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

Previous discussion on this page has been archived at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (archive).

Obvious

I removed the word 'obvious' from the explanation of the San Francisco thing, because whether or not the satire was obvious is definitely a POV. Minor edit, but since this is a controversial page... Monkeyfacebag 05:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree

Unfortunately the liberal extremists do indeed pollute this and many other sites. If you look at the revision history there are so many acts of vandalism that take place, this is simply due to the militant mindset of the liberals extremists who instead of engaging in intelligent debate and making useful contributions express themselves through moronic vandalism.

Edit:It appears the article is getting better, and the tags could be removed soon. Although vandalism watch is still in effect.

Absurd article

This article needs to be cleaned up. Citing bush hating sites does not fit the standers Wikipedia. The part where it is alledged that Oreilly braged about serving in the military, when after 4 years of watching his show, constantly stated that he never served, is highly unlikely. That site he cited is titled "bush is an idiot"; what the hell is this? His source either made it up, or took a comment out of context; a liberal trait.

It is odd how almost every conservative/traditiobnalist personality listed in wikipedia must be cleaned up, yet liberal personalities remain untouched.

Rebuttal to above: First I am a McCain Republican, who voted for Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. The Republican party has been hi-jacked by extreme right wing zealots. I am sure George Sr would agree. Keep in mind W's reckless fiscal policy tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are creating massive budget deficits. This seems to get lost in the W spin machine. Many economist have suggested that this fact along with massive war debt will bankrupt Social Security. Keep in mind that the general fund borrows money from the Social Security. This fact is lost on O'Really as I call him. So the criticism of Bush and O'Reilly is not only from liberals but also from highly educated successful mainstream Republicans. O'Reilly's radio program is much better because at least Bush critics get to voice an occasionally rebuttal to the W Spin. So W supporters tell us how the reckless fiscal policy isn't bad for the country. Tell us how the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. O'Reilly in his simplistic tabloid manner lumped Sadam and Bin Laden together. His shows are Jerry Springer like in their simplicity.

HOLY MOTHER OF ... -- This is an encyclopedia!

This is just plain stupid. I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site. Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense. If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded. Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.

If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game. In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic. There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations. -- Plastic Editor 12:26, 3 December 2005

(p.s. - this message repeated below, because it's important.)

I couldn't agree anymore with you. Wikipedia has gone to shit and has become a message board with a bunch of nerds trying to impose their views on others. The idea that wikipedia is somehow "neutral" is a far-fetched illusion. Almost every article is locked, or has a npov sign posted now. --65.9.101.226 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV if it's objectively true. Leaving out facts that are unfavorable to O'Reilly is itself a POV. 68.47.234.131 00:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The National Academy of Arts and Sciences

"After the September 11, 2001 attacks, O'Reilly was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his coverage and analysis of the events." What exactly is the National Academy of Arts and Sciences? Did the author mean the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences? I sure hope it wasn't the National Academy of Sciences. ;-)

---

Some of the information here seems wrong.

uh, like what? if you're going to put a disputed tag on a page, explain exactly why. putting a disputed tag and not actually explaining why gets noone anywhere. i'll remove it until you detail your objections. --Jamieli 16:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Proof O'Reilly is a bullshitter is PoV?

It's like Jon Stewart once said, are those reporting the news anti-Bush or is the news itself anti-Bush? In this case, the news is against Bill O'Reilly. I put on there that O'Reilly said a town in New York state was named after an "Indian" tribe when in fact no such Native American tribe exists. It isn't PoV to say he wasn't telling the truth, but it isn't apparent that he was really lying but just that he was trying to act like he knew something when he didn't. That's bullshitting, I go to college, I see it all the time. And it isn't PoV to point out objective facts, objective facts are in the NPoV tutorial under "What Not To Avoid." So if anyone wants to revert the facts away, they should here state why the facts are not worth presenting. Maprovonsha172 03:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Canandaigua" was the name of a Seneca village and was also the name of a treaty between the Iroquois tribe and the confederacy. So there is a fairly reasonable chance that this was an honest mistake. At the very least, no, it is not "apparent" what he was thinking when he made the statement. Your conjecture is not "proof" nor is it "objective facts" so to call him a "bullshitter" is baseless and POV. And without that bit, your remaining contribution is pretty worthless. There are many more well-publicized and widely scrutinized instances of O'Reilly's dishonesty as well as sources that compile them, both of which are already referenced in the article. Your edit doesn't add anything of value. To put it plainly we don't need a play-by-play of every show the guy puts out. The article references Media Matters; should we include a few sentences about each of the 200-plus items they've compiled on O'Reilly? Davetrainer 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you watched yesterday's show. I did. He said "the Indian tribe" quite confidantly and abruptly right after correcting his pronounciation. It's not an honest mistake, its bullshitting. He needed to bullshit that "the Indian tribe" stuff after correcting himself so as to save face. Some people think he is a liar, some people think he is a saint, here is an instance of him bullshitting. I think that is very important, alongside more important instances like when he said he was "in combat" and all sorts of things like that. We can reword if you like but the information is valid.

P.S.: You would do well to register as a member David.

I agree with Davetrainer. Pointing out hand-selected quotes as an example of "bullshit" is POV, as well as original research. Rhobite 19:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

That he said something confidently and abruptly does not rule out the possibility that he made an honest mistake, and it certainly is not a sufficient basis for calling him a "bullshitter". Again, it isn't apparent to anyone what he was thinking when he made the statement, so for you to infer that he was "bullshitting" "to save face" is POV. And yes, it is also original research. I'm pretty certain that no amount of rewording can reconcile any of these problems. Davetrainer 21:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it is original research, so I will retract it for that reason. But it is a perfect example of O'Reilly bullshitting, acting as though he were familiar with a Native American tribe that doesn't and never has existed. Anyone who caught that last night could back me up on that. Maprovonsha172 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No hard feelings, frankly I do consider O'Reilly a liar and a bullshitter, and I don't doubt he was bullshitting in this case. So it's a POV that we share, nonetheless it is a POV. Davetrainer 22:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference - and I know this is a difference that many people have difficult distinguishing these days - between being mistaken and lying. To show that he was lying, one must prove that he knew that it was not an "Indian tribe" while saying that it was. That's much bigger than simply being caught in an error - all reporters make all kinds of errors all the time. Look at the New York Times or Dan Rather. --Xinoph 13:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The cricketeer is nowhere near as notable as the controversial talk show host, and a disambiguation page is good enough. Google for 'Bill O'Reilly FOX News' receives 625,000 results; 'Bill O'Reilly Cricket' receives 41,200 results. I would be bold and move myself, but I'm afraid that doing so might not be possible due to page histories, etc. I am requesting this page be moved to Bill O'Reilly, and have Bill O'Reilly as it currently stands be moved to Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation).

Vote here with Support or Oppose.

Support

• Support. ral315 18:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing request, as apparently the cricketeer is much more well-known than the commentator elsewhere. ral315 23:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I still support this. If he were much more well-known, he'd have more than 10 articles linking to him. Wikipedia's Aussie editors are plentiful (and I lived there this entire last year), so there's no worry of geographical bias, in my mind. Shem^(talk) 23:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Shem^(talk) 21:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)***The appalling ignorance of some Americans on here really does make me believe all those Dubya jokes must be true. We have one who thinks merit is determined by Google results and another who thinks it is determined by the number of Wikipedia articles!? The first one also says that it is only olympic participation that determines if a sport is "major"; but of course baseball and American football are "major" despite not being in the olympics. Absolutely unbelievable.
  • Baseball is (was) an Olympic sport. EAE

And yet the guy who raised the issue in the first place has done a bit of sensible research, realised that cricket worldwide is somewhat bigger than he first thought, and has withdrawn his proposal. --Jack 18:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I am going to take every opportunity I can to agree with Shem. The only Wiki issue is notability and it is not even close. I am not always a fan of Google searches, but in this case, it tells the story. --Noitall 03:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why, if you're not a fan of Google searches, that in this case you are. An American media personality is obviously going to have more Google hits than a dead Australian cricketer - but that doesn't neccessarily translate into notability. The cricketer was one of the greatest players that ever lived. The commentator will be all but forgotten a couple of years after he retires. -- Ian ≡ talk 06:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not a fan because sometimes Google searches can be misleading or discussions when close to same hits are erronious. In this case it is not even close. I don't think being one of the "greatest players" from an extremely minor sport of cricket (no offense, but its the truth) from years ago who is dead and from Australia (no offense again, but Australia just does not influence the world, especially from many years ago). --Noitall 01:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is not true that cricket is an "extremely minor sport". It is followed by more people across the world than any other sport except soccer. It is a very minor sport in the USA, certainly, but worldwide it is more significant than any American sport. No offence, just correcting your "truth". -dmmaus 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No offence taken on any point :). However, I don't see what Australia's status as a world influence has to do with the notability issue. As I and others have argued, Cricket is a significant sport and "old" Bill is a highly notable individual in that sport and that this is a multi-language, international encyclopaedia. I put it to you that neither Bill is more notable than the other in that context and that that they should both be referred to from Bill O'Reilly (a disambig page). -- Ian ≡ talk 04:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to be ignorant of Bill O'Reilly's impact on politics, journalism, and media, I think. He is the most-watched political pundit of any on Earth currently. Shem^(talk) 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you back up your claim: on earth? Ian, Jguk, and I have all not heard about this commentator. I don't believe any of us are behind the times, or don't keep abreast of current events. We come from three different countries. On earth? nice claim. User:Nichalp/sg 13:43, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Certainly, he changed cable news, changed regular television news, received ratings far higher than all others (and from all POVs), the issues he raises influences politics and political opinion. In short, he has had an enormous impact.--Noitall 01:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • He has an impact in the United States. From the international point of view he may just be a regular tv anchor. From Wikipedia's article on the commentator, the only international events that the commentator can be credited to is the coverage of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and his (really stupid IMO) edict against French goods. Please do not claim "global" impact. His realm of influence is North America. The cricketer's influence is much more widespread. Keep the dab page as both are notable. User:Nichalp/sg 06:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
          • I should mention that while O'Reilly's statements are occasionally heard in Canada (e.g. when he compared the CBC to Nazi propaganda) he is not yet rebroadcast here, even on cable. I have never seen Fox News except when visiting the States. --Saforrest 21:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm completely ignorant of his impact on politics etc. I rather think that's the point, isn't it? Stephen Turner 06:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. User:Bedford^(talk) 04:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Much more notable. Rangeley 01:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. What the hell is cricket? --66.82.9.55 05:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. I've never (well hardly) heard of Bill O'Reilly the commentator. I sure that there'd be millions of people who know who the cricketer is though. A case of WP:CSB. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And I'd argue that millions more know who O'Reilly is, in Australia and the UK, too. Yours looks a case of cricket fandom, not countering systemic bias. "For the Australian cricketer, see: Bill O'Reilly (cricketer)" would still be on display prominently at the top of the page. Shem(talk) 02:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Your argument is based on an assumption that "millions" in Australia and GB know who your TV "personality" is. I can tell you for a fact that he is unknown in England, though Tiger O'Reilly is well known even to people with a passing interest in cricket. In Australia, Tiger O'Reilly's native land, he is an absolute legend and an Aussie pal of mine has just confirmed over the phone that he has never heard of anyone else called Bill O'Reilly. Please do not assume that the rest of the world is taken in by American hype and propaganda. Frankly, we are just not interested in America. A good example came up in my conversation with my Aussie pal when we asked each other how many baseball names we know. We both agreed we had heard of Babe Ruth and then we were really struggling. My mate says he read something about one called Strawberry Fields (unless that was a Beatles song!) and he mentioned another called Jeter(?). The only other one I can think of is Billy Bonds' namesake. Given that my friend and I are both knowledgeable people who are widely travelled and are both huge sports fans, I would say that we are a good example of the complete indifference to Americana that is common throughout the world apart from in the USA itself. --Jack 12:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Neither is self-evidently more notable than the other. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not clear that one is more notable than the other - googlecounting is, as ever, pretty stupid. --Khendon 19:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Khendon - O'Reilly played fifty years ago, naturally his google count is going to be deflated. Don Bradman picked him in his all-time World XI [1] before he died, apparently. Sam Vimes 19:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Bill O'Reilly was one of the best and most famous cricketers of his era - as evidenced by him being in the Australian Hall of Fame and in Bradman's all-time World XI. I've never heard of the American commentator, jguk 19:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both are notable to different audiences. A disambiguation page is the right solution. Stephen Turner 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose: – I live in India. I don't get the Fox News Channel, and so I haven't heard of the commentator. Are you going to tell me just because he is pretty famous in the US, and his name is occasionally heard of in Australia and the UK, he gets the benefit of the title? This is nothing but systemic bias! How can it be gauged that he is anywhere less notable by those who aren't familiar with cricket history? He was one of the most famous cricketers of the Bodyline era. User:Nichalp/sg 05:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Systemic bias my ass; this is a vote-bombing by Wikiproject cricket, and fandom trying to play itself off as fighting systemic bias. Shem^(talk) 08:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • That's an American ass, of course? American as in a country led by George W Bush? There is no vote-bombing here at all. It is simply that cricket is a major worldwide sport, second only to football (played with feet, round ball, you know the one), and that people in the rest of the world, not just cricket and football fans, object to exercises in American propaganda trying to convince us that we have heard of every American "personality" when we are simply not interested in America. A pal of mine in Bangalore told me only today that he has never heard of any Bill O'Reilly other than "Tiger" and that people in India "have better things to do than be interested in American TV personalities". --Jack 12:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I will take the opportunity to remind you of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Baseless allegations of 'vote-bombing' are not in keeping with this. --Ngb 08:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You should take the opportunity to read my user page, and be reminded that I don't follow that guideline on Wikipedia. My observation is definitely not baseless; a very sensible move was proposed, and a "hey, come vote here cricket fans" notice was posted at Wikiproject Cricket. Were such a notice posted off-site, it'd be vote-bombing without question. Y'all're a bunch of cricket fans, first and foremost, using the fact that you're not Americans as leverage in a bogus allegation of systemic bias. Shem^(talk) 11:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • WP:Cricket is not vote-bombing - and there are plenty of instances of cricketers only being linked to via a disambiguation notice at the top of an article on someone completely different that I wouldn't think of changing, regardless of how many other cricket fans tried to persuade me otherwise. In this instance, however, Bill O'Reilly is one of the all-time greats and is one of the better-known cricketers of his era. I'm not convinced the American O'Reilly will be remembered 70-80 years past the peak of his career. I'm glad we've had this proposed move though - it's highlighted how inadequate the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page is, and I see it has improved a lot since it gained this attention, jguk 11:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Since you obviously have no intention of assuming good faith, and seeing as you've been needlessly and rudely confrontational from the off, I don't see that it will be profitable for either of us or for Wikipedia if we continue to debate this. --Ngb 14:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would I be a fan of old Bill? I think you're a very big fan of younger Bill :) User:Nichalp/sg 09:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Errrmm... do you get "Star World"? Fox News and Star World are both owned by Rupert Murdock and I'm quite sure O'Reilly is sometimes on Star World (but perhaps not recently?)... Sortan 17:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do get Star World; its an entertainment channel. They show programmes like Friends, Desperate Housewives, Buffy the Vampire Slayer etc. I fail to see how a news channel figures here. I haven't said I haven't heard of FNC, I said that it is not received here. Murdock owing the channel has nothing to do with O'R. User:Nichalp/sg 18:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 00:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - Regardless of which one of the more prominent, there is no hugely asymmetrical difference between the two. Having Bill O'Reilly as a dab page strikes me as the best way to go. Guettarda 18:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral. I was attracted here by Wikiproject cricket. Although I feel the cricketer is more famous to a wider audience than the commentator, and will have a longer lasting impact, I have no strong opinion on this particular proposed move. -dmmaus 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I believe that the commentator is a more significant figure. But, the crickiteer is probably known by several million which may pale imho to the commentators audience is still signficant that a disambiguation is reasonable as is a link from the commentators page to the cricket player. Falphin 21:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I disagree with your assertion that the commentator is any more notable than the cricketer. This is almost certainly true within the boundaries of the United States, but I would contest that the opposite is true in many other English-speaking territories (the UK, Australia, India, etc.). I would expect many people outside of the US never to have heard of Bill O'Reilly (commentator), whereas Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is widely notable in those countries as one of the best leg spinners ever. Don't forget that this is an international encyclopaedia, not just an American one. --Ngb 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You won't play the "American bias" card with me, sorry. I've lived abroad for well over three years now, most of it in Australia, am married to a Commonwealth girl, and Bill O'Reilly here is very noteworthy as one of Rupert Murdoch's top men. This is not a matter of systemic bias, and I'm tired of seeing Wikiproject Cricket pretend that it is. Shem^(talk) 08:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't see where I mentioned 'American bias' here. I noted that while the move proponent's assertion would be true within the US (where Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is certainly less notable, I have no reason to believe it is true internationally -- and this is an international encyclopaedia. --Ngb 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You're implying it, heavily. Or was "don't forget this is an international encyclopedia, not just an American one" just you shooting the wind? Shem^(talk)

I'm afraid I'm not sure what 'shooting the wind' means, but I assume it's derogatory. So, no, it means exactly what it says. I was reminding the move's proponent that in other parts of the world than the US -- parts of the world that this Wikipedia covers -- it's by no means a clear assertion that either of these two Bill O'Reillys is more notable than the other. --Ngb 14:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So you agree that this is an international encyclopedia? That means a dab page would be the most neutral thing here. Thank you very much. User:Nichalp/sg 13:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I have never heard of the commentator, but know of the cricketer. --Q 19:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) only has 10 other articles linking to it, most of them athlete lists. His article also claims that he was known as Tiger O'Reilly -- was he known by this to the point where his article could actually be titled Tiger O'Reilly? We can also add For the Australian cricketer, see: Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) to the top of this article, once it's moved. Shem^(talk) 21:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he was and is mostly known as Bill O'Reilly, jguk 07:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Tiger was an affectionate nickname only. He was always called Bill. Unlike Tiger Woods, for example. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that the discussion is getting a bit too heated? Attacking the person with opposing views to yours makes your own argument look weak. I am addressing this to people on both sides. Stephen Turner 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting to note how many of the same WP:Cricket members voted against making Cricket a dab page, but insist of keeping Bill O'Reilly a dab page (switching reasons when it suits their purposes).... imho, both should be dab pages, but the hypocrisy demonstrated here is saddening. Sortan 17:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the hypocrisy there? It is a case of consistency, not hypocrisy. Cricket is a major world sport while the insect is of interest to insectologists, of whom there are far fewer than there are cricket fans. As far as an individual like Bill (Tiger) O'Reilly is concerned, there is always the possibility that he will have a namesake who is well known in some quarters and you have to be prepared to disambiguate there. I have, for example, come across a situation only this morning regarding a cricket writer called Christopher Lee and I accept that his namesake, the actor, is better known; another cricket writer is called John Ford and he is nowhere near so well known as the film director. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There's no hypocrisy, and no switching of reasons. I believe that Cricket is more notable than Cricket (insect), but that Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is not more notable than Bill O'Reilly (cricketer). (Similarly, and also without hypocrisy, I believe that London is more notable than London, Arkansas, but that Milford, Derbyshire is not more notable than Milford, Connecticut.) Simple. My reasons for these beliefs are stated in the appropriate places. Your mileage may vary. --Ngb 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sortan, I tend to agree with you that they should both be dab pages, but let's please not start the name-calling again — it's not "hypocrisy", or even contradictory, to believe that cricket (sport) is much more prominent than cricket (insect), and that neither Bill O'Reilly is much more prominent than the other. In fact they're rather consistent views; it depends how notable you think cricket (sport) and cricketers are. So although I disagree with those people's conclusions, I think they hold a perfectly sensible point of view. Stephen Turner 18:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Sortan - it's a sockpuppet account used for trolling (see his user contributions and you'll see what I mean) and more recently following me around objecting to everything I do. He's best ignored for what he is, jguk 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was attracted here by the note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket. It is impossible for me to judge how well known and influential the commentator is in absolute terms, as I had never even heard of him before. He demonstrably does not have a high profile in many countries outside the USA. Likewise, it is impossible for people who do not know much about cricket to gauge the fame and importance of the cricketer. I suggest that either party in this disagreement making claims about the notereity of the other O'Reilly is talking about something of which they are largely ignorant. That is not a good way to come to an agreement about their relative importance, as we can see. Judging purely on the facts available to me, I conclude the following:

• The cricketer is one of the best known players of his era, in a sport of large global importance. He is of significant historical importance in the sport, and well known to many cricket followers.
• Cricket has more followers than any other sport in the world except for soccer. It is not a minor sport. Therefore, it would be reasonable to say that more people in the world know of O'Reilly the cricketer than, for example, Cy Young the baseball player - a player of similar importance in baseball to O'Reilly's importance in cricket.
• However, I would not be surprised if considerably more people searching Wikipedia for "Bill O'Reilly" were looking for the commentator than for the cricketer. I base this conclusion on the fact that the cricketer is, indeed, dead and not frequently thought of by current cricket followers, whereas the commentator is clearly a contemporary figure and has a significant following in the USA. If Cy Young was the name of a significant political commentator in England, I suspect more people would be searching for Cy Young the commentator than Cy Young the baseball player, for the same reasons.

Therefore, I do not oppose the proposal to move this page. But I am unable to form a solid opinion on how notable O'Reilly the commentator really is, so I cannot vote in support either. -dmmaus 09:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The American is unknown outside his own country and, let's be honest, this is yet another baseless assumption by Americans that, if someone is well known in the USA, it follows they are internationally famous. The rest of the world is not interested in America and this TV personality is completely unknown in the real (i.e., rest of the) world. As you have said, Bill (Tiger) O'Reilly remains a famous figure in the world's second most popular sport. Oh, and by the way, thanks for telling us all about Cy Young. I can now name three baseball players: Babe Ruth; Billy Bonds' namesake; and Cy Young. --Jack 12:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jack, you're an idiot. If you took a little less time to tell us how little you care about America, your claim might seem a little more sincere. It's pretty clear that you're bitterly jealous of a country that is much more prominent than your own. Say what you want about selection bias, but the truth is that most of the people reading this are indeed American, so when the debate is over who is "more noteable," someone who is well known to an American audience has an inherent edge.

Being the #2 sport in the West Indies and India does not make it a major sport. There are at least 100 more major sports in the world in the olympics, which cricket is not, having been removed. Also, since India is extremely tech savvy and dominant in the internet, then Google analysis is an appropriate way to find out about the cricket "Babe Ruth." The cricketer: [2] 4,430, Babe Ruth: [3] 706,000, O'Reilly Fox News: [4] 246,000. I think that says it all. --Noitall 12:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

By population it is a major sport. Conservatively speaking I would put the number of cricket fans in India at 25% the total population. Now that's about the entire population of the United States. Cricket has a presence in 90 countries. I'm sure you didn't know that. Your figures only tell us that there are more internet users in the United States than in India. User:Nichalp/sg 13:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is interested in world-wide notability. Your analysis does not even touch on the figures I noted that address worldwide notability (removal as Olympic sport, very few Google mentions in comparison). --Noitall 13:23, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

That's because your figures are self-evidently ridiculous. Selection as an Olympic sport is not predicated on notability, and Googlecounting is meaningless. --Ngb 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The ICC has never really pushed cricket to be an Olympic sport. They don't get hard cash. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you know absolutely nothing about the sport of cricket. The Olympics has a fixed quota of allowed sports. I'm sure you know that. Notability has nothing to do with the Olympics. Its the global reach of the sport and the people who follow the sport. This site shows that cricket has reached your backyard. User:Nichalp/sg 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved my talk page after diatribe regarding greatness of India and cricket:

Your being a fan of cricket and India has blinded you to the realities of Wiki, where the issue is notability. Your sport got removed from the Olympics long ago and does not even merit a write-up by the International Olympic committee,[5] being less notable than the sports of Rugby and Tug-of-War. --Noitall 14:08, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're getting a little too hot and personal here. I suggest you cool down. User:Nichalp/sg 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the reason there's no writeup is because Cricket's participation in the Olympics was very ad-hoc and only recognised afterwards: see Cricket at the 1900 Summer Olympics. --Ngb 14:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I have cited the only 2 pieces of evidence (the International sport body and Google notability) here in this discussion (other than rabid fandom) and the evidence is objective and normally used in Wiki to determine such matters. --Noitall 14:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep citing Google? Its not an absolute or accurate metric. User:Nichalp/sg 14:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Only a complete idiot would regard Google results as "evidence" and cricket is noted for the intelligence of its participants. Besides being the 2nd most popular sport on Earth after football, it is also the 2nd most tactical, after chess. As for the Olympics, there is no doubt whatsoever that football is the most popular sport on the planet but it treats the Olympics with utter contempt (and quite right too because the Olympics is riddled with corruption and drug abuse). In the Olympics, a handful of under-21 football teams compete for "Olympic glory". Hardly on the same level as the World Cup or the European Cup, is it? --Jack 15:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit, you are very passionate for your sport. But you need to take your arguments elsewhere, perhaps to some Cricket blog, if you choose to ignore the only objective evidence and argue against Wiki standards. --Noitall 18:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

WHAT Wiki standards? Do please tell us and provide some links to pages on Wikipedia which rule that Google hits and participation in the Olympics shall determine the merit or otherwise of a particular sport. Also, answer two simple questions. One, are baseball and American football "major sports"? Two, are they in the Olympics?

And finally, are you aware that the guy who raised this issue in the first place has subsequently done a bit of sensible research, has realised that cricket is a much bigger sport than he originally thought, has apologised for his error and has formally withdrawn his proposal? It's all in this page. --Jack 18:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Baseball is in the Olympics, believe it or not, as of 1992. But yes, participation in the Olympics and Googlecounting are not useful grounds for establishing the notability of a sport. --Ngb 19:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It is for now, and will be played in the Beijing Games. However, it's been axed, along with softball, from the London Games (and by the IOC before anyone asks), jguk 19:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest Noitall visit this club to learn more about cricket. Its in Maryland, his area of expertise. Talk about cricket's global impact! User:Nichalp/sg 18:57, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

A small point of fact that I can contribute. Since 1900 cricket has never been eligible to be in the Olympics. IOC rules set guidelines for number of countries in which a sport must be established to be included in the Olympics (which cricket easily passes), and also that both men's and women's versions of the sport must be administrated by a single administrative body. The International Cricket Council and International Women's Cricket Councils merged only this year. Cricket's absence from the Olympics says nothing whatsoever about its global presence, as IOC rules prohibited it from being included for a different reason. This argument is getting us nowhere, by the way. I suggest we have an admin look over what has passed, make a decision, and stop fussing over it. -dmmaus 01:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

Hey Liberal Wik Editors...

Great news! I found something you might like even better than Wikipedia. It's an exciting new on-line encyclopedia inspired by Wik but...well...a better fit.

Here's the link: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Main_Page

I think a lot of you would feel more comfortable there...

Just being helpful, Big Daddy 06:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, great link! But I'll still be editing Wikipedia. You, however, won't... you've been permanently banned. Awesome!!! Eleemosynary 07:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone imagine an encyclopedia writing in it's own voice "As if that was not enough to demonstrate this poor grieving woman was unhinged?" Hipocrite 16:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think since this line was inserted directly after that CHEAP SHOT quote of hers, that a little context on how deranged some of her other statements are is quite apropos.

Remember, this entry is about Bill O'Reilly. W When did it become a forum to post every hateful comment about him by fringe left elements?

This is just one of at least TWENTY examples of hateful left wing biased spin in this article.

It's hilarious if you think this nothing more than an O'Reilly hit piece masquerading as an encyclopedia entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDaddy777 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The correct response to a bad article is to fix the article, not make it worse. If you go through, line by line, and make changes that make me think that the article is more encyclopedic, I'll defend them. If you go through and start attacking other editors in the main body of the article, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Hipocrite 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's get it on.

One of the easiest things to correct, as it's pervasive throughout the entire entry, is the cheap shot at the end.

My grandfather used to teach me that you can learn the most about someone by the way they enter and the way they leave.

There are countless paragraphs in this entry that have a pretense of objectivity, but always end with a shot at O'Reilly.

You'd think the liberals who wrote this would know better than to overplay their hand, but I guess not.

Here are just a few of the egregious examples:

NOTE: These are the last sentences of sections pertaining to subjects or people O'Reilly has confronted on the air.

CINDY SHEEHAN "Sheehan subsequently refused to appear on O'Reilly's show, calling The O'Reilly Factor "an obscenity to the truth and an obscenity to humanity."[36]."

LUDACRIS

"O'Reilly, who had voiced strong opposition towards Ludacris' alleged degradation of women, had no retort."

NEIL BOORTZ

"To this day, Boortz retains a general disdain for O'Reilly, which he shares with fellow Atlantian and occasional studio guest, Ludacris."

JEREMY GLICK

"Glick and his supporters deny O'Reilly's allegations, and maintain that the transcripts show that he said nothing of the sort."

IRAQ & TERRORISM

Actually, it seems like someone cleaned this one up already. It used to be some outright attack from MMFA. Now it just ascribes their disagreement to them. That's a step in the right direction.

But I could go on and on with these last second cheapshots.

Each taken individually by themselves MIGHT BE, by the lowest possible standards, excusable.

But taken as a whole, it paints a picture. A horribly biased picture where, in virtually every SINGLE disagreement, O'Reilly turns out to be wrong.

Even in the French boycott section, where O'Reilly's claim of a one billion dollar trade loss was confirmed, it was phrased in a way that cloaked his vindication.

All in all, it's a hatchet job... straight up.

And I can't believe no one has called Wik out on this before...

big daddy

Ps To break it apart line by line is NOT the way to correct this. I'd say begin by gutting all these unnecessary entries about Glick and Sheehan, all of which add NOTHING to understanding O'Reilly other than to help his political enemies make him out to be an ogre.

In fact, if you read the entire entry from start to scratch, the ultimate conclusion you come away with is that O'Reilly is a right wing bully who pretends to be something he isn't.

What a coincidence!

That's EXACTLY what his political ENEMIES want you to conclude.

This entry is a classic example of old school liberal bias -

Arrange the facts in such a way that no SINGLE point can be entirely disputed but ultimately leaves you with the conclusion THEY want you to have.

Sorry, that is NOT neutrality.

Big Daddy 20:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about going through that point by point, but I decided not to. Instead, I edited your comment below to a form that people would be able to discuss without getting pissed off.

I think that a critical and pervasive problem in this article is the snide remark that ends many of the paragraphs. I've found a couple examples, and feel there are many more.

CINDY SHEEHAN: "Sheehan subsequently refused to appear on O'Reilly's show, calling The O'Reilly Factor "an obscenity to the truth and an obscenity to humanity."[36]."

LUDACRIS "O'Reilly, who had voiced strong opposition towards Ludacris' alleged degradation of women, had no retort."

NEIL BOORTZ "To this day, Boortz retains a general disdain for O'Reilly, which he shares with fellow Atlantian and occasional studio guest, Ludacris."

JEREMY GLICK "Glick and his supporters deny O'Reilly's allegations, and maintain that the transcripts show that he said nothing of the sort."

While alone these seem acceptable, the pattern that emerges paints O'Reilly as turning out wrong in every conflict.

Even in the French boycott section, where O'Reilly's claim of a one billion dollar trade loss was confirmed, it was phrased in a way that made that ambigous.

Then, you follow that up with 1 or 2 concrete changes you want made. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

I still can't get past the fact that no one...I mean NO ONE. has objected to this HATCHET JOB before.

Check this little piece of the O'Reilly entry out and tell me it's not a TOTAL SMEAR -

" FAIR, a media watchdog group, published a book, The Oh Really? Factor, documenting false accusations and inaccurate statements that O'Reilly has made on his show. FAIR notes that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias.[38] For example, after the Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not test pregnant women for drugs and send the results to the police without consent, O'Reilly commented: "Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment" (O'Reilly Factor, March 23, 2001)."

Big Daddy 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised that an encyclopedia with over 1,800,000 articles in over 100 languages has one article that one person things is so terribly objectionable, and is shocked, shocked that it still exists. I've made a number of encyclopedic edits to the article itself to address some of the concerns you brought up. I'm doing way too much time doing research on stuff you don't like and way to little time helping you do edits. I'm not the expert on polidrama played out on the cable news screamshows, and I certainly don't want to be one. You're the expert, so why am I doing the editing? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"You're the expert, so why am I doing the editing? ??"

Ummm...Because EVERY time I tried to edit, it was COMPLETELY erased by that other editor, so now, I'm half-afraid, that if I DO edit anything, they will ban me.

Big Daddy

ps Thanks for trying to make me out as the bad guy here. Big Daddy 21:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold. I'll back you up if you deserve it, and you're not going to get banned if you don't talk about other editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

Bold I can do.

Take care,

Big Daddy

Ps Give me a few days, I really want to be fair in approaching this. Allow me to become familiar with the entries of some of the other talking heads in here. I think it'll help in my efforts to be objective. Big Daddy 21:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Its day 3 of your wikipedia career--I'll give you a few months. You triggered a bunch of peoples "vandalalarms" with the usertalk in article space, and so the world looked harsher than it was. Conservaburnout seems reasonably prevalant - I'm not going to posit on why. Bold isn't reckless - if you write something, and you think it might piss someone off, best to write it to the talk page first, let people hack at it, and then, if you listen and incorporate the right changes into your proposed change, it's always good. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For starters, I suggest we replace this entry:

Some critics contend that O'Reilly often makes up facts and figures to support his points. FAIR, a media watchdog group, published a book, The Oh Really? Factor, documenting false accusations and inaccurate statements that O'Reilly has made on his show. FAIR notes that O'Reilly distorts the news by framing it through his bias.[38] For example, after the Supreme Court ruled that public hospitals could not test pregnant women for drugs and send the results to the police without consent, O'Reilly commented: "Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment" (O'Reilly Factor, March 23, 2001).

With....

That's right, nothing.

Just get rid of it. It's an unredeemable hatchet job by a left wing organization not even named as such.

If some of you want to defend it's inclusion, knock yourself out. It woul then be only fair to include a section in the Al Franken entry articulating Bill O'Reilly's grievances with him...

After all, we want to remain POV neutral, right?

Big Daddy 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain what's wrong with the paragraph without talking about liberal bias or doing bad things to someone else's article? Is FAIR a liberal media watchdog group? I'm done doing research, but the change that I see to that paragraph is "FAIR, a liberal media watchdog group, accuses" Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

The answer to your question is found in your question itself. You asked "Could you explain what's wrong..without..doing bad things to someone else's article?"

Well, the only 'bad' thing I suggested doing to 'someone else's article' is what was done here to O'Reilly. So apparently we are in agreement that it's bad, right?

Ps I've read portions of 'The O'Really Factor' it's a nit picking hatchet job that only brings up tiny minutae that have no bearing on the overall theme of O'Reilly's messages.

It is true that O'Reilly, being kind of an old guy, stumbles on his words a bit and sometimes isn't too artful in expressing his views. (He has gotten a little better lately.)

But to EXPLOIT these insignificant tendencies and leverage them to an entire book is just sad.

And that's what FAIR did. They are his enemies.

Reference to this book has NO place in this article.

They do NOT document false accusations etc. They only SAY they do.

But again, if this is fair game, keep it in. I only want to be evenhanded here. I've got a few comments from O'Reilly and Limbaugh about Al Franken, Bill Maher and Bill Moyers that I'll be HAPPY to include on their pages.

Big Daddy 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't negotiate tit-for-tat. That's not how it works. Make this article better. I suggested one change to the paragraph, which you failed to comment on. What you suggested was "This article is terrible, and unless I'm able to do with it what I will, I will make this other article just as bad! I don't think this article is bad per-se, but I see areas for improvement. You should feel free to do the same. So, without talking about liberal bias or other articles, what needs to be done to fix this? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Big Daddy, you say you "only want to be evenhanded here," but it appears that you object to almost every single criticism of Bill O'Reilly in this entry. How is it a fair and evenhanded discussion if the whole entry is candy and flowers, and fails to explain why he is such a controversial figure? The FAIR book is an excellent source for understanding this controversy, even if you don't agree with it. Bill O'Reilly isn't perfect, and as this is supposed to be an objective entry, so both his strengths and his weaknesses should be described objectively and with references. Ignoring half of the story by expunging any criticism is neither fair nor balanced, to coin a phrase. 71.242.227.80 08:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

It should be eliminated. Period.

Ps Also the Sheehan segment should go. What the hell does this have to do with Bill O'Reilly? The liberals have tried to turn this into a left wing blog. There's no long term significance to the way O'Reilly covered the Sheehan story.

I edited out that last comment from her about his show. It was TOTALLY gratutious, mean-spirited and hateful. IOW, it's completely consistent with the way non-liberals are treated here in Wikipedi! lol!

I also took out that sentence where Media Matters (of all people) tried to 'clarify her intent' regarding the discrepancy between her first and second interviews about the Bush meetings.

Now THAT is pure liberal spin. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Interview #1: Effusive praise for how Bush handled himself and posed for a photo being kissed by him and holding his hand.

Interview #2: Bush is the anti-Christ.

None of this belongs on O'Reilly's page anyway but let's all please curtail the liberal hack job on every single commentator they don't like.

This is not metafilter.

Big Daddy 00:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip Writes: "Conservaburnout seems reasonably prevalant - I'm not going to posit on why."

Oh, I'm starting to get an idea real fast. lol!

Hip: "You can't negotiate tit-for-tat."

Don't worry Hip. I have no plans to go to Franken's site and trash him the way liberals trash O'Reilly. It's just not in my makeup. I guess that's just a liberal thing...

Hip: "What needs to be done to fix this?"

Give me a little bit of time. I'm still busy fighting battles on the Ann Coulter and Cindy Sheehan site. So many biased articles...so little time.

Big Daddy 02:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it incredibly difficult to treat you with respect when you have such utter disrespect for an institution that I have grown to love, and the contributors that have made it what it is. Wikipedia is not about "fighting battles," or "defeating liberals." You need to STOP FOCUSING ON EDITORS AND START FOCUSING ON EDITS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip writes:

"I find it incredibly difficult to treat you with respect when you have such utter disrespect for an institution..."

Well, I hope you'll re-think that position. I would never disrespect another human being just because I disagree with them about an institution.

If you don't think that, at present, there's just a few reasonable people fighting off an ONSLAUGHT of liberal bias in the articles pertaining to non-liberal commentators, then we're just not reading the same Wikipedia. If you look at the talk page for Ann Coulter and see the nitpicking, church-lady, vicious attacks on her about why she's such a liar and makes stuff up and all the typical boilerplate liberal caluminty, it makes you wonder if you're on Wik or dailykos.com

Not to mention the countless times dailykos, democratic underground and media matters are used as SOURCES! I would never think to use lucianne.com or freerepublic.com etc as resources. It just seems too unseemly.

So, like it or not, this is what I see.

And I think it's a little disingenous of you to play the 'disrespect' card when it's blatantly obvious to any reasonable person just how tilted left these entries are.

Now, having said that, I'm encouraged by the changes that have recently been made.

Plus, I realize in my zeal to propose these changes, I violated several aspects of Wiketiquette which is why I've scaled back my work here so as to get a better feel for how the Wik community operates.

It IS very exciting to be part of something that has such great potential like Wik.

An internationally collaborative effort like this has never been attempted (or even been possible) before.

But it is biased. I'm sorry if that offends you. It's got an inherent bias because so many of the editors are liberals like yourself but somehow think a whole bunch of 'fair-minded' liberals' (which you also are) can create a bias-free encyclopedia.

But, that's just not true. Wik, in my view, needs to admit it has a problem in this regard and go out of it's way to recruit conservative editors.

I notice when I bring these points up you always try to deflect them but never counter with articles that disprove my point.

I think there's a reason for this. You probably can't.

The articles about Al Franken and Michael Moore don't have separate sections, primarily sourced by their SWORN ENEMIES, filled with endless attacks about how bogus they are. Maybe a choice quote here and there, but not complete sections.

But the articles on Coulter, O'Reilly do. (BTW, for a few laughs, go to the Sean Hannity article. It's almost got as much cheap shot criticism and far left liberal links than it does a basic bio!)

In conclusion Hip, I think an apology is more in order. An apology that Wik has been allowed to be OVERRUN by left wing editors that have allowed this stuff to go on for so long.

But, if you want to personally attack my analysis, go ahead. That's another thing that makes Wikipedia great.

Big Daddy 14:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no chance I am apologizing to you, nor am I addressing your concerns about Wikipedia at large in the talk page for Bill O'Reilly, because this is not the appropraite venue for such discussion. You have posted yet another screed about liberals owning this encyclopedia without proposing substantive encyclopedic change to the article, and thus I choose not to respond to you. More edits, less editors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

HipOCRITE,

I am beginning to question your abilities as an editor here at Wikipedia.

You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension in addtion to a glaringly obvious lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack. I'm just questioning how you could write the above and consider it a serious response to my comments.

I'm not concerned about a PERSONAL apology to ME.

For one, I'm not offended. But you and all other liberal editors at Wik (and conserative ones for that matter) OWE THE INTERNET COMMUNITY an apology for positing Wikipedia as something that it is not. Neutral. At least not now. (I hope that can change.)

Secondly, if you wanted to apologize, who said you had to 'do it here.' You certainly could have left a message on the Big Daddy Talk page, right?

Anyway, I did provide a 'substantive encyclopedic change' as you put it.

I excised this statement regarding Roger Ailes of Fox News:

"(and architect of the infamous Willie Horton attack ad)"

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out why, but for those not quite as bright, let me break it down....

You liberals are insane!! You are so DRIPPING WITH HATE FOR FOX NEWS that you can't even mention Roger Ailes without cheap shotting him?

Why not just say ...'Roger Ailes of Fox News, who has a large ass boil on his right butt cheek!'???

Because that's how the inclusion of that totally out of left field Willy Horton comment in the Bill O'Reilly article appears to any REASONABLE person.

Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health...

Just trying to help,

Big Daddy 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

If you alienate the people who are trying to help you, you will be left with little more than the demons you are trying to fight. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip,

I honestly think you are more of a hindrance than a help right now, but I've reserved judgement as there have been times where you've at least been thoughtful. And trust me, I have plenty of help when it comes to fighting demons. (I need it, too! :)

I edited out this section for the time being. Not because it tries to paint O'Reilly in a bad light or suggest he is a liar (God Forbid!) but because there's no substantiation for it and cable subscriber numbers are as ephemeral as Lindsay Lohan's weigh-ins.

"In actual fact, Fox News Channel is only available on digital cable in Canada, and only has a few thousand viewers; digital cable in general has less than one million subscribers across the country at present."

Does anybody have up to date info regarding Fox in Canada? And, even if you do, will it be up to date 3 months from now? Does this kind of nitpicking even belong in an encyclopedic entry?

Big Daddy 04:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That is the up-to-date situation for Fox News Channel in Canada. Digital cable is not growing that rapidly; particularly not to the point of O'Reilly's claimed eight million viewers. The OTA networks in Canada don't even get eight million viewers for a single program. And as for your editing of the CBC section to read "Critics dispute these numbers and claim that CBC does not have a monopoly on television news in Canada", that the CBC does not have a monopoly on Canadian TV news is not a disputable POV claim, it is an incontrovertible fact (unless you're claiming that CTV Newsnet, Global National and CablePulse 24 don't even exist, which is demonstrably false.) Bearcat 00:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the lengthy 'controversies' section?

The area is easily full of biases, where editors can insert little 'facts' where they attempt to make Bill O'Reilly look bad. While I think his show is terrible, it unsettles me to see an entire list of 'conflicts' akin to the kind of lists you'd find in the 50-Cent article. Many of these do not seem to have any long term significance. For instance, "O'Reilly briefly focused his attention on Barbara Boxer," "Most recently O'Reilly has spoken out against University of Colorado leftist professor Ward Churchill," repeated uses of the 'In X Month of Y Year O'Reilly did Z', many of which again do not have any long term significance or impact on what an encyclopedia article should present.

In fact, most of these little excerpts seem to be deliberately created to pose even more embarassment on Bill O'Reilly. While many of these are valid points that work towards discrediting O'Reilly as a TV commentator, I don't see how these pertain to the standard of quality of an informative encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. In fact, it alarms me that editors would so willfully insert such flagrant bias in these articles. While I myself am not an editor, I am merely giving one casual reader's point of view. I just found this article too ridiculous to not post a comment about this issue. Also, Iraq and Terrorism are not an 'individual', nor is 'Gangsta Rap'. Thanks.

Oh you poor misguided soul...

Don't you know that the liberal editors at Wikipedia feel it is their MISSION TO "discredit O'Reilly as a TV commentator"??

Do you know why, as you put it, "Most of these little excerpts seem to be deliberately created to pose even more embarassment on Bill O'Reilly."?

It's because THEY ARE!!!!

Perhaps, after a little re-programming at the liberal university of some Wikipedia's liberal editor's choice, you'll be able to see the light and recognize that, for many people at Wik, UNFAIRLY trashing those who refuse to tow the liberal party line is what it's all about...

Big Daddy 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ps I edited this hit piece on O'Reilly regarding Bill Moyers. It seems the editors who kept this section in were engaging in a little 'selective' editing... I know...Shocked!

Here's how it looks now:

" Moyers responded in print that he never called O'Reilly a warmonger, (but only because "It didn't occur to me")^[6] claimed that his share of distribution money from the show is minuscule, and that the Columbia Journalism Review doesn't pick the winner of the duPont-Columbia Award ^[7] although the Columbia University website states it's responsibilities include "the publication of the Columbia Journalism Review" and "the administration of the ...duPont-Columbia Awards in broadcast journalism."[8] In addition Moyers admitted that his charitable organization, the Schumann Foundation, did provide a grant to the Columbia Journalism Review.

In 2003, O'Reilly criticized Bill Moyers again, saying that Moyers' position that taxes should be raised is "classic socialism" and that he "can't understand why Bill Moyers just doesn't move to Havana". ^[9]"

Big Daddy 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, how much relevancy does even having the Bill Moyers specific section there in the first place? As well as the whole slew of other people/countries/organizations?

Anyway, should the Andrea Mackis incident remain somewhere lost in the sea of 'disputes' O'Reilly has instead of being its own legitimate section? This is an actual legal allegation of sexual harassment, instead of the continuing petty potshots that these pundits and personalities are taking at each other. I would suggest moving it to its own small section, much like how the O'Reilly apology about the Bush invasion in Iraq near the end of the article got its own.

I've been seeing a couple of other problems, like the BBC section. It begins with O'Reilly, like many other Fox News commentators, regularly accuses the BBC of liberal bias with regard to the war on terror. First of all, the reader has no way of knowing whether or not "many" of these Fox personalities do indeed criticize BBC. Secondly, even if this is true (and true being MANY Fox commentators, not just O'Reilly and Hannity), this has nothing to do with this whole list of disputes being made by O'Reilly and others. Is there any particular reason that this is there, or is this another attempt to surreptiously insert another POV statement for the editor's pleasure? Little things like these filling up the face of this article make me seriously question the validity of Wikipedia as a serious source of information in regards to this article and related topics.

Also, where is the source for the French Embassy document? The article states that France did indeed suffer a 10% loss in exports to the USA - down from $10 to $9 Billion. This doesn't state which year this occurred (though the 'En 2002' in the French part gives the clue, it should still be clarified). Additionally, I am not sure if this is being translated correctly, because according to the Census Bureau data from the link given in the CBC section (number 46), the US imported 30,408,000,000 US dollars worth of goods in 2001, while in 2002 this figure was 28,240,000,000. Since then, the importation of French goods has been increasing.

• • • Good points!

Note, I am NOT the author of the above comments. Though I wish I was :)

Ps Apparently, I'm not a lone voice calling out in the wilderness after all...

Big Daddy 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! So I WAS right about Wikipedia. Look at this quote from a long time Wik editor I uncovered:

"you can only edit the Wikipedia if you conform to the groupthink espoused by the Wikipedia’s core constituency; those who deviate or espouse fundamental changes ... they are persecuted. The rulers of Wikimedia claim to want volunteers to come provide them with “peer-review”; but, when people actually do suggest changes, they are generally ignored – when they ‘unilaterally’ make those changes, they are confronted by hypocrisy and ego."

Hello, hip???? LOL!!!

And listen to this quote from an actual employee: "Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger has noted, “[There is] a certain poisonous social [and] political atmosphere in the project.”"

"Politically poisoned atmosphere"...Hmmm...Wonder what kind of politics he's talking about? LOL~!!!

I hope no one turns me in to the 'District Attorney's' office for being a 'heretic.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/District_Attorney%27s_Office

LOL!!!

Big Daddy 06:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You need a wikibreak. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually you need to leave wik and start working for http://www.dkosopedia.com/. I think you'll find more like minded people there...

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger Big Daddy 13:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Puhleeze...you made a friendly suggestion. So did I.

Why is mine a 'personal attack'? I honestly think you would be more effective at http://www.dkosopedia.com/. That's being helpful, not attacking you. Try to not be so sensitive.

Since I've been here (all of 4 days) I've been called everything from an asswipe to flaccid to you name it. I can't figure out why. All I did was suggest the editors were too liberal in general. I guess trashing and marginalizing conservatives is just part of the Wik culture, huh?

“There is a certain poisonous political atmosphere in the project.” -Former Wikimedia employee Larry Sanger

Big Daddy 14:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can point out the eggregious violations of NPA that you listed above, I will be happy to address complaints to the appropriate authority. You know exactly why you are rubbing people the wrong way. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"You know exactly why you are rubbing people the wrong way." Hippocrite.

Of course I do. Cause liberals don't like having their little hegemony upset. I don't upset the conservative editors. They send me letters of gratitude. Hmmm....

But more seriously, with each post you make asking ME to point out what is so PAINFULLY obvious to ANY reasonable person, you add more fuel to the fire that you are just not qualified to edit this page. Nothing personal but sheesh...if you can't see the forest for the trees, then you CANNOT be considered an objective editor. Your friend, Big Daddy 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Please indent your comments so that people reading at home can follow along. You can do this by inserting 1 more ":" than the person before you.

2. That's not why you are rubbing people the wrong way - it's because you're looking for a fight, but not finding one. You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better.

3. The conservative editors have not sent you any letters of gratitude.

4. I asked you to point out diffs where you were called "an asswipe" or "flaccid." I'd very much like to report such eggregious violations of NPA. Please point out the diffs.

5. The gold standard of Wikipedia is not Truth, it's Verifiability. While it might seem obvious to you, that in no way makes it Verifiable.

6. WP:NPA

Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I feel like Bob Dole. Quit lying about my record! lol!!

For the record, I have received letters of gratitude from conservative editors. How you would know I haven't is curious. Has your stalking of me become so obsessive that you hacked in to my email? lol!!

But I have. I did not make this up and you look very foolish asserting something you would have no knowledge of.

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm looking for fairness. Perhaps to liberals like you, that means a fight. Not to me. But I won't back down either.

"You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better."

TRANSLATION: The other liberal editors in here, which are legion, are just hoping I'll burnout and go away like so many conservatives before me. Fat chance, sister.

"I asked you to point out diffs where you were called "an asswipe" or "flaccid." I'd very much like to report such eggregious violations of NPA. Please point out the diffs."

I'm not sure what a 'diff' is, but someone sent a letter to my Talk page calling me an asswipe. It was already reported to someone with REAL authority (in the UK) and he told me he reprimanded the person even though it was sent anonymously (apparently zey have zhere ways of finding out zeese zhings! :)

Plus, one guy (Salty Pig I think) called me LIMPdaddy on several occasions. It was either in the O'Reilly or Coulter Talk pages. While quite discerning in gathering HOW I got my nickname, he certainly was as inaccurate in his characterization as he has been with all his other edits.

Furthermore, it may have been removed, but early on someone slammed me with some obscenity. Heck, you follow me wherever I go...just look at what people say to me. You'll see what I'm talking about. (To be fair, some folks have been quite proper.)

But you know, with you being so wrong on almost all the facts here, I think this qualifies you to write an article about ME for Wikipedia.

Ps While it's been sorta fun sparring with you Hipocrite, you really are no match for me. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you now.

Perhaps you can recruit some reinforcements from this 'Silent Majority' you mentioned to make it a little fairer?

Just trying to be helpful, Big Daddy 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk/poetry/interstichia/lurkers.htm

---

LOL! My sentiments exactly!

Big Daddy

Ps Actually, I'm not doing this for the accolades. I'm here for the cash...

Big Daddy 19:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Good news! I may have found an editor I can work with to form a consensus. Sure, he's a liberal (what wik editor ISN'T? lol!) but he seems fair.

For those of you who have been following this soap opera, it should be painfully obvious by now that the liberal editor hipocrite has completely disqualified herself as any kind of objective voice. Although she first attempted to appear neutral, her most recent posts reflect a quick descent into mean-spirited and, quite frankly chilling, pettiness.

But this other guy, who's gonna first start by working with me on Ann Coulter, seems like he could be good.

One of the first things I want to propose is that if liberals are gonna continue to turn the O'Reilly article into a left wing blog, posting every negative thing about O'Reilly as quickly as they get their marchiing orders from DailyKos, Media Matters or that awful Huffington Report, then we should AT LEAST put it into context.

And here's the context -

"O'Reilly's supporters believe his critics on the left attack him because they resent the fact that a traditionalist wields as much influence in the public sector as O'Reilly."

That's it. Short and sweet.

But then going forward, every time some liberal kook decides to trash the O'Reilly article by adding yet another nitpicking cheap shot to the endless litany already included...

...at least people will understand why.

Big Daddy 07:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:NPA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

See what I mean? Petty vindictiveness. Pretty sad, huh?

But I agree with her that FALSELY accusing me of just "looking for a fight, but not finding one." is a violation of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Saying "You're lucky that I'm not just shunning you like the rest of the people who know better." is clearly a WP:NPA violation.

Flat out accusing me of lying with no evidence presented as in this instance " The conservative editors have not sent you any letters of gratitude." certainly qualifies as a MAJOR :WP:AGF violation, wouldn't you think?

Same with the implication that I was simply making up the flurry of verbal attacks I've received from liberals since arriving here.

But, though you should be BANNED for Wikipedia for your unconscionable behavior and dereliction of duty to uphold Wik articles as nPOV in this and many other articles, I'll leave that decision to others whom I've also made aware of your crusade against me.

I found a liberal editor who I think is reasonable. We, along with others, should be able to come to a concensus. It's been fun Hip (for me at least) perhaps next time you'll think twice before trashing someone's ideas and motives and then hiding behind the very violations you accuse me of as justification.

Final Score:

Big Daddy 1,543,954 Hip: 0.00666

Big Daddy 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

OK - Let's get started on a(n objective) clean-up

I agree that this article has gotten way, way out of control. Theres certainly something to the fact that O'Reilly has sparred with so many public figures - but that's also his gimmick, and what makes his show so entertaining. He chastizes a new politician, tv personality or newspaper columnist every single day! Right now we have a system where as soon as one of them fights back, it ends up as a sub-section in this wikipedia article.

It's simple: if somebody wants to hear about each and every O'Reilly half-truth, they can visit Media Matters or listen to the Al Franken show.

I don't think O'Reilly is much of a calculating liar, he just seems to be one of those people who will pull something out of his a** if the need arises. Which sucks for wikipedia, because everytime he does that somebody adds it to this entry.

THE SOLUTION? What we can all agree on is that O'Reilly has a lot of strained relationships in the media, due in part to his strong political views and arguementative approach to interviewing. I think we can boil that sentiment down to less than the hundreds of paragraphs currently dedicated to it.

Perhaps a (short) list of *major* disgressions, with a sentence or two for each? The Glick incident was widely reported and practically the heart of 'Outfoxed', it would surely belong. The PBS-Buster Bunny incident? Has it's place elsewhere on wikipedia, and should not take up space in O'Reilly's entry.

I may make a few major edits to this effect. Even if some of them are reversed, I hope it draws some attention to the clean-up effort.

Plastic_editor 04:40, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777

For those interested, an RfC has been filed against User:BigDaddy777 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777. Your comments would be appreciated. -- 69.121.133.154 06:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Glick Interview Transcript

I have a problem with the lastest addition to that section stating that O'Reilly's allegation is not supported by a transcript of the interview. I read the transcript and it sounds like Glick was so close to blaming Bush for 9/11 that I don't think its appropriate to say O'Reilly's allegation is not supported by it. -- Lawyer2b 00:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Glick was playing the 'grieving' Sheehan card (before even Sheehan could play it) to get some airtime and then went off on this wacky sermon about the US's role in precipitating 911. I think O'Reilly's claim that he was blaming Bush is accurate. But it's mainly Bush Sr. that Glick ascribes much blame. As for O'Reilly's claim that Glick said Bush Jr. knew about 911, I don't know that he made such a claim, but if he did, I don't believe that can be backed up by just the transcript. Perhaps it was said off air. I think that's what O'Reilly would claim. Big Daddy 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• The transcript does not not support O'Reilly's recent claim that Glick said that Bush "orchestrated" 9-11. Did he say that to O'Reilly off the air? Total speculation: really grasping at straws. 68.9.184.173 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

bad day

A professional bully with an "angry regular guy" schtick employed by Fox News. His main virtue is that he actually thinks for himself, unlike many other prominent conservative personalities; unfortunately, that virtue is lost in the knee-jerk hatemongering, bullying behavior, and frequent and well-documented lying that he does.I want to respect Bill O'Reilly, I really do, but what nice things can you say about a guy who tried to browbeat the child of 9/11 dead?

I think O'Reilly is dying!

I sure hope so. Teflon Don 04:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC) I fear in two more years, Bill O'Reilly, America's top leading news analysis may pass away from heart failure after all that blood pressure rising from screaming. It must affect his heart! After taking a blunt attack from Phil Donahue, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, New Hampshire, and Al Franken it seems like O'Reilly is slowly taking care of his health. He may one day loose his mind and one day say the f-word while interviewing a hard-hitter liberal or conservative that doesn't agree with his twisted views. Unfortunately I have to be the one to see this tragedy. As much as I don't like the guy, it would be a great shame to see someone of that calibar to die over some oddball nonsense. I mean, to loose O'Reilly is a big lost to the far right's mouthpiece. Not to be funny, but I am telling you the truth. I hope the man takes this vacation to relieve him of the stress of liberal media and retorts to his lies. LILVOKA.

Well, I hope O'Reilly isn't really dying, but what is dying (albeit very slowly) is the outrageous POV that's permeated this article since my arrival. And that's a good thing, right?

The latest casualty to fairness is the edit I made in the section on the French Boycott. I deleted the non-sourced and snarky cheap shot that starts out "(strangely enough, he did not call for a boycott of German products" I also labeled Media Matters as a liberal group which they are.

Now, no one should have a problem with this. I suppose, the way it's been explained to me, if you can find an impartial notable source that actually said 'strangely enough, blah, blah, blah...' you can put it back in, but why bother?

I also took out this gratuitous cheap shot: Daily Show host Jon Stewart referred to this incident as a "grandiose example of douchebaggery."

However, I withheld adding this line "Media Matters, which O'Reilly has referred to as a vicious far left wing website."

It certainly could be added as it's his personal retort to their attacks on him. But I want to get others ideas about this first. Big Daddy 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You know what I agree Big Daddy, there is a lot of bias towards him. Who could blame him! He rubs the left the wrong way! He had been very good on some issues, such as tougher laws for child rapist and the sense of immorality when it comes to American society. But here's what I want to ask you! Has big bad Bill ever been to a place he had criticized on his show? Here's a few examples:

• Aruba
• United Kingdom
• New Hampshire
• Louisiana
• France
• Canada

Has big bad Bill ever seen any of the people he's been recently criticizing. Well the list is long and of course Phil Donahue is not included on this list. This man is too afraid to take these people on literally. If he did, he would lose it and have a heart attack! And Billy does take blood pressure medicine. Wouldn't you if you dealt with the left!

• Al Franken
• Kathleen Blanco
• Ray Nagin
• The editor of the New York Times
• The chief spokeperson of the ACLU
• rappers, Ludacris, Kanye West, and 50 Cent
• anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan
• civil rights leader Jesse Jackson
• veteran anchor Bill Moyers

Now that I got that off my chest. I want to be able to let it be known that he's more like an entertainment to me! He so igoranant it's funny. His obnoxious behavior, his demeanor and his conservative bias makes him more little than his so-called 6'4" height. Yeah. The Entertainment Factor. Oh by the way, you ever wonder why Billy is never in the public eye. Does he wear a bulletproof vest or has a automatic starter similar to 50 Cent? LILVOKA

Kudos

I first decided to join the Wikipedian community after reading this O'Reilly article and being a tad peeved at the bias. (Well, actually I was in a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy, but I've since calmed down :) But, I have to say, I am truly amazed at how much fairer this article has become. Well done! Now, I'm not saying O'Reilly himself would approve of his treatment here. But that's not really the point...is it? Note to All Those Who Helped reduce POV in this article: Come to the Karl Rove article. We need your help. STAT! Big Daddy 16:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Westbury vs. Levittown

This accusation against O'Reilly is alleged to be false. I will remove it to here for now to prevent the use of wikipedia to spread lies any further until we can get to the bottom of this.

===Regarding His background===

Bill O'Reilly has long noted his working-class roots as his inspiration for speaking up for average Americans, or what he calls 'the folks'. He often points to his boyhood home in lower-middle-class Levittown, New York as a credential. As with most details surrounding the man, this has been the subject of much debate:

Al Franken, the Washington Post, and others have asserted that O'Reilly did not grow up in Levittown, but instead in a more affluent neighboring village, Westbury. The source the Post used for their assertion was O'Reilly's mother, who at the time a profile of O'Reilly was published in 2000 still lived in O'Reilly's boyhood home.^[10] O'Reilly has indicated in interviews since the article was published, notably including his 2004 appearance on The Late Show with David Letterman, that his mother felt as though she was misinterpreted.

here is a very detailed if biased site on the subject: http://lyingliar.com/lies/oreilly/levittown.htm

here's a better shot of the deed: http://www.frankenlies.com/levittown.htm

We probably need a better source to be safe. I really hope that bit about "misinterpreted" was not a knowing reference to this counter evidence (apparently O'Reilly actually displayed the deed on his show at one point). Its tough to do a search with all the clueless blogs out there clogging up google. 71.128.137.211 10:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is counter-evidence to the claim, add it. Do not remove the sourced statements in the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 10:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am clearly seeking discussion on this issue prior to a final version, but we can do it your way. by the way I've been around in one form or another for months and I'm not going anywhere so learn to deal with my edits and please try harder to assume good faith. 71.128.137.211 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I re-edited the personal background and the Levittown vs. Westbury segment. Basically, I think it is a semantic argument. Franken and O'Reilly critics are playing jurisdictional games as to the location of the house in relation to political boundaries on a map, while O'Reilly and his allies think that Levittown is a state of mind and a reference to the type of people that live there. Unfortunately, that copy of the deed proves nothing because it doesn't have the street address, or else I would compare the location to a map of city limits in 1951 and we would be settled. Of course, there are good reasons not to print the street address of a currently existing house. So my edit, by readding information about O'Reilly's youth in Levittown (which, by the way, should have never been deleted as it is all public information), and being "fair and balanced" about the debate at the end, should please (or at least try to please) all sides. Calwatch 05:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

we aren't required to please all sides, only to stick to verifiable facts. It is a verifiable fact for which there can be found multiple credible sources that state O'Reilly grew up in an area of tract housing built by the Levitt company and called the Westbury section of Levittown[11], exactly the answer he gave to Franken, for which Franken called him a liar. There is no burden on O'Reilly to give away his mother's address for your personal satisfaction. As for criticizing deletions, look at the article from a month ago when the section was over three paragraphs long and there were actually some arguments and references in O'Reilly's defense. Here is one of them: [12]. 67.124.200.240 12:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The article from the Levittown Tribune that you linked clearly states that O'Reilly grew up in the incorporated Village of Westbury, a functioning political jurisdiction. I think Al Franken is trying to make to imply things about Westbury based on the city he grew up in, but even the local Levittown paper doesn't deny that he grew up in the village of Westbury. And there is a burden on O'Reilly to give away information if it proves his case. If he doesn't want to (and not for my own personal satisfaction either, a cheap shot on your part), that's fine, but that stills means this is in inconclusive. Sure he grew up in Levittown, with a Levittown post office, but he was receiving municipal services from Westbury, which because of a bigger tax base might have been better that Billy Joel's municipal services in Hicksville. I don't know. Calwatch 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Unverified statement removed

This claim in the article was positioned to imply it comes from the USA Today reference but it clearly does not. I checked the other relevant sources in the article and don't see anything on the subject:

...although it is believed that O'Reilly paid Mackris several million dollars to settle the case (Mackris purchased a New York City condo for $809,000 shortly after the settlement)

71.128.137.211 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Um -- I inserted factual info on what Levittown is, and isn;t -- and someone removed it (sigh). As it was NPOV entirely, why pull it when it factually states what Levittown was? 70.152.31.61 18:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As reporter Jack Shafer noted in Slate on July 16, 2004: "O'Reilly said on the July 14 broadcast that he has the deed to his parents' house. I have no reason to doubt him. But as reader Martin J. Gaynes points out, the document on O'Reilly Web site that I linked to is a copy of a portion of his parents' mortgage. A mortgage document doesn't necessarily prove location. A copy of the deed would be more persuasive."

The document I read that O'Reilly posted was in fact a mortgage, not a deed, so I made the appropriate change to the article. --Parkerss 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the sponge?

This article covers the basics of the sex scandal, but doesn't mention the famous loofah/falafel sex talk. Why not? I think it's noteworthy -- if you saw someone make reference to Bill O'Reilly and loofah and you came to this page, you wouldn't know what they were talking about (and people do tend to make reference to it). Or whatever. --Malvolio80 19:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason is obvious, Fox news hires a flunky to sanitize Wikipedia references to their brand properties.

Incomplete Article

I have a lot of issues with the article. It seems to document many of his conservative positions and all of the disputes(which currently are out of place and should be redone in a criticism and Controversy sections) but the article fails to mention any of his libertarian/liberal positions(they do exist) in depth and it only includes four topics. Really, the biggest glaring admission is his views on Iraq and the Mexico-American border. There are many others, and it should be noted that these are just a few topics he covers indepth. Falphin 21:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a cleanup tag on this article. The article has lots of grammatical errors, some POV issues, and its incorrect in many of its statements. C clean up is more encompassing that a NPOV tag and the cleanup might get rid of all prior vandalism(I have a feeling there is much still in the article). Falphin 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup is good. I think the article, while devoting a bit more space to the controversy than to positives, like his successful book career, is still fundamentally accurate. Some facts could be condensed or be in a separate article, for instance, a separate article on the Andrea Mackris affair with more information would be a start. Calwatch 08:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist?

If we are going to have O'Reilly described as a "traditionalist" in the second paragraph, could someone please go and fill in Traditionalist with whatever that actually means. AlistairMcMillan 02:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly: "Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime." "The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda. Poll after poll has demonstrated that Fox's audience is across the board, ideologically and demographically. The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultraconservative viewers watch CNN than Fox." [13]. Looks to me like "Traditional" is O'Reilly's weasel word for Conservative, same with "Populist". Funny contradiction there too, First he says Fox is "populist-traditional and pro-American", and then he turns around and says "Fox's audience is across the board". - Mr. Tibbs 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fox News is conservative. To deny that would be as big a lie as to say that the ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are not liberal. I think "traditional" probably is a euphemism for conservative but "populist" is something different. O'Reilly generally is quite conservative but after hearing his complaints recently about big oil companies making too much money recently from gouging I'd entertain the argument he's "populist" or even "authoritarian". Just as with the Michael Moore article, I really believe some kind of political description should be in his header section. -- Lawyer2b 04:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Traditionalist currently redirects to Tradition. Unless I'm missing something that doesn't explain what it means if we say Bill O'Reilly is a traditionalist. AlistairMcMillan 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Alistair, I agree. I think having O'Reilly described as Traditionalist and having it link to Tradition doesn't work. IMHO, If we put the word traditionalist in, it should link to a page that gives it some meaning and until then we should leave it out. However, I'm not in favor of having people described solely by their own choice of adjective when many would disagree. If how O'Reilly describes himself, as a moderate is going to be included perhaps something else should be referenced like, "...but many feel he is conservative in his views." -- Lawyer2b 20:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Used this: [14] as a source. If anyone finds a better source, feel free to replace. - Mr. Tibbs 21:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Neutrality Issue

I question the neutrality of this article. All controversies described there are written as actual rebuttals or justifications of O'Reilly's. 200.178.22.27 19:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Large Unexplained Deletions

Looking over the history of this article, there have been several unexplained deletions of entire sections. As such I will readd those sections from this version of this article: [15]. And here's the difference between that version and the current one: [16] - Mr. Tibbs 06:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Endorsing Forrester

Bill O'Reilly just flat out endorsed Doug Forrester for governor of New Jersey. No "I like him better", no "make up your own minds". He said flat out "vote for Forrester" because of the whole Jessica's Law. A blatant partisan act that demands mentioning.

Homosexual?

According to several sources (including http://oreillygayfuel.ytmnd.com/) I believe that O'Reilly is a homosexual. Is this true? 66.41.212.243 06:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it true? Who knows. Does that link count as evidence? No. — ceejayoz ^{talk .com} File:Australia flag large.png 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be consistent with a pattern of self-hating gays proliferating as right-wing reactionaries ever since Roy Cohn and J. Edgar Hoover. Include Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove in the self-hating gay category.

If somebody doesn't like asians, does that make them a self-hating asian, even if they aren't asian? Food for thought. Unless you have solid proof, it doesn't belong.

O'Reilly to Al Qaeda ... please blow up San Francisco

I kid you not. "Every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."[17] Derex @ 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal without explanation

Who removed the part of the article about John Kerry, centering around how Bill O'Reilly called Kerry a "sissy" a half a dozen times on the radio factor after the election?

French Boycott

The only thing I addes to this page has been removed, and I don't understand the reason behind it: On Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, October 18, 2005, O'Reilly confirmed that the boycott is still in place, referring to the French as "our enemies".

I think it relevant that he said that the boycott is still going on, and that he called the French "our enemies". He said it, why not put it in? I've put it back now, and will follow this discussion-page.

HOLY MOTHER OF ... -- This is an encyclopedia!

This is just plain stupid. I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site. Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense and insignificant updates on whatever hateful thing he said the previous night. If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded. Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.

If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game. In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic. There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations. -- Plastic Editor 12:26, 3 December 2005

(p.s. - this message repeated above, because it's important.)

No, that message was repeated above when you pulled the same stunt of gutting the article, and then Wikipedia slowly healed itself, and now you are coming back to gut this article again. No. I don't care what you think about "flooding this article" that's no excuse to come along and rip out perfectly valid information. Ditto for kbh3rd. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Major rewrite called for

The blog analogy is right on. The article in this form does not belong here. The guy is intentionally controversial. It's enough to state that and give a couple of supporting examples. It is entirely out of place to come here every single day to add archive every single thing he says that gets your goat. -- Kbh3rd 18:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what's your suggestion on what to do? The guy literally lies about things (effects of french boycott, awards that he has won, what Jeremy Glick really said on his program) all the time. Should we just edit out all of the "disputes with" and stick in the words, "O'Reilly is a Fat Fuck. The End"? Suggestions are appreciated. -- 69.249.195.232

I would first suggest that anyone with such strong views as stated above is likely to find it very hard to hold themselves to Wikipedia's standard of maintaining a neutral point of view in their edits and should consider recusing themselves from the maintenance of this article.

Viewpoints – strong, passionate viewpoints – are legitimate and due their space, but not in Wikipedia's space. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [18] It is legitimate to document that these strong viewpoints exist on the subject, and to document why, but this is not the place to advocate, and that is what is happening here. Read the NPOV tutorial and Guidelines for controversial articles. (Go ahead. We'll wait.)

It should be adequate to say, in so many words, that he is an intentionally controversial and confrontational personality, and that the way he goes about that (with a couple of examples, not an endless litany) has caused his integrity to be questioned. End of article. (FWIW, I do not have cable, have never seen Bill O'Reilly or heard his radio program, and have no opinion on the man or his shows.) -- Kbh3rd 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please corroborate "routine interview editing" claim

Admittedly I do watch Bill O'Reilly myself, therefore I may be a bit biased in his favor, however I truely, honestly don't think he blatantly and routinely edits his interviews in order to make himself look better as somebody else had written in this wikipedia entry. If somebody believes otherwise, please corroborate that with a VERIFIABLE LEGITIMATE SOURCE and link it into the wiki page. Until that is done, I have removed that particular entry from this page.

Instead I replaced it with words stating that it is possibly edited for clarity, but I am not certain if he even makes those kinds of edits (which are common for all news shows actually.) The only edits I have known for him to make are splitting the interviews in order to accomodate commercial breaks.

This is my first ever edit to wikipedia, and I do believe I followed the NPOV guidelines to the letter while doing so.

Thank you.

I did a little bit of research into this issue and found some interesting things. Apparently there was an incident in which O'Reilly so heavily edited a statement by Joseph Biden that he not only changed Biden's meaning, but then took the words out of Biden's mouth and used them himself. Here is an article that explains in text what exactly was spliced: [19], here is an article on Biden's statement: [20], I also found a video of an Al Franken show where Al explains in video how exactly the statement was spliced: [21]. I found that video on this page: [22]. However I am unsure as to how to incorporate this into the article. And I also have yet to find evidence of splicing of actual interviews. -- Mr. Tibbs 18:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What should be done, in my oppinion is to allude to the "videogate" incident, to include brief (e.g. 1-3 sentence) synopsis about what the critics believe to have happened, as well as an equally sized synopsis of an official response from either somebody at fox, or O'Reilly himself. Do not link to any biased or one sided sources/links on this particular item (this is a bit of a pet peve of mine on wikipedia, people often link to sources that paint a completely one sided picture, treating the NPOV rules as if they absolutely do not apply to sources) and restrict the information to just the facts. Also a single sentence note about this incident being part of his political commentary (which AFAICT is intended to be Bills oppinion on the issues, and not actual facts) and not an interview would probably be merited as well.

Also, on the note of the interviews, it should be noted that even on his most publicised one with Jeremy Glick, he left the whole thing intact. Even where he told the producer to cut his mic, where he told him to shut up, and even where he was giving hand gestures to the studio crew just before the cut to the commercial. One should figure that if he does edit his interviews, that one would have been edited the most of all.

I went ahead and modified this particular section to further reflect my suggested changes, except for one thing. I created a wikipedia link to a Videogate page. Somebody should write up an unbiased description of Videogate on that particular page as I don't think any unbiased sources explaning videogate exist anywhere else on the internet.

2 Disclaimers Now

In addition to the NPOV warning at the top of this article, I've tagged it for clean-up. I think both are warrented, though if we only wanted to have one, I'd stick with the clean-up. It's a sprawling mess even more than it is a biased one. --Plastic Editor

Concur. This article exhibits neither NPOV nor good formatting. (The formatting may actually be a more significant issue than the vandalism/POV at this point.) To be honest, it would be really great if we could just blast it and start anew. --DolphinCompSci

anti-semitism?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412100002

'War on Christmas' picture

Somebody from Dailykos added a picture of a screenshot showing O'Reilly online store using the word 'holiday' rather than Christmas - something O'Reilly has criticized other businesses for. I removed the picture from the article, but not because I felt it was dishonest - just redundant. The person explains the situation in the 'War on Christmas' section and links to the Dailykos article that displays this screenshot. If somebody is genuinely curious about this, they can see it all by clicking the link. Repeating the picture in the actual article is a bit much, and gives this little squable too great an emphasis. -- Plastic Editor Dec. 6 2005

Cleanup tag

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

Almost as big a problem as the tone of the article is the size and structure - it's not encyclopedic. Visitors come from Media Matters for America or Dailykos, which monitor O'Reilly for bonehead statements, and add them to the Wikipedia article. As a result, the article is too long and filled with silly squabbles - O'Reilly's public persona is all about creating controversy, so this article is likely screwed until he retires in 2007. Still, I would recommend that the cleanup tag remains, to encourage people to purge the unnecessary as well as the biased. Plastic Editor 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Recommend removing entire sections

This article is full of many items that really don't belong. I recommend removing the following sections entirely:

- Campaigns and recurring themes
- Highly publicized disputes
- Public controversies

The fact of the matter is that almost all of these things either haven't fully developed, are taken out of context, or simply don't belong in an encyclopedia. Many of these items are introduced by people who frequent websites that are either biased in favor or against Bill O'Reilly, and are more or less spurr of the moment that somebody just thought they would "add" because it furthers their oppinion of the guy. IMO these sections should be removed and not even be considered to be re-added until at least a year after Bill retires, at about which time these stories will have fully matured. -- 24.251.111.200

Removing these sections completely would be a bit harsh - I would say reducing each section to a small paragraph is more like it. For instance, 'Highly Publicized Disputes' could be boiled down to a paragraph regarding his contentious nature. There should at the very least be mention of his longstanding rivalry with Al Franken and his interview with Jeremy Glick, as he's never been able to escape those issues. But the Al Franken thing could be a sentence or two, maybe more for Glick. His trash-talking of John Kerry, Jack Murtha and Cindy Sheehan is pretty irrelevent to an encyclopedia article though, and wouldn't be missed.

I am against deleting Campaigns and Recurring themes - again, it could all be boiled down to far fewer senteces, but the section should remain to summarize these things he spends most of his time criticising.

Public Controversies, though - thats mostly ridiculous. I'd just retain mention of his public apology on Good Morning America, brush on the sex scandal, and purge everything else.

(oh, and a reminder ... sign your messages.) -- Plastic Editor December 8 2005 14:58 ET

Picture caption

Can someone explain why they are putting the "posed publicity photo" caption next to O'Reilly? Does it even matter that the picture is posed? Do we put that caption on anyone else's picture, like George Bush? No. Calwatch 22:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between a news photo or "actuality" photo taken of someone working and a posed portrait or publicity photograph. If a shot is clearly a publicity photo or an official portrait (as exists of G. W. Bush from his days as Governor of Texas on his page) then it is not inappropriate to label the shot as such. There is no negative or pejorative associated with it. It simply makes underscores the origin of the photo. One could remove the word "posed" if it truly troubles someone (though it really shouldn't) but identifying it as a "publicity photograph" is factual Davidpatrick 00:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is. First off, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to strive for conciseness. Secondly, placing this treatment on O'Reilly doesn't conform to standard wikipedia practice. Finally, those that want to find the status of the photo can click through and the source of the photo should be in the notes attached to the picture page. Putting that just lends to the tone that the article is anti-O'Reilly, when it should be NPOV. Calwatch 03:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Affirmed. Almost every photo of an individual seen on wikipedia is posed and intended for publicity. You'd be hard pressed to find one that isn't, especially when it comes to paintings of people who lived before any kind of photograph technology even existed. Furthermore, it does not help anybody to know whether or not a photo was for publicity. The purpose of the photo is so that somebody who doesn't know anything about the guy can see his face along with his biography. Pointing out that the photo is for publicity can only serve the purpose of bias in that you leave the reader with an impression that this pleasant side of Bill can only be seen in a staged setting, which is simply not true of any person. The name, and the name only, will work just fine.

Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly

It seems that a little bit of a fued is developing between these two. Stewart just tore O'Reilly a new asshole on his show tonight, specifically over the fact that O'Reilly pulled out a clip of Stewart mocking Christmas a federal holiday, from a full YEAR AGO and attempting to make it look like he said it recently. Stewart was visibly agitated, he said something along the lines of "Apparently we liberal secular fags here at Comedy Central hate Christmas".

It wasn't even Jon Stewart...it was Samantha Bee who said "December 25th is the only Federal holiday that coincides with a religious holiday. That way, Christians can attend religious services and everyone else can stay at home pondering the true meaning of the separation of church and state." (Or something to that affect.) I just re-watched that segment of the Daily Show this morning, and I would say that Stewart was probably *acting* when he was visibly agitated. *shrug* DolphinCompSci 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Move request removed

Going by the number of people opposing moving the article, I am removing the move request.

O'Reilly

O'Reilly rules! Эйрон Кинни 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Next up on the chopping block...

Anybody second my motion to delete the final paragraph/subsection, "On Brown University"? This is not a very public controversy - or a very controversial controversy, as far as O'Reilly is concerned. Worse, the writing has POV issues, with the author having outlined the "subtext" of the segment. I don't know how this one managed to stay on the page for almost a month. Plastic Editor December 11 2005 03:06 ET

I second the deletion. While I'm a big O'Reilly fan, I try to listen for whatever the liberal scuttlebutt is about him and I haven't heard anything about this being controversial. Lawyer2b 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality and Clean-Up

I have to say, I'm quite surprised to see the two disclaimer tags on this article. Although it has a number of grammatical errors and some poorly constructed sentences, these are no more prevalent than on many other pages. I certainly think that it seems to give a reasonably balanced point of view (again, especially compared to some other pages), although I'm not an American and have only a dim awareness of this gentleman. In fact, it seems to me to a bit of a triumph- an example of a collaborative wikipedia article regarding an obviously controversial figure that gives (at least to my (uninformed) reading) a fair go to both sides of the coin. He certainly seems to be an interesting character anyway. Just a comment.

San Fransisco

I don't understand why this section was removed, as it was highly relevant, as calling for a terrorist attack on a city simply because they disagree with your opinion is not exactly regular political rhetoric. No leftists ever call for the bombing and destruction of Houston because of Souther conservative fanaticism. What O'Reilly said is a major issue. It was poisonous and has to be mentioned. In John Kerry's article there's a mention of the fact that he joked that the secret service had orders to shoot Dan Quail if Bush Senior died while in office, yet this is removed? Give me a break. This warrants definite inclusion. If you're going to remove it again, give a reason.

--- Reason was given in the history log - a more succinct and less editorialized account of the incident is under 'Highly Publicized Disputes' in the article. You should really register with Wikipedia and log in to make changes and participate on the Talk page, so people can let you know personally why they are modifying any addition you've made. Also, then you could sign your posts. --relaxathon 15:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No he/she shouldn't if they don't want to. Refusing to countenance anonymity is anti-wiki. Nothing in the rules (including recent changes) bars editors from maintaining anonymity. See FAQ's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ and the discussion at [[23]] . It annoys me when registered users imply that all editors must be registered (I should say however that your comment was at least sensible and well-meaning, unlike some I have seen). (I am not the above contributor by the way).

Cutting to the Truth

O'Reilly's willingness to cut through rehearsed lines and get through to the truth has resulted in conflict with a number of public figures in the public disputes section is definitely POV. O'reilly has been known to make up facts. someone change it im too lazy. 66.41.59.162 02:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That line and many others are a problem standing in the way of this being a good article. A biographical article shouldn't be so hostile in tone unless they attacked Poland in 1939 or something really bad. Seems to me, those who disagree with O'Reilly have turned this into a virtual punching bag for the guy. Very ugly. Fluterst 12:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And it seems that you, Fluterst, have gone on an editing crusade to turn as much of this article into a pro-O'Reilly one, eliminating well-known (and therefore relevant) criticism of the show, and sanitizing it into what might as well be an officially sanctioned O'Reilly biography. For this article to be accurate, you must allow both pro- and anti-O'Reilly comments, ESPECIALLY when they are well known and researched. ALL relevant criticisms as well as supporting statements about this individual must remain in the article. --Ilyag 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it shouldn't contain Pro OR Anti- O'Reilly comments, and it doesn't need to discuss, in detail, every single stupid thing he's said. And I'm wondering if you're referring to a number of the edits I've made to the article, because I've sanded it down quite a bit. I wasn't looking to 'sanitize' or make it glowing, just read like an informative encyclopedia article and not a repetitive tract. People can very easily visit Media Matters for America if they want a closer look at how many factually innacurate things he's said recently. --relaxathon 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry Ilyag, I just caught a glimpse of Fluterst's edits, and yes - they've definitely made some dubious ones. Flute, seriously, this article needs to be cut down, but you can't just cut the things that aren't particularly flattering to O'Reilly. You removed the paragraph on O'Reilly's voter registration, when it's actually one of the rare cases where we had valid sourcing for the entire thing, and the underlying issue is very important to O'Reilly's image as an "independent" commentator. I restored that, and somebody should probably comb over Fluterst's other edits to make sure they're square. --relaxathon 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult (but not impossible) to make this a factually accurate and nonbiased article. Let's face it: O'Reilly is a very, very controversial character, with very, very controversial attitudes and sentiments. I'd like to blast the whole article and start anew, to be honest, as I've said above: it's tagged both NPOV and cleanup. --DolphinCompSci

I'm with Relaxathon, no positive or negative comments are necessary, it should be an encylopedia article. It isn't. It's a leftist diatribe against a TV commentator who has offended them. This is the Wikipedia they warned us about. Fluterst 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd almost give the typical leftist response and ask "The Wikipedia that O'Reilly warned you about?" But that's not particularly nice or appropriate. On the subject, With the exception of minor edits, no editing should be performed on this article without substantial discussion and without consensus. Regardless of your political orientation, there's a process to follow here. DolphinCompSci 17:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is one long denunciation of Bill O'Reilly as many have acknowledged. It ought not stand. Just because 100 leftists agree doesn't change the fact that the first obligation of an encylopedia article is to the truth, verified facts and to a neutral approach to the subject matter. My edits address that, if there any specifically you have a problem with, let me know, I'll stand by each one and discuss. Fluterst 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags still necessary?

Having just read over the article I was at a loss to discover any overt bias in any passage, and what incidental bias there was tended to no political viewpoint (some was supportive, some was negative, none was significant enough to remove). Are the tags still necessary? Better to be safe than sorry, to be sure; but tagging a good article is not much better than failing to tag a bad one. Wally 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The cleanup tag should remain, but I certainly don't understand why the neutrality of the article is being questioned. Unless someone can specifically state why the article is biased, the tags should be removed. 200.122.158.40 13:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This talk page extensively documents why the neutrality of the article is in question. It has good weeks and bad, with people constantly adding a ton of useless info to reflect negatively on O'Reilly, people adding a bunch of overly positive stuff about him, people coming in and deleting anything at all unflattering, people deleting anything mildly positive...and of course, every now and then somebody comes in to try to neutralize things. But given the fact that it is a constant struggle, with biased edits not always being caught for some time, I think the NPOV tag needs to remain - nobody has the time to monitor this page enough (nor should they), so the least we can do is warn readers to take the article with a grain of salt. I would guess things will remain that way until O'Reilly's planned retirement in '07. --relaxathon 16:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup should stay still. The POV tag could go, since the total bias is < abs(.5). Mayhaps we need a new tag that warns "This page is extremely volatile, and may not always conform to NPOV standards for Wikipedia. See the Talk Page for discussion." DolphinCompSci 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That would actually be an excellent solution. Do you think there'd be any chance of us getting a tag like that added to Wikipedia? --72.224.182.201 21:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We shall see. I'd sure be in favor of it, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly whom to talk to on that. *prods nearest experienced Wikier* DolphinCompSci 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is always going to be the victim of the left-wing majority in Wikipedia. That's a fact. I have changed what I could. Indeed the only reason I came was to look into the whole Wikipedia thing after seeing it on Fox News defaming people about the Kennedy assassination. My concerns have not been allayed from what I've seen here or on the Ward Churchill page. It's a topsy turvy world when Bill O'Reilly is condemned and Ward Churchill presented as a misunderstood freedom fighter. This is all going to end in one big lawsuit, is my belief. The idea that you can anonymously lie about people - even if public figures - is fine probably on a site no one visits but it's not going to last now that Wikipedia gets many visitors. I don't know how this will be addressed, all I know is what I see. A very active and swift left-wing majority pushing its views very hard on every conceivable area of Wikipedia. I'll stick it out over Christmas but won't bother much after that. Just one lawsuit is going to sink this whole encyclopedia. Just one. Who among you is going to be responsible for that? Fluterst 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't know whom that's aimed at and that's almost personally offensive. I think that instead of throwing up our hands and saying "Well, gosh, this is the end!" we should instead do the wiki-thing and innovate a solution for it. While a volatile page flag would not fully shake off the responsibility of this community to present an as objective-as-possible encyclopaedia, it would at the very least provide a warning that someone can't possibly be expected to babysit the O'Reilly page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Innovate, collaborate. (As an off-topic side note, it's very difficult to actually prove allegations of libel, especially for public figures. But you already knew that.) DolphinCompSci 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not aimed at anyone personally, but to those responsible for the left-wing nature of many of the articles on Wikipedia. I don't mean this disrespectfully, I think it's a widely held view. I have no idea what the solution is, I might add. There are more leftists here than others, so how do you fix it? I don't know, what I do know is when an article claims someone falsified their hometown, infers they are sexual perverts, liars, intolerant of the views of others then it is probably not as hard as you might think to file a viable libel claim, EVEN against a public figure like O'Reily. The real point is, who would pay if he did win. The Wikipedia Foundation? Jimmy Wales? The authors, whose anonymity would be removed by the legal process. Free speech belongs to everyone but what goes on here in its name would have the founding fathers spinning in their dusty graves. Don't let Wikipedia become a defamation manufacturing facility, or continue to be. I won't be around here for long as I have better things to do after my vacation but I hope someone who cares about it is reading. Fluterst 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Fluterst

Fluterst: Please post your proposals for your numerous edits in a bulleted list below. As this is a collaborative editorial process, and because this article is of a decidedly controversial nature, we should all look at your proposals individually and discuss their inclusion or exclusion in the article, as your edits are quite significant and shift the tone of the whole article. If you have questions about the purpose of this request, please see the Wikipedia guideline article on reaching a Concensus. --Ilyag 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My proposals are in the article and a merely an attempt to moderate the rather obvious bias in this article. Please post your objections to my changes in a bulleted list below. Fluterst 09:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Neutrality - Obviously a biased article, at least once my changes are auto-reverted. In at least one case, this has led to the restoration of spelling errors, demonstrating how little attention those doing the reverting are paying to the content.

Factual errors - Unsourced and erroneous assertions riddle this article. I invite all to read the article and see how few of its claims are sourced or verifiable.

If the article can't be improved because of the weight of left-wing opinion here, fair enough, but the tags should stay so no one is mistaken into believing the article has any foundation in fact or a neutral stance to its subject. It is an unfair and putrid hatchet job on someone - just like everyone else - deserves neutrality in an encyclopedia article. Compare the left-wing editors' preferred version with Britannica as one example and you'll see what I mean. It reads like an undergraduate student newspaper rant against O'Reilly, which is probably where it has come from. Fluterst 09:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst, you have already been asked very nicely to list your proposed changes in a bulleted list. Please do so before making any additional "improvements." If you have any problems with what you consider to be a "left-wing" bias in the article , please detail them here so others can consider whether they are legitimate concerns. So far, all you've done is make vague comments about "erroneous assertions" and "putrid hatchet jobs." Thanks. Hal Raglan 16:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Hal, why don't you try comparing the two different versions of the article. That will certainly reveal the problem areas, erroneous assertions, putrid hatchet jobs, innuendo, libel, smear and sneer that I think should be corrected. If you like you can list them here in bullet points, or not. It's up to you. But meanwhile please do not remove the marker until the matters are resolved. No wonder Wikipedia is getting such a bad name, with articles of this quality. Fluterst 05:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

vdiffing the articles does show some (large) changes in verbage. Changes should STILL nonetheless be discussed on this page in bullet-point form before they are committed. I do agree there's a POV/Neutrality/... problem with this article, but that doesn't mean that one person in himself should go off making edits to the page that significantly change the page. We 'putrid left-wing angry undergraduate hacks' are very interested in making Wikipedia a credible source, so if you have suggestions, make them in accordance with our collaborative attitudes. This is one 'hack' who's willing to listen. DolphinCompSci 06:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dolphin, I won't be cataloging the changes needed because of the sheer volume although I stand by all the changes I've made and am happy to discuss any one or all of them. Consider the reluctance to call this journalist a journalist as a start. And also the restoration of spelling errors by this who don't even bother reading the article. I am free to edit this article, as I understand Wikipedia's ostensible doctrine, in any way I see fit and have done so. I don't doubt that any attempts to delouse this vile and obnoxious diatribe will be savagely resisted by those pushing a left-wing character assassination agenda. They can do their worst and I'll do my best to remedy it. The real scandal is that this is just one of thousands of articles with similar levels of salaciousness. Unless the subject matter is about physics or Esperanto, it seems Wikipedia's content has largely become corrupt, partisan, vindictive and erroneous. I'm glad someone is listening but the best way forward is to take action to remedy it. I would certainly support any such initiative. Fluterst 07:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's editorial process works by Concensus. Many of your edits don't have it. This is the reason they're not being permitted and are repeatedly reverted, and will continue to be reverted until a concensus is reached. THIS is the place to get concensus from your fellow Wikipedia editors and contributors, so I suggest you use this discussion accordingly, and not to lash out at Wikipedia's editing guidelines (which you aren't following to begin with by refusing to reach a concensus, so your moral authority on the topic ends before it has begun)

I say Wikipedia's editorial process is not working at all whether by consensus or otherwise. I have no doubt my changes to minimize bias will be reverted by those pushing their agenda of character assassination. I don't claim moral authority, I just want the facts to be included in the article without left-wing opinion. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You did cite one example, however: "Consider the reluctance to call this journalist a journalist as a start." One who practices journalism is a person who presents news. Bill O'Reilly's television and radio shows are ENTIRELY centered on presenting DISCUSSION of the news, not the news itself.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I watch it regularly and disagree. I think it's very clearly a news program. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact, in the middle of his television show, the Fox News Channel frequently runs news alerts where an actual journalist does present the latest news.

An 'actual journalist' in contrast to a 'former news journalist.' He's still a journalist. Trust me. I know. I asked him. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is a former news journalist. He is currently a host of a debate show. There is, in fact, a difference.

Your opinion. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly is currently no more a journalist than is Al Franken. Do you consider HIM a journalist?

No I consider Franken a political candidate. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I certainly don't, despite him hosting an almost identical show on the Air America radio station. --Ilyag 07:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have requested for informal arbitration from the Mediation Cabal. Please do not edit the article for now. --Ilyag 08:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ilyag has been asked to substantiate his authority for imposing a stop to editing. Until he does so, I think all should feel free to edit away. Fluterst 08:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works if this is your problem here. It seems to me like you're doing nothing but lashing out against Wikipedia as a concept. According to your edit history, you've vandilized other pages as well, with similar results (and have gotten stricter warnings in those cases). You can't be allowed to use this, or any other article, as a soap box to air your grievances which aren't so much about the article itself as they are about the overall concept of Wikipedia.

Most of the things you've taken out of this specific article is noteworthy criticism of O'Reilly. Your reason for taking those things out is that they hurt his image. How can you possibly maintain that these weren't biased edit attempts on your part to do this? Likewise, most things you've put in have changed many neutral statements about O'Reilly and turned them into flowery praises. Again, how can you claim that these aren't biased edits? Even if I personally stop reverting your edits, other people have and will continue to do this themselves. That should be your clue that what you're doing isn't acceptable here. It has nothing to do with me specificailly. I'm just the one person who keeps commenting about this in this Talk page because I'm more vocal about my opposition to your edits than others. --Ilyag 18:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You assert rules and then decline to reference them. Then you tell me I don't know how Wikipedia works. I have not "vandilized" a single article. I have no problem with the concept of Wikipedia, just the hijacking of it of the kind demonstrated by this article.

I have removed unsourced, defamatory material certainly and considerably reduced its length as suggested by Wikipedia. I know that a non-defamatory article is not possible here. This is my experiment proving that point. I'll be passing the details of this whole incident to Bill O'Reilly's producer and the Wikipediaclassaction.org. Hopefully they can bring you all to account in a way I know I cannot. Fluterst 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I step away for sixty seconds and all of you start trying to kill the other through your keyboards...sigh...would all the involved parties please read WP:NLT, WP:NPA, and WP:DR. There are far better ways of settling things. DolphinCompSci 06:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

References

Greetings, What is going on with the references on this page? They do not match the numbers in the article. Let's all review Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Cite_sources/example_style and begin cleaning this up. Thanks, Steven McCrary 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The reference also don't support the claims they are associated with. They are used it seems to give the article a veneer of respectability despite its obvious flaws. Fluterst 20:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted many of the references. Many more to go, I could sure use some help here. I suggest that any references be placed at the end of the document. In the text use {{ref harvard}} and in the reference section use {{note label}} . Thanks. Also, I deleted a bunch of external references that seem irrelevant to me. At best, they are bibliographic, but Wikipedia tends not to list referenced sources in a bibliography. Steven McCrary 01:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we use Harvard citation formats, or those of the Modern Language Association? DolphinCompSci 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do my best, am seriouly confused by the format. Fluterst 01:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's response

Please see the [Mediator's response] for my response to the disputes on this page. Thanks, Steven McCrary 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Filed amicus curae response. DolphinCompSci 04:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is Bill O'Reilly a journalist or an opinionist?

I think he's a journalist. Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather would probably agree, as much as they would disagree with his opinions. For they two frequently expressed their opinion on air and would probably both resist being called an opinionist or commentator or whatever terms of abuse Wikipedia has in store for O'Reilly? Fluterst 01:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinionist is such a nasty term, but commentator would fit O'Reilly perfectly. (Disclosure: In the interest of getting all the opinions I can get, I watch the Factor, simply to see what other people think.) He does very little actual jouranlism (in the sense of investigating and looking for the story) and tends to comment more on the work others have done. Commentator, yes. Jouranlist, maybe. Opinionist, quite possibly, but that term carries a more negative connotation than commentator. DolphinCompSci 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on calling him a commentator. He was a journalist in his previous job at Inside Edition and his various stints at newspapers prior to his television career, so I think it's fair to refer to him as a journalist when discussing his professional past, and refer to him as a commentator in the present. --Ilyag 05:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment? where is choice three? mildly amusing rabid circus clown?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 05:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Opening Paragraphs - What Happened?

Okay, I agree with a lot of the edits made here recently, but what happened to the first two paragraphs? As much of a mess this article has been in the past, the opening was pretty right-on. Now it reads like an official bio from billoreilly.com, inflating achievements and deflating popular criticism.

Before, it listed his occupations, mentioned his top-rated status, his claims to the political center, and finally noted that he's quite controversial and criticised for conservatism. That was a fair overview. Now it's a little too glowing, plus the consistent charges of conservative bias have been evened out with criticism that he's too liberal - I really don't think these claims have equal footing. There are multiple websites and even widely-published books that accuse him of conservative/Republican bias; while certainly some of his centerfield opinions can irk hardcore conservatives, it's hardly as notable. His show may enjoy highlighting letters accusing him of both liberal and conservative bias, but clearly his major battles come from, as he would say, "the far-left" and progressives. Even he frequently admits to this.

I'm restoring them as they were before Christmas, and had been for quite some time. I will include some of that new award info, though. --relaxathon 05:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He is a journalist and deleting that is Orwellian spin. It ought to be a neutral exposition of his achievements and criticism of him. Even what I have edited does not really do that, it is still a very negative critique where an encyclopedia article is meant to be. Fluterst 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, because it doesn't say he is conservative, or make a judgement about his technique. It states that he is widely criticized for conservative bias, because he IS. It's a huge reason for the amount of publicity he recieves. He spends many, many of his 'talking points memos' and hours of his radio show defending himself from liberal criticism of his political slant.

Also, what is your justification for taking the controversy out of the San Francisco paragraph? I've had to keep restoring that too. It's fully sourced, unless you feel that the San Francisco Gate isn't worthy.

Stop being a wiki-goalie flute. You have to let articles evolve, you have to make major edits slowly and do so with input from the Talk page! --relaxathon 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what a wiki-goalie is. He is also criticized for liberal bias, almost every night on the show. The rest of your interpretation is with respect just that. You are entitled to it but your opinion isn't needed in an encyclopedia article, however well-informed and wise. I think the San Francisco yarn goes on and on, let's just have the facts and let the op-ed pages discuss the rest. I found originally a overly long, poorly structured, biased article and have greatly improved it. Those responsible for the original muck won't concede he's a journalist despite a thirty year career as one. No wonder Wikipedia is attracting class action lawsuits now, of the kind we can see at wikipediaclassaction.org. Very sad indeed. Fluterst 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The key is that the accusations of liberal bias are featured on his show, where he prides himself on being a moderate. That is content he hand-picks for his program, which is fine. The original article summary was more accurate to reflect the accusations of conservative bias as being far more widespread, because they are. Again, multiple books, websites, newspaper articles ... much more substantial than a few angry letters he reads at the end of his program. No? --relaxathon 07:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• not exactly open minded are you?--I have arrived just in time 07:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Voter Registration

I assume I'm addressing Flute with this one - again, some of your edits are great, but come on - the battle about his voter registration is pretty notable. It was part of an investigative report by a major newspaper, was addressed several times on television by O'Reilly himself, and his statements were contradicted by a published copy of the forms in question. Couple that with the fact that O'Reilly's 'independent' political status is a main selling point for his commentary -- how can you dispute the paragraph that existed previously?

First, you deleted mention of it entirely. Then, after it was restored, you reduced it down to the following sentence:

Now a registered Independent (after being a ticket-splitting registered Republican for six years), he is independent of both major political parties and engages in criticism of both from time to time.

Sorry, but this is spin. Nobody knows how O'Reilly split his ticket, but we do know that he quickly changed his affiation as it was about to be revealed in print. We do know he denied that there was any option for registering independent of a political party, but that the since-unearthed form says that indeed there was. I don't care how you feel about O'Reilly, these are just facts, and it's the kind of sourcable, highly-publicized story that people come to Wikipedia to read about.

Anyone who feels as strongly about Bill O'Reilly as you do needs to take a break from this article. --relaxathon 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel no more strong about Bill O'Reilly than I do George Soros, two articles I've edited quite sensibly. He says he is a ticket-splitter, I am comfortable with that as a source. Do you propose another? I deleted it initially because it was unsourced, the references meant to prove it did not. I am no expert but the warning just below where I'm typing says content must not violate copyright and must be verifiable. Sources are needed and they need to be checked, if Wikipedia's rules are applied here there will be a much improved article. If not then the article will continue to smear O'Reilly in a manner outside that of any encyclopedia published outside of Nazi Germany. Fluterst 06:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Arbitration

I do not believe that discussions with Fluterst resulted in any fruitful resolutions to any of the issues that this user has been involved with relating to the article. I have already tried for informal mediation with the Mediation Cabal. I believe the Fluterst issue requires formal Arbitration, as not only has this user not complied with NPOV policy (among other things, which I now consider to be pure vandalism despite my initial reaction that the user may have had valid complaints), she has also engaged in prohibited activities, not the least of which is threatening legal action, a definite no-no on Wikipedia. I have not made the request for Arbitration yet, however. I would like this to function as a survey over whether or not you believe arbitration is necessary in this case (see the article's edit history and some of the above discussion for a detailed account of reasons for this request). If the majority agrees, this will also serve as notification for Fluterst that this issue will be submitted for arbitration, as is Wikipedia's policy. If not, I will not attempt to submit this anywhere, even though I believe this user will continue to twist and spin factual information, unilaterally white-wash the article with biased statements, and remove as many items critical of O'Reilly as she can get away with (whether those items are themselves biased against O'Reilly, or are merely factual statements that just happen to say negative things about him), all the while ignoring all the lengthy attempts to get a compromise and build concensus. --Ilyag 08:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the vote you support, possibly adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion".

• Submit request for arbitration
  • Ilyag
  • Fluterst 08:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Good idea, this article is a disgrace and requires a formal review by people in charge of Wikipedia so someone can stand by the article in public view. wikipediaclassaction.org shows what's coming as a response to articles of this kind, as is much more public attention to these issues.
  • relaxathon
  • Horace Walpole 13:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Good idea, I'm new to Wikipedia but this is the first article I've seen that can be considered a disgrace, purely due to the unrelenting vandalism by user Fluterst. Looking back in the history for the article, it definitely used to conform to wikipedia's NPOV policy. However, all of this user's edits/changes have been attempts to insert a right-wing extremist bias into the article. His/her repeated threats of legal action against other users, as well as against Wikipedia in general, clearly show extreme bad faith.

• Do not submit request for arbitration

Discussion

Article title change

As O'Reilly is more accurately described as a journalist, I propose changing the title's name to Bill O'Reilly (journalist), I think this will be clearer, the current title makes him sound like a sports broadcaster. Fluterst 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Add his name to the list then? Mithridates 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure this change came to a consensus before it was made. I'm not going to revert quite yet, but who all was involved in the decision making process to make this change? Thanks. -Scm83x 10:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For reference, these are the wiki definitions of each of the two terms:

• A commentator is an individual who discusses social, political or cultural issues or events, typically in a public context; synonyms include pundit.
• A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people

I would like to see a public open debate about which category O'Reilly fits into before this page move becomes final. -Scm83x 10:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, though we should all bear in mind O'Reilly calls himself a journalist (after 30 years of being one) and Wikipedia calls news anchors like Cronkite and Rather journalists. Clearly all are/were involved in disseminating the news. Fluterst 11:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Rather and Cronkite are journalists (that is an issue for their articles), journalism is defined by the gathering AND dissemination of news. O'Reilly cites FOXnews reporters or other sources or in his commentary. He does not gather the news; he simply disseminates and comments on it. -Scm83x 11:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the issue is to be considered in a vacuum. There needs to be consistency across Wikipedia on this subject. News anchors are basically all journalists and I think to with-hold the category from journalists one disagrees with is probably not encyclopedic. There are many journalists not involved directly in news gathering, but in its dissemination. They are all journalists by any objective measure. Fluterst 11:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So, as a hypothetical, can I be called a journalist if i read Reuters news feeds for a podcast everyweek? I think that role is more of a conduit role. Every network has them; Bill O'Reilly is one of the commentators for FOX. He reviews news that has already been reported, and then comments on it. -Scm83x 11:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some might say if you were paid to do so, others might think you'd qualify with or without payment. It's journalism, reporting the news, there are many different roles within journalism, especially as people get more senior within it. My issue and I think the very serious issue for the integrity of Wikipedia is that Walter Cronkite can go unmolested as a described journalist but Bill O'Reilly cannot. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander, otherwise the cynical might assume that there is some unfair treatment going on. Fluterst 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The basic point I am making though, regardless of all these arguments, is that this decision was not a consensus. It is getting very late for me. Perhaps, as a gentleman's agreement, you should wait until morning (in America) to continue making changes, when other have had time to weigh in on the move. Would you be willing to do this? -Scm83x 11:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks considered 'journalists' by Wikipedia:

• Walter Cronkite
• Tom Brokaw
• Wolf Blitzer
• Dan Rather
• Anderson Cooper
• Charles Gibson - Good Morning America
• Enrique Gratas - Univision
• Ted Koppel
• Jane Pauley - Today
• Robert MacNeil
• Diane Sawyer
• Bob Schieffer
• Tim Russert - Meet the Press
• Maria Shriver
• Frank Reynolds

and finally, the final proof

• Chris Wallace (journalist)

What I don't get is why it's a fair description for them but not for O'Reilly? Fluterst 11:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) What changes do you mean?

I'm referring to changes to pages that link to the O'Reilly article. I'm not really even sure if I want to participate in this debate. I am just letting you know that there was no consensus when you made this change and therefore people are going to be upset. Being bold has its limits, especially when in the context of controversial articles. Please also consider that other users are considered arbitration and RfCs against you and this will only add fuel to that fire. Thanks. -Scm83x 12:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Can you explain this. I have one editor encouraging these changes and one against. I'm confused. Fluterst 12:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Wiki, decision are made by consensus. You should have placed a {{move}} template at the top of the article before making the change. The problem is that this is a controversial article and decisions require consensus. The template would have allowed proper debate. Please consider reverting your changes and placing the template. Just making changes without considering the views of others is never the best way to edit Wiki. Thanks. -Scm83x 12:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting which changes? I notified the change on the Talk page and have put I think a pretty compelling argument supporting it in light of the other journalists who play a very similar role to O'Reilly. Doesn't it puzzle you that Anderson Cooper is described as a journalist but Bill O'Reilly is a commentator? It certainly concerns me and reveals a lack of consistency and common sense in this article as it has been previously constituted. Fluterst 12:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting the move. I know nothing about the guy (I'm Canadian and I live in Korea) but a move tag is what is needed. People reading the article will be able to see right away that there are those that believe journalist to be a better title than a commentator (think that's what it was) and they'll keep that in mind. In the meantime people will talk here, come to a consensus, and there will be fewer problems. That is actually a more effective method to get something done here. Mithridates 12:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I also see that there was already a discussion on what to call him. See the archive and you can see why people came to use the title that they did. That's one reason why sudden moves are not a good idea because every once in a while a new user will come along and decide to change something that has already been discussed and settled upon from a few months or even years back. Mithridates 12:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean reverting the changes you have made (commentator -> journalist) on other pages. The problem here is that you notified on the talk page in the dead of night and then almost instantly made the change, without allowing for discussion. I do not want to debate you on the validity of your argument, as I said earlier. I am telling you that your method is not acceptable to the Wikipedia community in general. You will be able to assert your argument for the change in the page move debate in the proper venue. -Scm83x 12:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The pure weight of those doing the same kind of work on television as O'Reilly who are described as journalists persuades me that restoring a plainly wrong title would the wrong thing to do. There should be a consistent approach to these kinds of terms and I still haven't got an answer to the question why he's a commentator and others doing the same kind of work (even retired ones!) are called journalists. I think we are all grown up enough to know why this is, the article was a comprehensive attack on O'Reilly in the manner of an undergraduate political screed. I will be happy to move the title back if there's one person who can provide one legitimate reason why some journalists are called journalists and others doing exactly the same work are referred to as commentators. Fluterst 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a requirement that certain changes be only made during certain times. Can you point me to the page which details these, sorry I'm new to all this although I see while I was writing this comment the change was made without my consensus support. The inconsistency of the application of these rules is striking. Is there a place where these rules are noted down or are they just passed on by word of mouth? Fluterst 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The previous version (commentator) that you changed was the consensus version. Do not make page moves without requesting community consensus. In this case, Mithridates was reverting your change because you didn't acquire consensus before making the change. Now, we are trying to have a debate about the change. Do not move the page make to journalist again. You will have the opportunity to express your views in the page move debate Don't worry. Thanks. -Scm83x 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He complied with your request to change the page, yes I've figured out how to watch people's comments on talk pages. No doubt the consensus will decree him to be a commentator or perhaps even some more negative term. Either way, the fact this debate happens at all shows the extent of the corrupt cancer of bias that is eating at Wikipedia. It is very sad indeed. Fluterst 13:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I thanked Mith for making the change. I didn't ask him to do it. Please heed the wordsWoohookitty (talk · contribs) left on your user talk page. Guns blazin' is always a bad idea. Thanks. -Scm83x 13:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. Fluterst 13:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a detailed debate on this on the Talk page, which sets out many examples of where people engaged in identical work to O'Reilly are described as journalists. Characterizing him as a commentator is meant as a pejorative, it seems. Fluterst 12:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support He's a journalist, under any definition. Anderson Cooper of CNN is described as a journalist so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples above of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called journalists. The fact that this even has to be debated shows a pretty serious problem on Wikipedia... Fluterst 13:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose He's a commentator, not a journalist. Michael Savage is described as a commentator, so why isn't O'Reilly? There are numerous other examples of people doing exactly the same work as O'Reilly who are called commentators. The fact that this has been opened to debate shows a pretty serious problem of bias on the part of one specific Wikipedian...Horace Walpole 13:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that Horace has emerged to vote on this issue but seems not to have ever edited an article before. A quick learner perhaps? [24] Fluterst 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Here is another debate on the same thing and it looks like Reilly refers to himself as a journalist. I'm not a journalist, nor American, nor do I live in North America so I'm going to abstain but it looks like he is often referred to as a journalist and an anchor as well. Mithridates 13:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments