knopf or the CJR as being particularly insightful in this matter. Knopf is "just another journalist", and the CJR is a relatively small publication, even in the field, as far as I can tell. So, after researching, I don't think Knopf's conclusion hold any spectacular amount of weight. Then I checked across other news sites. Almost without exception, the only repetitions of this claim that I could find where either copies or near copies of the Knopf piece itself. So this claim does not appear to have a lot of wide currency in the reliable sources.
So, as such, I'm currently also leaning toward keeping it out of the article. I could be persuaded otherwise, but we need something to show that the hesitant conclusions of one journalist/newspaper have enough weight on the overall story. But I noticed something as I was reading through the rest of the article, which I'll mention in a new section. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

notable Common ground, surprisingly

For the consideration of regular editors more familiar with this article: O'Reilly occasionally trades interviews with left-leaning political comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, and while they exchange the usual barbs and jabs, they seem to reach some common ground more often lately -- or at least it appears that way compared to other conservatives and liberals. Maher replying to his own critics for engaging him: "There's hope for O'Reilly" -- referring to similar stances on global warming, gun control, etc (but this quote is oddly not contained in the reprinted transcript at Fox News.) Unfortunately I don't have a link to HBO's subpage (problem with old browser) but here's another link from a quick search for video: [12]. Can any of this be worked into this article somehow? I mean the bigger picture stuff, not just the show appearances. Perhaps in the articles on Maher and Stewart, as well. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The only concern I'd have is that there has been a concerted effort to remove mention of his relationships with other media people. They existed in the "public image" article but were never merged into here--this article doesn't mention Stewart or Olbermann or Letterman at all. I'm troubled if this becomes "Don't include Stewart! It's a feud!" and then "Ooh, include Stewart! He said something nice about Bill!" All from the same editors. Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Bill Maher a "left-leaning polital comedians" ? I think that you should read his page again... (end of corporate welfare, partial privatization of social security, legalization of marijuana, ... seem to me some very libertarian thought) --Jertonit (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

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

Where's the Criticism?

For a figure as polarizing as Bill O'Reilly, scanning through the whole article leaves a nearly strictly positive feeling about his work. Other than the criticism paragraph about the 2007 Indiana University study, there's not a lot in here about notable other figures who have said negative things about O'Reilly. That's surprising, to say the least. The very first thing that comes to mind to me is Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, by Franken, which devotes a whole chapter to O'Reilly and documents numerous "lies" (Franken's word) that O'Reilly told. Where's the criticism from Keith Olbermann? Note that the "feud" gets not only a whole section on Olbermann's page (Keith Olbermann#Feud with Bill O'Reilly, but also a whole section in the show's page: Countdown with Keith Olbermann#Olbermann vs. O'Reilly. And if we start to look at references in those articles alone, we should be able to find notable sources.

So, I propose to add more information of this type to this article. I'm floating the general idea first, before I start editing. It seems that we should treat O'Reilly the same way we treat other controversial figures--to show some of the controversy surrounding them. The feud seems like the easiest to start with, since we already have the info on Wikipedia, and just need to customize it for this article. Are there going to be objections to that, assuming it's sourced properly? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I direct your attention to the section entitled A tale of two articles above for an understanding of how some very persistant editors (some of whom you've already met) were able to excise and then delete virtually any negative information about Mr. O'Reilly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe what you are looking for is in my archives Qwyrxian (first collapsed discussion). The problem, as I have found, is that in reporting disputes b/w media personalities, some editors will place virtually anything they can get their hands on if it disparages Mr. O'Reilly. Since this is the case, we try to use high quality sources and to add only those controversies that have garnered significant attention (that is, can you find the information outside of Keith Olbermann's show and Media Matters for America). Soxwon (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to take exceptions here, both to the WP:AGF violation and the assertion that we should be evaluating the "validity" of criticism. The excised material critical of Mr. O'Reilly was exceptionally well sourced (to the point that each incident could have qualified for its own Wikipedia article) -- there was no question that the material was cited to "high quality sources" that "received significant attention". There is absolutely no justification in policy to exclude the sources referenced above (MMFA and Olbermann), as long as the material has received diversity in sourcing, and the statement above clearly demonstrates a core misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. "I don't agree with the sources, so they shouldn't count." //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
A good question. I had assumed that since 2 other articles found the topic notable and of due weight, that it would probably achieve fair weight here too. However, that is my assuming too much, given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It will be a while, but I'll take a look through the info above, Soxwon's archives, and the other articles later when I have more time. To do work like that I need a block of time where I can commit 100% of my attention for a sustained period of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding condescending, let's put our thinking caps on. The Olbermann articles have whole sections on the "feud" because the "feud" was Olbermann's creation and a major part of Countdown. It was not O'Reilly's creation or a major part of the Factor. Also, since Olbermann's MO, once he gained a little momentum, has been to attack any and all things politically conservative, there's a "bears sh_t in the woods" aura to just about any of those "criticisms." Should we be anxious to include Sean Hannity's "criticisms" of Nancy Pelosi in her Wiki bio, or John Gibson's "criticisms" of Olbermann in his? I think not, because they all constitute WP:UNDUE. As for Al Franken, I realize that he is now a U.S Senator but the book written in his comedic days was hardly an academic or even a serious journalistic effort (Does it have reference pages or even an index?). Again, undue weight.
That being said, if you can find more serious criticisms of O'Reilly, who, by the way, is comparatively UN-POLARIZING these days next to several other TV pundits, then be our guest, Badmintonhist (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Badmintonhist, while I'm sure we all enjoy hearing your analysis and beliefs about the truth, it really has no relevance here. Editors aren't here to "put on thinking caps" and perform analysis on the content, but simply to discuss reliable sources and application of policy. With regards to due weight, you need to get good with the fact that weight is evaluated by prominence in reliable sources, not by how you or any other editor personally feels about those sources. The sooner you realize this, the more productive your contributions will be. Until that time, you're bringing nothing of substance to the discussion and are only contributing to the chaos. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
A user who really doesn't understand why Olbermann vs. O'Reilly sections are found in the articles on Olbermann and his show but not in the articles on O'Reilly and his show probably shouldn't be editing them. All Wiki articles either use or should use editorial discretion in determining what material and how much of it should go into a given article. A GOOD bio on O'Reilly should not be heavily loaded with material coming from the "professional left." Badmintonhist (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
We do not evaluate criticism based on who it is "coming from"; we evaluate it based on its coverage in reliable sources. We don't use "editorial discretion" to evaluate the criticism directly, but rather the diversity and quantity of the criticism in reliable sources. That is a very basic tenant of Wikipedia; based on your own words, you're being intentionally tendentious. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Limiting material to that from reliable sources IS evaluating it according to where it's coming from, isn't it? But okay Blax, can you give us, say, your TOP FIVE reliable sources for material on O'Reilly which have either not been included or else have been significantly underused in this article? I'd like to see their "diversity." Also, perhaps, two or three basic news stories on O'Reilly that have been omitted or underdeveloped. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, but I will take the time to help correct your misunderstandings. You're confusing the critic with the source. I apologize if no one has ever taken the time to explain the difference to you. The "critic" is the organization or person that is issuing the criticism (referred to as a primary source). The "reliable source" is the publication that publishes the criticism (referred to as a secondary source). Now, in some cases a source can be both the critic and the publisher (namely, when an organization's primary function is to publish criticism (not to be confused with "self-published" sources)). In such cases, we evaluate their reliability based on how they're referenced by other sources -- if an organization such as Media Matters is routinely cited by other secondary sources (such as NBC, Fox, etc.) then their criticism is generally accepted within the organization's scope. Generally speaking, if multiple criticisms on the same topic exist from multiple critics it is acceptable to include such an organization's criticism as part of the larger whole. Of course, MMFA criticism doesn't warrant inclusion on its own, but if other critics exist for the same issue we can include MMFA's criticism without the need that it be referenced by a third party, as MMFA is considered reliable for their own criticism. You can find all the details in the archives of WP:RSN. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
No, but here's my gratuitous lecture. How does that advance the ball, Blax? We're talking about whether and what reliably sourced criticisms should be added to the copy. You seem to think that "critical" stuff should be added to the article. What stuff? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Your statement "Limiting material to that from reliable sources IS evaluating it according to where it's coming from, isn't it?" is fundamentally incorrect, and appeared to ask for a deeper explanation. I apologized and took the time to explain the difference between "critic" and "source", and you ignore it completely (instead preferring to insult me and ask open-ended questions). Until you understand the fundamental concepts explained above I don't think you're going to be able to productively participate in the discussion. I have no plans to get sucked down your rabbit hole regarding particular criticisms until you understand the basics of how Wikipedia works; otherwise we'll just be fighting the same deficiencies that are causing us problems here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating stuff, all this, and quite enjoyable. None of it helps us decide what to do with the article, however. I'll try within the next week to work up some preliminary text...I think that it will be far more useful to discuss actual (potential) additions to the article, rather than discussing philosophically and abstractly what makes a good source. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, it is generally the view of Wikipedians that criticism should be interweaved through out an article instead of place into a criticism section. This is due to criticism sections becoming magnets for people to overload with any criticism no matter how minor. O'reilly at one point in time had his own criticism article, but much of it was gutter-sniping by relatively unknown figures, so it was merged here and then much of it deleted. If you have criticism to add, then feel free to add it, and enter it within the article itself.
"I have to take exceptions here, both to the WP:AGF violation and the assertion that we should be evaluating the "validity" of criticism."
Is this your idea then of adhering to AGF?
"very persistant editors (some of whom you've already met) were able to excise and then delete virtually any negative information about Mr. O'Reilly."(first comment you made here with no provocation at all)
For you to know Qwyrxian AGF refers to the wiki policy Assume good faith and implying that editors who are arguing against adding criticism because it is undue weight are persistently trying to delete all negative info is a clear violation of that policy.
"The excised material critical of Mr. O'Reilly was exceptionally well sourced (to the point that each incident could have qualified for its own Wikipedia article)"
You continue to mistake amount of sources as representing notability of an article. It doesn't matter if you can find 20 sources mentioning a comment someone made about someone else, that comment is not enough for a whole article on it. To think that many of the "controversial" incidents O'reilly has been in deserves their own article is something which is only going to lead more editors to believing you don't understand due weight. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all of the above is directed exactly at me, but just to clarify, it was Blaxthos who brought up WP:AGF. I certainly have no reason to believe that anyone here was not acting in good faith, and I hope I didn't imply that they weren't. I just found it odd that there is almost no criticism at all of such a polarizing figure. I, too, agree that it would be better not to have a separate "criticism section." I certainly do not want a separate criticism article; while I know not everyone agrees, I actually think that almost all such articles are NPOV and are questionable inclusions at best. My thought is that I'll start by reseaching the "Olbermann feud," and try to determine if it really is of due weight to include here (my intuition says yes, but research is needed). Next I'll look for other sources and see if there's anything relevant that's missing. It may well be that I don't find anything at all worthy of including in the article; it just seems unlikely to me, given what I've heard of BOR, that he hasn't been the subject of independent, reliable reporting that is less than positive in nature. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were not acting in good faith but that Blax wasn't exactly promoting that rule he was citing. If you do research on their "feud" then you will find that O'reilly has never mentioned Olbermann even once on his show or in the public, and that Olbermann's "feud" is generally seen as his attempt to generate publicity by attacking a well known public figure at the same time slot. As for O'reilly being "polarizing", he really isn't, no more than say Obama, Olbermann, Pelosi, or any well known political figure is.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This is very much off topic but I just can't let it pass. Let us not put the President, or even Speaker Pelosi, in the same category as Olby when it comes to being "polarizing." I realize that Obama and Pelosi are much bigger political fish, but when it comes to sheer off-putting obnoxiousness they (particularly the President who is generally quite measured in his comments) don't rate a mention compared to Olby. Neither does O'Reilly for that matter. Maybe Limbaugh, but even that's questionable. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Washington Post is a credible source? The following is in the article titled "The Life of O'Reilly" by Paul Farhi published 12/13/2000: "O'Reilly actually grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a middle-class suburb a few miles from Levittown, according to his mother Angela, who still lives in the Levitt-built house Bill grew up in. His late father, William O'Reilly Sr., was a currency accountant with Caltex, an oil company; Angela "Ann" O'Reilly was a homemaker who also worked as a physical therapist.

While hardly well off, the O'Reillys--mom, dad, Bill Jr. and his younger sister, Janet--weren't exactly deprived, either. Both children attended private school, and the family sent Bill to Marist College, a private college in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., as well as the University of London for a year, without financial aid.

O'Reilly's father was a frugal man and a wise investor. His son acknowledges in his book that his father bequeathed "a very nice chunk of change" to his mother upon his death in 1986. As for Dad never earning more than $ 35,000, what O'Reilly doesn't mention is that Dad retired in 1978, when a $ 35,000 income was the equivalent of $ 92,000 in today's dollars."

Is there any reason this shouldn't be added to his early life or at least to controversy section. The man influences the opinions of millions of working-class people who believe that he himself grew up in the lower-class. (Peibiao1 (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Umm, I think if you look in the Political views and public perception section of the article you'll find a healthy portion of that stuff in there already, Peibiao. Did you expect Farhi's article to be quoted verbatim? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

calm down kitty, I see it now, thanks for pointing me in the right direction, it's placed a bit like an end note though, and it would seem logical to reside under history/early life. This is my first time commenting on WIKI so I put in direct quotes for the purpose of discussion, I'll be more careful next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC) [[[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)] oops forgot to sign ( (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC))

Nothing about the magazine Bill O'Reilly created

The Paris Business Review ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, how about just an entire section devoted to criticism here instead of trying to tie it in with "political views and public perception" so as to mitigate the many criticisms and controversies this propagandist has endured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same question. What about the Paris Business Review? It was a pretty major event. What was decided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talkcontribs) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about the Malmedy Massacre

  • Reportedly blamed American soldiers twice on air for the massacre, yet nothing here re that, and it's been removed from Malmedy Massacre as well. --Treekids (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
We'll need a reliable source verifying he said that. Do you have one? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Keith Olbermann discusses O'Reilly's invocation of the massacre, with clips from O'Reilly's show in which the incorrect usage is clearly identifiable. Aquamonkey (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The two clips can be found at about 2:20 and 4:00. Aquamonkey (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, let's not pretend it's a matter of sourcing. Also, before anyone jumps in with the whole "YouTube is not a reliable source" red herring, the source is Countdown with Keith Olbermann. This was previously covered in depth, however it got removed when the article was scrubbed of nearly all negative information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a matter of not being notable. He made a mistake during a debate, and it because a manufactured controversy by KO, and the far left blogoshpere. That, plus a bunch of other worthless junk got left on the attack page heap. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ad hominem much? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Heh: Special:Contributions/Arzel --Treekids (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Clearly neither Bill O'Reilly nor Keith Olbermann are nonpartisan but clearly this issue and the subsequent scrubbing of the transcript at foxnews has had enough coverage elsewhere to be included. Yeah, let's not pretend it's about sourcing or notablility. --Treekids (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, there is absolutely no requirement that the sources must be nonpartisan (a red herring oft perpetuated in Talk:*). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of sentence in lead

Proposing to change:

O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator, though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy (in particular his opposition to the death penalty). O'Reilly characterizes himself as a "traditionalist".

to this description from his bizshark profile:

He is a self-described "traditionalist" and a registered independent, who is also considered a conservative, a label he rejects.

We could add in "widely considered a conservative" if that would please everybody. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

God controls the tides

Any place in this article about BOs recent statements that the tides can't be explained by science?--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources plz. Soxwon (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Kind of a stretch claim he was saying the tides cannot be explained by science, don't you think? He never said that, just made the observation that the reliability of tides, and other scientific phenomena can be considered examples of an Intelligent Designer. (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Only by someone who doesn't know the science. Ignorance has been the basis of a lot of religion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Google, plz. Check out this article (including video). Transcript:
O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?
O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.
Also note that Stephen Colbert lampooned O'Reilly for the comment as well. Please don't accept my response as advocating for inclusion, as I have no opinion at this time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As usual DK, HP, and Colbert, Can we see an example of coverage from a mainstream source? Soxwon (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As usual, you ignore the fact that all three are accepted as reliable sources for their own opinions. Again, please recognize that I'm not urging inclusion, but simply trying to do the homework you're too lazy to do -- this is not a battle. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I actually did look, all I found was mediate, examiner, HP and other sources in that same vein. I had hoped that you had found a mainstream source that I missed. Soxwon (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You just decided to discount those sources because you don't like them, or because you don't respect the longstanding Wikipedia consensus that they're acceptable? Incidentally, DKOS cites that O'Reilly has made the same or similar statement at least 4 times in the last 3 years. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
They're acceptable for their own opinions, but that doesn't mean they are automatically acceptable for inclusion or that what they report necessary has weight. We've had this discussion many times and the decision was that they are a case-by-case basis, not automatically included for the subjects they cover. Soxwon (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Your initial responses didn't say anything about weight -- you asked for a singular "example of coverage from a mainstream source", and you referred to them as "sources in the same vein", both of which imply that you don't believe these sources are valid. I agree that the criticism hasn't been demonstrated as weighty enough for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about Countdown with Keith Olberman on the mainstream MSNBC as found here from 1:30. --Bob (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't his whole job to criticize conservative figures though? I'd like someone who doesn't include that in their job description (or doesn't do it regularly) to give it weight. Soxwon (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Soxwon, there you go again rejecting an accepted source based on ideology. Weight is demonstrated by diversity and prominence in sourcing, not by imagining job descriptions and how regularly the sources espouse opinions. While I agree that a segment on a nationally broadcast show does add to the weight, but I'm not sure the tongue-in-cheek WPITW is going to push it over the edge. Based on my past experiences here (in which large amounts of significant, well-sourced criticism was excised in toto), I find it difficult to argue that this is encyclopedic enough to warrant inclusion as it's own sectoin. In the end, it certainly doesn't rise above what's already been culled from the article, and is just another in the pile of wacky O'Reilly statements -- why is this one more significant than any of the others? At most, perhaps a single sentence could be added to some broader section that describes his personal beliefs. Something like "O'Reilly has stated that he believes the existence of God is demonstrated by the tides, which he asserts cannot be explained by science.[REF]". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that final sentence proposed by Blaxthos seems like the right level of inclusion. We don't need any reference beyond O'Reilly's show itself, although if we used either HP or Obermann, that's fine too. We shouldn't include any of Obermann's, Colbert's, or anyone else's comments about this issue, as it doesn't seem important enough for that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my two cents:

The tides thing and his other statements need to get into this article immediately. Upon seeing the Colbert Report spot on what he said I came here to check the article and was surprised at what I saw. While the article certainly isn't biased towards O'Reilly, its not exactly critical of him either. I mean the tag at the top of this talk page says it all, he is a "controversial" figure. But when you read the article it doesn't seem that way at all. If you had never seen O'Reilly before this article would give you a picture of a run of the mill commentator who never said anything controversial at all.

Therefore: I suggest the "Political views and public perception" section be modified to give more emphasis to some of the divisive (or whatever word you wanna use) things he has said. Usually subsections that link to separate articles pay due attention to both sides of the coin in a succinct manner, this section currently only gives a mildly positive (or slightly apologetic) image of O'Reilly that doesn't do justice to his controversial nature.

As for Stephen Colbert's parody of O'Reilly, that deserves somewhat larger emphasis as well. It is currently buried in the middle of article where its less likely to be found. The Colbert Report is another hugely popular show and O'Reilly being the inspiration for it is worth noting in more than a sentence. This plays into the need to show O'Reilly's controversial nature as well, as controversial figures are often subject to parody and or ridicule.

I have tried to write this as unbiased as possible, so I hope that if a response comes along that it is not one that is unproductive to improving this article. I don't see the need to quibble over sourcing, as it was pointed out above O'Reilly's comments on the moon and tides are well established and easily sourced. Whether you're a fan of O'Reilly or not we can all recognize that he is a controversial figure. Let us work together to make this article reflect that. (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are free to add any material you like provided that's it's reliably sourced and constitutes proper weight. Soxwon (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

O'Reilly's arguments about the Tides drew significant media attention, enough for O'Reilly to make a video answering to the people that criticized him on his YouTube channel, which only stirred his critics even more. This definitely belongs to this article. Soxwon's position here implies any left-leaning source does not constitute due weight (even if it's widely read and actively fought by the person subject to criticism, such as MMFA and the Huffington Post), which is tantamount to saying "I don't agree with the sources so they shouldn't count." Proper weight is a rule that basically seeks to prevent the use of minority-held views when discussing a main article (Wikipedia gave the example of discussing the Flat Earth theory in an article about Earth). I think it's pretty obvious that it is a majority-held opinion that Bill O'Reilly's comment sparked controversy, and that MMFA and the Huffington Post are notable enough to consider them when sourcing a side of the controversy, not the facts presented by it. It would be inappropriate to cite them if their claims would not be addressed as controversial. For example, if we said "Bill O'Reilly is a pinhead for saying there is no scientific explanation for the tides coming in and out" and used MMFA as a source, this statement would be inappropriate because it is an opinion being presented as a fact, not as an issue of controversy. It would also be silly to add O'Reilly's opinion to a Wikipedia article about tides. I think Blaxthos and Qwyrxian were not doing this, as they intended to present it as a controversial claim. (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Laizhu

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. (IAR NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)Bill O'Reilly — The political commentator's article received over 20 times more hits than the cricketer's article in 2009. He is clearly the primary topic. I realize this move has been proposed as recently as 1.5 years ago, but the popularity gap seems to have widened since then. –CWenger (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm not an American. I had never heard of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) until I went looking for the article on Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). There are two problems I see with the proposed move. Firstly, it's all about the good old USA. People outside the USA don't care about Bill O'Reilly (political commentator), but people from quite a few countries care about Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). And don't pull the population claim on me. These countries include India, with four times the population of the USA. Secondly, it's a very broad scale case of WP:Recentism. Cricket's O'Reilly is still famous 65 years after his last game. Will anybody talk about America's O'Reilly 65 years after he retires? Don't take a US-centric, current affairs view here. Take a global, long term view. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We are talking about a 20× difference in traffic here... Is there no point at which common sense prevails and we say, alright, this is what pretty much everybody is looking for? –CWenger (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Most famous bowler." Probably is significant. Soxwon (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One of the best examples I've ever seen of why figures need to be interpreted not just quoted. Of course an American tends to get more hits, simply because there are more Internet users in America. In the rest of the English-speaking world, the bowler is more prominent by far. Best solution: Leave the DAB where it is, at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually no, there are more internet users in China and per capita in several countries. Soxwon (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, China is not normally considered part of the English-speaking world. Per capita figures are not relevant to gross page access figures. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • With a U.S. population of ~300 million and a U.K. population of ~60 million, that only explains a 5× advantage for the political commentator. How do you explain the remaining 4×? –CWenger (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Google is not a good indication of notability, it's fairly obvious that a current news commentator is going to have more pages than a famous cricketer, but that doesn't necessarily make him more notable and/or well-known. Soxwon (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The cricketer is Australian, not British (heaven forfend!), so try ~300m and ~20m which is a little closer to your required, but quite wrong-headed, arithmetic. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current solution has been stable for some time now and the argument for change has not improved from simple hit-counting in all that time. Counting hits, without any consideration to any other factors, is a poor guide to any decision. In this case, counting hits merely tells us that the political commentator is still alive and active and the cricketer is dead and therefore rarely a subject for news articles etc - this is pure, unadulterated recentism. Using hits as our sole basis of decision making may appear on the surface to be objective but it abdicates our responsibility to be an encyclopedia and not a guide to popular culture. Popular does not always equal primary. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Agree completely with Mattinbgn. I can't imagine a better case of recentism. I too had never heard of the political commentator until I came across him via the cricketer and I still don't know a thing about him except what it says in his article. I suspect most non-Americans have never heard of him at all. I get the impression he is very newsworthy which, along with the population figures quoted above, would account for the differences in statistics. I really don't see a problem as "Bill O'Reilly" does not link to cricketer, so he is not exactly taking precedence. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I, as an (ex?) American, had never heard of the cricketer, I think this is a case where there's not any real way for us to determine if one is the "primary topic", since the zones of recognition are so widely separated. I think the current dab page is the only fair separation. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is cited as the reason for the proposal but I do not think the nominator has read the second paragraph of that guideline:

An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users.

  • Consensus in previous discussions is that a disambiguation page is necessary. In my view, the position will shift when the TV man retires as the cricketer clearly has the longer-term notability and is thus the more vital article. -- (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly. We need to avoid predicting the future, but we also need to avoid responding to the fickleness of temporary fame. The cricketer has a lasting claim to fame; The only question is whether his article or the DAB should go at the undisambiguated name. The safest option is the DAB. Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposer talks of popularity but I feel recentism has been given too much weight. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC from an encyclopaedic point of view is the cricketer due to global and historical coverage. The political commentator will be largely forgotten 5 years after he dies. But given the power of television these days, the current dab solution is probably OK. –Moondyne 11:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per User:Mattinbgn above. We have been round these loops before and I do not see that anything much has changed. The current position is the sensible long-term one. Johnlp (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I know that when these things happen the anti-USA-centric cricket lovers come out of the woodwork in droves, but as a very significant figure in the world's second most followed sport is not a secondary topic to this fine gentleman IMO. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to think that ALL Wikipedians would be anti-anybody centric. But of course cricket lovers would be more so. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside of Wikipedia, I have never seen or heard any reference to the American bloke, whereas the cricketer is immortal to cricket-lovers worldwide. Discussions above regarding numbers of English-speakers seem to overlook the notable case of India, which is cricket-mad and has a reasonable population. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's startling the obvious (to me, at least) why a living political commentator in the USA gets substantially more hits than a dead Australian cricketer, but as per most of the above, the commentator's significance is transient, the cricketer's permanent. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose What's the harm in one extra click when looking for either the commentator or the cricketer. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OpposeThere is no reason to move O'Reilly's page. This is an international website and since both men are significant enough to warrant pages, the idea that one is more important than the the other is hubris. It doesn't matter who gets more traffic. An encyclopedia's job is not to decide what is more important, but to be the holder of facts. Inflating one person's importance over another's does not fall into the encyclopedic purview. Tartfuel (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Obviously this request is going nowhere, but let me just see if I understand this. An average Wikipedia reader types "Bill O'Reilly" in the search box. According to traffic stats, there is a >95% chance that they are looking for the political commentator. But they get the disambiguation page instead. Our average reader sees there is a cricketer named Bill O'Reilly as well! Excitedly, they click on that link instead, and read all about him. They become a better person, and the world is a better place... Does anybody else see how ridiculous this sounds? It's not like the Pope versus Britney Spears here. We should get people to the content they are looking for as expediently as possible, particularly when we are talking about a 20× difference in page views. If cricket is so popular where are all the page views? I wouldn't be surprised if the political commentator's page has been more popular than the cricketer's for the entire 10+ year existence of Wikipedia. I doubt WP:RECENTISM applies on time scales that long—if it even applies to article titles at all, which I see no evidence it does. Otherwise you could argue a new person could never replace an existing person of the same name. Anyway, just my $0.02... –CWenger (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
How did you come up with the "95% chance" of what a reader is looking for? That sort of probability doesn't automatically follow from the (unreliable) 20x hits. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
It's really frustrating when someone posts something that shows they haven't read, understood or accepted the comments of others. Your second sentence should be rewritten to say "An average AMERICAN Wikipedia reader types "Bill O'Reilly" in the search box." Most people outside America have never heard of the American Bill O'Reilly, and the small proportion who have don't care a fig about him. (That's where I fit in.) The equivalent can probably be said of the cricketing Bill O'Reilly. Nobody inside America cares about him, but most cricket fans do. And there are probably over a billion of them, in over 30 countries. We have two almost mutually exclusive sets of readers. Neither is more important than the other. They are both important to Wikipedia. Your counting of hits is for the past. A lot of the billion+ cricket fans are in India, a country where computer/Internet access is still rapidly growing. Let's look to the future. And no, no person should EVER replace another on Wikipedia. That's exactly what disambiguation pages are for. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The "American" qualifier is not necessary because the traffic stats are global. Speculating about the growing impact of cricket fans in India is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball if I've ever heard one. And are you suggesting that even if Bill O'Reilly was a mediocre cricketer, barely above the deletion threshold, you would still oppose this move? –CWenger (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just a thought, O'Reilly commentator still comes up far more for and However, this does not mean that he's more notable. Of course a highly rated media mogul is going to have a huge number of hits, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily more popular or more well known that the cricketer. Soxwon (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because cricket fans already know about the cricketer (and are comfortable with his article, if they've looked at it), but are puzzled when they hear about the Yank, and choose to look him up. Recent search hits are NOT a guide to true notability. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha, yeah, I'm sure that's it... –CWenger (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
How else can we judge popularity besides hits? Aside from just using our own personal perceptions of course. –CWenger (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Logic and common sense. We are allowed to use those here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I would think common sense would dictate that we reduce a step for >95% of readers while possibly making things slightly more confusing for the other <5% (by forcing them to follow a "For the cricketer..." link instead of a disambiguation page link), but this seems not to be the case. –CWenger (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per endless previous WP:RM discussions, to which this request has added neither any new insights nor compelling reasoning. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New photo portrait

Wonder if anyone else has an opinion on this? Is the new photo really an improvement on the old, beautifully angled shot of a jaded-looking O'Reilly at a military mess table, peering disdainfully at what perhaps is a serving of creamed chip beef. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think it is an improvement. –CWenger (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
WHAT??? An improvement over the marvelously artistic shot of the great man that greeted readers of the O'Reilly article for years. Where are your aesthetic sensibilities, man? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

the new photo is a very god improvment-- (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of the 'most watched program'

Links are dated from 2009. Can we get some recent data please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a reliable source, but if so it could be used. Also not sure if it makes a difference that they are simply relaying the Nielsen ratings. There is not much reason to doubt the numbers they give. –CWenger (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The third source is a dead link, the second source is an article with no sources itself, and the first source is his personal website which also lists no sources. This piece of information need an actual source or needs to be removed.

Add Westbury and Levittown are in Nassau County on Long Island New York?

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

The Tides

Recently, there was an incident during The O'Reilly Factor that Bill claimed, during a debate with the leader of American Athiests, that the tides can not be explained by man and that is proof that God exists (As well as the fact that the sun always goes "Up and down". Bill got a bunch of letters explaining the fact that it is common knowledge that the gravitational imbalance between the moon and the earth causes the tides. Bill responded with a video on his website where he calls the people who wrote into him and the bloggers that also explained the tides "desperate" and "pinheads". He would go on to say in the interview that he still has proof that God exists in the fact that Earth has a sun and a moon and the other planets do not, naming particularly Mars and Venus. The incident and Bill's wildly inaccurate (In a scientific sense) claims have gotten a lot of coverage on the internet and was also featured in a recent episode of The Colbert Report. Do you think it warrants inclusion here, maybe under the section about his public image? I think we can safely say that O'Reilly's public image has taken a hit because of this, Karrmann (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Watching from outside the USA, I'd suggest that those who have chosen to adore him so far are likely to continue to do so forever. It's the nature of that kind of relationship. But as for the suggested addition, is it written up anywhere by an independent source? Your observations and recollections, while no doubt good, aren't enough to include it in Wikipedia. Not sure if The Colbert Report counts as a relaible source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
There's his own youtube page for the video with the "desperate pinheads who attack me" line. Found via huffington post and others. He's also since become a meme, but wikipedia can't explain that. h3st (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See previous discussion thread for media coverage. I can't say I'm a fan of O'Reilly except for occasional amusement, so I can only wonder at this point: is it possible he was/is being facetious? -PrBeacon (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah man, he was being serious. He's used it as an argument multiple times. It really should be covered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

O'Reilly paid Mackris

There's really no doubt about it. Numerous major newspapers reported a settlement in the millions. They didn't just make it up--reporters spoke to people involved with the negotiations, most probably Mackris's attorneys. They only got the quotes on the condition of anonymity. Mackris bought a very expensive condo not long after the settlement, something way outside the means of someone making mid level cable producer money.

We settled on the "likely" phrasing after a lengthy discussion; it's the same language used in the source we cite. Honestly, the level of sourcing we have would, in my view, support an even stronger formulation, but this is fine in a pinch. An attempt to weaken it just obscures the facts and slants the article with opinion. Croctotheface (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an obvious example of a discussion staring in the middle. Without context I have no idea what you're talking about. I come here not because I know heaps about the subject, but because I want to see good articles. Please explain a little more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Speedstr, 18 May 2011

I have a request to add information to Bill O'Reilly's page. Perhaps you can place in the "Personal life" section of his page.

Bill O'Reilly has stated that his favorite bands include The Weather Girls, famous for their song "It's Raining Men" in a recent debate with Jon Stewart. [8]

Speedstr (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC) -Speedstr

Question: How would this improve the article? Is it necessary? Kinaro(talk) (contribs) 00:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you should add it. It adds unexpected color and personality to the guy.Jasonnewyork (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick Incident

There seems to be plenty of controversy listed on O'Reilly's page, so I'm not sure this should be added, but...

The interview with Jeremy Glick was probably the most replayed segment from the season if not his entire run. I don't see it anywhere, surprisingly. Any thoughts as to why it hasn't been included thus far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonnewyork (talkcontribs) 02:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Even experienced Lawyers will tell you that one must prove that O'Reilly knew he was lying, if suing for a libel issue. If someone lies so much, and that such is his customary behaviour, you can't even prove he is sane. He does not know he is lying. Therefore no libel case. -- (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Importance to conservatism

I have degraded O'Reilly's imporantance status of Wikiproject Conservatism to low. Wikiproject Conservatism covers a broad topic that cover hundreds of years and several countries. It's obvious that when O'Reilly was labelled as "High" imporantance, the ranker was only thinking of modern American politics. Looking at conservative globally and historically, O'Reilly is not a significent figure, he did not pioneer conservative though or lead a significent movement or event that impacted conservatism historically. LittleJerry (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say mid. He does have a large audience, but he's not known primarily as a conservative like Hannity. –CWenger (^@) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Importance ratings are governed by [13] which is based on notability.Lionel (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Timtamtyrant, 12 September 2011

Under the sub-heading of 'political views and public perception', this edit request specifically relates to public perception, and I can provide a source.

At the end of the above named subsection could you please add the following or an equivalent phrase: "On the 13th of July 2011 retired journalist Peter Hadfield (under his youtube pseudonym 'potholer54') awarded his annual QQOQQ award to Bill O'Reilly. Hadfield awards his annual QQOQQ award for "a simple question asked in the arrogant expectation that there is no possible answer". Hadfield awarded the QQOQQ to O'Reilly for O'Reilly's statement that there existed no explanation of why the tides go in and out during an interview of American Atheists president Dave Silverman on The O'Reilly Factor on 4th of January 2011."

There could be further details added on the topic. As per the discussion page O'Reilly's 'tides go in, tides go out' statement has become somewhat of an internet meme. Thus the 'public perception' relevance. However the reason why I am requesting specifically the change as set out above is because I can provide sources for the above details.

Sources: (1) the potholer54 youtube video where Hadfield awards O'Reilly the QQOQQ: (2) the potholer54 youtube video where 'potholer54' outs himself as retired journalist Peter Hadfield and provides an overview of his journalist credentials: (Note that Hadfield is known to provide in depth researched presentations (his 'made easy' series) and debunkings (his Monckton Bunkum series) in his potholer54 persona, in addition to his extensive and broad journalist career, so I'm kind of surprised that he doesn't have his own wikipedia page. Particularly considering Christopher Monckton's highly visible presence in the 'climate change skeptic' field, that climate change is a hotly debated topic of world wide interest, and Hadfield's thoroughness in his own sourcing/research/debunking.) (3) a youtube video showing the moment in the The O'Reilly Factor where O'Reilly makes the 'tide goes in, tide goes out' statement (at 1 minute 54 seconds in):

Edit/Correction - I was under the impression that Hadfield is retired. It's possible this impression is incorrect, so perhaps if you leave out the 'retired' reference. Thanks.

About those TPS reports... (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: While your sources certainly indicate that each of these separate events happened, this seems to be a synthesis of three separate events you've linked together into a claim of importance, which is the type of research and conclusion we would look for in a third-party source. If you can find reliable sources (not primary sources from YouTube) that bring this award and its significance up, feel free to reopen this request. — Bility (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Joy Behar/Whoopi Goldber

Maybe it's just me, but this section seems rather irrelevant. It wasn't a lawsuit, and it really wasn't a big deal for more than a few days. Vyselink (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the whole "Controversy" section could be described that way. (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Discrepency in years taught high school

The article says he graduated from Marist College in Poughkeepsie, New York in 1971. It says that after graduating from Marist, he moved to Miami, Florida, where he taught English and history at Monsignor Pace High School from 1970 to 1972. Huh? 5Q5 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a "dubious" flag to the line in question, which is sourced from a detractor's book. 5Q5 (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard report

Hi - please be aware there is a discussion at the noticeboard regarding some disputed content and join in the discussion at the BLP noticeboard - here - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The resolution of the BLP noticeboard discussion was: "Yes, Bill O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative." JamesMLane t c 12:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy

O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator,[6][7] though some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy (in particular his opposition to the death penalty[8][9])

O'Reilly's position on the death penalty has nothing to do with whether or not he is a conservative and the two sources used to say it does, say nothing about conservatism and the death penalty. In fact, the only one that could possibly be misconstrued as supporting this statement is an opinion from Rebecca Leung in the 60 minutes article.[14] She says:

At the 2004 Republican National Convention, the "old boys club" – including Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich – welcomed him with open arms...Some folks would expect this reception for O'Reilly, a favorite of conservatives. But what you don't expect are his views, which sound more like they're coming from a Democrat...O'Reilly says he's pro gun control, against the death penalty, and supports civil unions, not just for homosexuals, but "for everybody."

Sorry, but that's simply not good enough to claim that "some of his positions diverge from conservative orthodoxy". O'Reilly is against the death penalty not because he's leaning to the left or because he sympthasizes with Democrats, but because he's a Catholic social conservative and he agrees with the position of people like Pope John Paul II. These are conservative positions. Nevertheless, many American conservatives are pro-death penalty due to their embrace of religious conservatism, but not political conservatism. Their position rests solely on a biblical justification, not on a political position. This is doubly ironic since it's a position that not only contradicts their religious pro-life stance, but also contradicts their core conservative tenets that mistrust government because government tends to lessen freedom, and a government that kills its people is one that requires more money and is prone to making errors. With the serious problem of wrongful execution (130+ cases in the U.S.), the evidence for exonerated death row inmates, and the established fact that the death penalty does not deter crime, one would expect conservatives to be on the front lines of putting an end to capital punishment. However, they are not, because they let their religious beliefs get in the way of the facts. Coincidentally, O'Reilly's own strand of religious conservatism is in agreement with his political conservatism. The problem here is that people are confusing the two and assuming that conservatism is by its very nature pro-capital punishment when in fact, its core ideology by definition, is against giving any government the power of life and death over its people. O'Reilly's position on the death penalty, therefore, is consistent with his conservative beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This one is a little tricky. He often says he opposes the death penalty, but he also has said on multiple occasions that he hopes certain people receive it. As you've said, pro-death penalty isn't really conservative orthodoxy. It's more of a Republican position. But he is factually not a registered Republican. I'm trying to think of a better way to word that statement. We could remove the "though some of his positions..." part, but I think this leads to another problem. Nobody agrees with every single plank of the GOP platform. And while he is generally considered a conservative, he is also definitely to the left of most other conservative commentators. I don't want a reader to get the impression that he's the same as a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Could we go with something like, "While O'Reilly is widely considered a conservative commentator, he also tends toward centrism on some issues."? (I know that statement is laughably clumsy, but hopefully a better wordsmith than I could twist it into something reasonable.) Another option would be to flesh out the "political views" section a little better and move it there. I'm of the opinion that section is in pretty poor shape anyway. Sperril (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
For the record, O'Reilly's issues stem from his Catholic beliefs. Many conservatives could care less about the religeous aspect of the issues on the death penalty, for us it's a Constitutional issue. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This right was extended to the states by the 14th Amendment (1868). Therefore, to us it is obvious that with "due process" (which is left up to the various juristictions in accordance with the Constitution) then is is Constitutional to deprive a person of their life. SeanNovack (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's what I said above, however, it is not a constitutional issue for many conservatives in America, particularly those in the South, who take a biblical, punitive approach to deterring crime, which for the most part, does not work. Conservatives also support the prison–industrial complex and have little to no real interest in reducing crime rates as lower rates of crime hurt prison profits. Finally, the conservative record on upholding civil liberties is atrocious, particularly in the Supreme Court where civil liberties have been chipped away year after year by conservatives. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mr. O'Reilly comes accross as a right-leaning populist. I've seen him argue with Neil Cavuto and Lauran Ingraham on their unbending pro-business, right-wing beliefs. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of others is irrelevant unless those specific sources are cited. He identifies himself as an independent and traditionalist. He also outright says he has some conservative views "which [he is] proud of." The word "widely" is a clear pov statement. Labeling him a certain way despite his statements defining his views so is a clear violation of BLP. Arnabdas (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Archiving fixed, hopefully

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

Can't explain that

shouldn't there be something about the "You can't explain that" meme? (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

-You'll have to explain that a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talkcontribs) 05:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Referring to Bill's argument with Richard Dawkins that the moon causing tides can't be explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinrobin (talkcontribs) 00:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Questionable Style

This entire page reads like some sort of (auto)biography. Could this please be reviewed? Lord British (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks more like an anti-FOXnews, anti-O'Reilly hatchet job to me. (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Lord British, the page carries a tone sounding more like tributary biographical literature rather than a WP article. This needs to be reviewed. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is the part about him being a teacher marked as dubious? It's mentioned by a lot of sources (imdb,, nndb, machi4velli (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Immortal Technique section

The quotation from Immortal Technique is censored; as it is from an original source, it should read "And O'Reilly you think that you a patriot? You ain't nothing but a motherfuckin racist bitch, Fulla hatred, pressin a button trying to inject me, But I ain't got no motherfuckin deal with Pepsi, No corporate sponser telling me what to do, Asking me to tone it down during the interview..." in accordance with WP:PROFANE and WP:QUOTE. The source confirms this. HectorAE (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

And this is important why? Regardless this has no relevance to BOR and I have removed the trivial song lyrics of the rappers. Arzel (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Christopher "Ludacris" Bridges still gets his lyrics mentioned. This is clearly inconsistent Dirty Souf favoritism/fandom, and bias in favor of more commercial, mainstream rappers. Jadams2484 (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(Redirected from Falafel (Bill O'Reilly))

There is no longer any reference to falafel in the article! I would really like to know what the falafel reference was about. --Ben Culture (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested that the redirect be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
yet it persists.-- (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012

Can you please add that his columns are syndicated by Creators Syndicate? Thank you Wikicreate91 (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Adding the same link to multiple articles has the appearence of advertsing. RudolfRed (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture Copyright

While I'm sure that the World Affairs Councils of America or even Bill O'Reilly does not mind this picture being used here, I doubt that the user that cropped the image had the right to release this image under a Creative Commons license. While I foresee no problems to ever arrive from this, it would be wise to look into it or update the image. (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine... According to the licensing information from the original source on Commons, it was posted to Flickr and verified on 4 February 2011; the cropped version is released under the same terms as the original. Good looking out, though.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2012

Writings by O'Reilly

O'Reilly has authored the following books:

  1. O'Reilly, Bill (1998). Those Who Trespass. Bancroft Press. ISBN 0-9631246-8-4.
  2. O'Reilly, Bill (2000). The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life. Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-0528-8. (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)[9]
  3. O'Reilly, Bill (2001). The No Spin Zone. Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-0848-1. (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)[9]
  4. O'Reilly, Bill (2003). Who's Looking Out For You?. Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-1379-5. (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.)[9]
  5. O'Reilly, Bill (2004). The O'Reilly Factor For Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families. Harper Entertainment. ISBN 0-06-054424-4. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (Best-selling nonfiction children's book of 2005)[10]
  6. O'Reilly, Bill (2006). Culture Warrior. Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9. (Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list;[9] Achieved more than one million copies in print in its first three months)
  7. O'Reilly, Bill (2007). Kids Are Americans Too. William Morrow. ISBN 0-06-084676-3.
  8. O'Reilly, Bill (2008). A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity: A Memoir. Broadway Books. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9.
  9. O'Reilly, Bill (2010). Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama. William Morrow. ISBN 0-06-195071-8.
  10. O'Reilly, Bill (2011). Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever. Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 0-8050-9307-9. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  11. O'Reilly, Bill (2012). Lincoln's Last Days: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 9780805096750. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. O'Reilly, Bill (2012). Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot. Henry Holt and Co. ISBN 9780805096668. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Jwhit61 (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This content is currently in the article, what is your request? The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Blank out the religion section

Since Bill has denied that Christianity is a religion, we should leave his religion section blank. Hcobb (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, I'm watching the Daily Show video on the same thing right now. However, the fact that O'Reilly doesn't believe (or asserted that) "Christianity" is not a religion does not, of course, change the fact that it is. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Do we ever regard Bill O'Reilly as a reliable source on anything? HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP says that we must respect the self identification of living persons. Since Bill denies that Christianity is a religion, we must not smear his good name with this label. This of course has no weight in determining any other case, but it is definite for himself. Hcobb (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No. If Bill declared that he was a tree, we would not be obliged to say in his biographical article "O'Reilly is a tree", because it's patent nonsense, just as his claim that Christianity is not a religion is. We might write "O'Reilly has claimed that he is a tree." Moving on from the hypothetical, in this case we might find a place in the article among his more extreme claims to say that he has declared that Christianity is not a religion, but to remove him from that classification would be simply playing his games. Let's keep Wikipedia in the realm of reality. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
It is quite clear, he is stating that there are several religions which fall under Christianity. Arzel (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it? And how many religions fall under Islam? And Buddhism?