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

Previous discussion on this page has been archived at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (archive). More discussion on this page (up to the end of November 2005) has been archived at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (archive2). Sdedeo (tips) 21:38, 27 December 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". [1] 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: [2], here is an article on Biden's statement: [3], I also found a video of an Al Franken show where Al explains in video how exactly the statement was spliced: [4]. I found that video on this page: [5]. 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 [[6]] . 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)

I think the Harvard format would be better here. Users are not keeping the reference numbers (for MLA) up to date. I have been using {{ref harvard}} with {{note label}} and {{Web reference}}. With regards, Steven McCrary 22:49, 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.
  • DolphinCompSci 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) See also WP:NLT

• Do not submit request for arbitration

Discussion

Comment I support this request since Fluterst has violated WP:NLT and Assume Good Faith on this Talk page. His edits are attempts to induce a right-wing bias and are made unilaterally. I would like to be able to assume good faith, but I can't with someone threatening a class-action suit. I support this request. DolphinCompSci 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not threatened any lawsuit, I hope pointed out that a class action lawsuit is in train at wikipediaclassaction.org. I am not involved in it, although like many I am interested to see whether it can diminish the publication of libel on Wikipedia. Fluterst 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that the vote has passed (including a 'yes' vote from Fluterst herself), and I have therefore submitted this issue for arbitration[7]. It would be helpful if other users contribute to the submission by including their opinions (in 500 words or less) and submitting their names. Please follow the template on that page to do this. Fluterst, please submit your own opinion on the matter on that page as well (I left a space for you to do this). --Ilyag 18:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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... I encourage those voting in opposition to address in particular the inconsistency of the application of the word 'journalist' in this article compared with those I've listed above. Fluterst 13:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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? Fluterst 14:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, is there a rule in wikipedia stating that new users cannot vote? Interesting that Fluterest would take the time away from inserting his right-wing extremist views into wikipedia articles to make such a sarcastic comment. Thanks for the welcome...Horace Walpole 14:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's cool, your vote doesn't count anyway. I'll be disregarding it. Would be interesting to see if you are linked with another user who will presumably come and vote as well. Vote early, vote often as Ted Kennedy says. Or was that Tom DeLay? Fluterst 14:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose - I've decided to oppose the move after finding out about the Paris Business Review bit. If there is no accountability regarding statements like that then his job at present obviously is not as a journalist. Beforehand yes, but I used to work at Dairy Queen back in high school too. Mithridates 15:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A journalist who makes a mistake is a commentator, is that the logic? Dan Rather is described as a journalist and yet he is retired and was forced to resign after broadcasting a story about President Bush based on forgeries. Fluterst 15:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather was forced to resign his high post for the error. Hence the high price for inaccuracies when you're an actual journalist. Anchors like Rather, Brokaw and Jennings helped to oversee their network's newsrooms, broke major news stories regularly, and frequently went out into the field. O'Reilly makes no bones about the fact that he now primarily provides commentary and 'no-spin' analysis. The incidents of original reporting on his program can be counted on one hand, and came from investigations into opinion pieces he had done that stirred up controversy. True, O'Reilly was once a journalist, but thats not what made him famous and has made this article so significant. It's his role as a commentator, which is not an insult at all.

• Oppose - Two reasons for vote: 1) O'Reilly's current role is a host of a television debate show, in which he himself is one of the debaters. The show's entire point is that O'Reilly himself debates against his guests, rather than ask them questions and follow-ups. This separates him from the likes of Tim Russert, who conduct interviews and moderate debates, rather than participate in the debates themselves. 2) O'Reilly does not present news. His job is to mention a news story that has been covered elsewhere, and then present his personal opinion on it. This is how he differs from the likes of Dan Rather, who actually do present the news (as per the dictionary definition of the term journalist). --Ilyag 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - He is a commentator, not a journalist. The requested move and rename would not be indicative of fact. DolphinCompSci 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - The man is currently a commentator and thats what has made him famous. It's how even he describes his work. Let's not let one noisy user define this article. --Plastic Editor 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - O'Reilly is most famous for his editorial commentary, not his journalism. BTW, I was draw to this page to see why Fluterst had been hopping around to some pages I watch making the (commentator) -> (journalist) change in anticipation. Fluterst, please wait until you get some kind of consensus before doing that. It appears that very few (right now, none) agree with your proposal. Sdedeo (tips) 19:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Ilyag; furthermore O'Reilly is mostly notable for his commentary; rather than his journalistic past. Mr. Rather and others brought up for comparison were notable for journalism before they took high paying TV gigs which have them still reading the news; rather than offering their unsourced opinions on the issues. If anything we should examine the list brought up, and see if indeed any of those "journalists" are better known for their commentary; and if so change the articles accordingly. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia This is my final post to commemorate the propaganda and shameful vote-rigging that clearly goes on here. As I contemplate a choice between lazing around and gathering more evidence to pass on to wikipediaclassaction.org, I cannot help but reflect that snoozing over my vacation may be better than losing a battle clearly fought and lost by many others. Maybe I'll return but probably not. Wikipedia is flying awfully close to the sun at the moment and a crash is imminent. Fluterst 21:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Looks like the vote tally may have already ended but just in case I thought I'd make my opposition known. See above reasons already listed by other users.Hal Raglan 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A new suggestion

• Comment. Perhaps we can move this page to simply "Bill O'Reilly" and put a comment at the top that reads something similar to some other pages: Bill O'Reilly is also an Australian cricketer. I am unaware how notable the cricketer is and would appreciate comment on what everyone thinks of this (hopefully) simple solution. -Scm83x 14:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, this suggestion (I just noticed) was subject to a previous move request. Is there any change in opinion now? I just wanted to bring it up as a possible way to diffuse this situation. -Scm83x 14:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Good idea. Fine by me. Fluterst 14:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me too. I don't even see a talk page on the other Bill O'Reilly so it's probably safe to assume that this one here is more prominent. Mithridates 14:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh-oh, look here...we're repeating the mistakes of our ancestors. Mithridates 14:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. The more things change, the more they remain the same. DolphinCompSci 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As one of the people who suggested a move to Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer is apparently extremely notable to cricket fans. So there's no way that you're going to get that move done successfully :) Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Result

Template:Notmoved WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

Hello all -- I have removed the NPOV (actually "totallydisputed") tag from the article because I have been unable to find specific discussion of the issues on the talk page.

Please, it is OK to replace the tag, but you are expected to discuss your reasons for doing so, with particular examples of facts or statements you find POV or untrue. I encourage others who find the tag replaced without discussion here on the talk page to go ahead and remove it.

Note that the possibility that the page may become NPOV later is not an acceptable use of the tag. The tag should only be on the article when the actual text of the article is POV. If you find someone has stuck in a chunk of POV, the best thing to do is go over the edits to regain NPOV.

Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You'll get no opposition from anybody on this, as the only person who insisted on the tag being there was Fluterst.Hal Raglan 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Disputed tag

OK, um, again -- someone just put in the "disputed" tag, questioning factual statements in the article. Again, I've gone ahead and removed it because no discussion has occured on the talk page regarding factual inaccuracies in the article. If you find a factual problem, best thing to do is just fix it yourself -- either remove the statement, or find a source to prove it. Second best is to complain on the talk page.

Please use tags sparingly, and find ways to do things without them!

OK, Sdedeo (tips) 21:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly the cricketer

I reverted the removal of the disambiguation of Bill O'Reilly the cricketer may by user:Ilyag. It seems very reasonable to have it here. Steven McCrary 23:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it again for one reason: That comment was added as per Fluterst's attempt to rename article from Bill O'Reilly (commentator) to Bill O'Reilly. That attempt failed in a vote, and the article was returned to normal. The mere fact that the article's name says "(commentator)" means that this is NOT an ambiguous article. The article where this disambiguation statement belongs is in Bill O'Reilly, which is currently an article on the cricket player. A statement linking to THIS article is needed THERE for disambiguation purposes, not the other way around. Bill O'Reilly is ambiguous (and therefore needs disambiguation). Bill O'Reilly (commentator) is NOT ambiguous (and therefore does not need disambiguation). --Ilyag 23:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If no one else objects, I will persue this no further, as my objection is minor, and I tend to agree anyway. There really is no need to capitalize (it is considered shouting), bold or italics would be a better choice. Happy New Year. Steven McCrary 01:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was capitalizing for emphasis, not to shout. I think that capitalizing the whole sentence is considered shouting, not individual words. But, sorry again. --Ilyag 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow

I'm so glad I'm Canadian.

Bibliography

Sorry, but the following references were contained at the bottom of the page. I am inclined to delete them all, but if any one wants them, please move them over to the External Links. Steven McCrary 01:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• "http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/circle.html". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "BU Alumni Web :: Bostonia :: Fall 2001". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=429". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - The Opening of the Clinton Library". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - Hillary Clinton and the Left-Wing Press". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Talk of the Nation, Sept 9, 2003". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "On the Media". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "washingtonpost.com: The Life of O'Reilly (See above)". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "http://www.awptimus.com/docs/franken_lies/OreillyBig2.jpg". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "WorldNetDaily: Work or die". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "O'Reilly again warns that same-sex marriage cou ... [Media Matters]". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - Calif. Supreme Court Nullifies Gay Nups". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Rosie O'Donnell vs. Bill O'Reilly". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Crooks and Liars". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Self-described death penalty foe O'Reilly attac ... [Media Matters]". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Think Progress » O'Reilly: I Would Execute Everyone At Gitmo". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Barney Frank Sticks Up for Tom DeLay". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Are We Getting Close to Legalizing Pot?". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Book TV.org". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "t r u t h o u t - Bill Moyers Responds to Bill O'Reilly". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - Whose Money Is It Anyway?". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "ThoughtCrime News - Cutting through the propaganda". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "Citizens Of Upright Moral Character - Comments". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Spinsanity - Countering rhetoric with reason". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ O'Reilly, Bill. "A Ludacris choice". New York Daily News. March 7, 2004.
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Interview - Is Gangsta Rap Hurting America's Children?". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "O'Reilly again made false claim that Hussein "a ... [Media Matters]". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "O'Reilly: Hand Over The Tapes". The Smoking Gun. Retrieved July 11, 2005.
• ^ "Cindy Sheehan "changed her story on Bush"? Trac ... [Media Matters]". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - The O'Reilly Factor - Talking Points - The Truth About the Cindy Sheehan Situation". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "News Hounds: Cindy Sheehan says Bill O'Reilly's Show is an "Obscenity to Humanity"". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Bill O'Reilly Wants You To Shut Up - Also, Al Franken, Tom Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Rosie O'Donnell, gay people who talk about their sexual orientation, atheist Scouts, peaceniks, both parties … By Jack Shafer". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/18.html". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "Letter from David Brock to Bill O'Reilly". Media Matters for America. December 16, 2004.
• ^ Ackerman, Seth & Hart, Peter. "Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness". Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. July/August 2001.
• ^ "FOX's O'Reilly fabricated evidence of success of purported boycott of French imports". Media Matters for America. April 28, 2004.
• ^ O'Reilly, Bill. "What say O'Reilly". New York Daily News. July 6, 2004.
• ^ "O'Reilly defended old lies exposed by Jack Mathews and MMFA, told new ones". Media Matters for America. July 7, 2004.
• ^ "http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/archives.html". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "FTD - Statistics - Country Data - U.S. Trade Balance with France". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "Thomas More Law Center". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "FOXNews.com - FOX News Live - The Asman Observer - Talk About Bias". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "BBC NEWS". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Text "Programmes" ignored (help); Text "Question Time" ignored (help); Text "This week's panel" ignored (help)
• ^ Farhi, Paul. "The Life of O'Reilly". Washington Post. December 13, 2000.
• ^ "Questions and Answers". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
• ^ "O’Reilly rules". MSNBC. December 9, 2003.
• ^ "http://www.billoreilly.com/images/pdf/deed.pdf" (PDF). September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); External link in |title= (help)
• ^ "Bill O'Reilly Spins". September 9. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)

Neutrality/Factual Error: The Ongoing Scandal of Wikipedia Libel

• The title - he's a journalist first and foremost, most of his colleagues are called journalists including Chris Wallace (journalist) and Anderson Cooper but not Bill because we at Wikipedia don't like Bill. And anyone we don't like cannot be called a journalist but a commentator or opinionist or some other term of abuse.

I'm sorry, but you've already requested a vote, and a concensus has been reached on this matter. You should drop this issue now since you have been decidedly out-voted, but you're more than welcome to bring up other points. --Ilyag 06:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If four hundred people came along and said it should Bill O'Reilly (Fascist) then it wouldn't make the description any more valid or sensible. Not calling a journalist a journalist and the failure of Wikipedia to correct it is a disgrace and I believe goes a long way to demonstrating the complete absence of neutrality and respect for facts that goes on here. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph

• The O'Reilly Factor is not among the most popular news programs on cable news, it is number one by a long distance. To omit that fact is clear evidence of bias.

I believe that listing exact viewership numbers is sufficiently less biased than saying how awesomely popular his show is. The article currently does, in fact, list his exact viewership in the opening paragraph. As you are a fan of "encyclopedic" content, I'm surprised that you don't think that an exact number is more encyclopedic than a verbal description of those numbers. HOWEVER, I will say that I would not object to apending those numbers with the statement along the lines of "...this makes it the top rated show of all the cable news stations." --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't say it should be called awesomely popular but again I say that explaining it is top rating program on cable news is a vital fact that explains why we're all interested in him in the first place. Popular may be the wrong desciption, highest rating is probably the more neutral term. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this issue is settled then, by appending the statement per Ilyag. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• O'Reilly is 'confrontational' but if called 'no-nonsense' that must be preceded by 'self-described.' Who says he's confrontational. No source. Just opinion from an anonymous person.

I believe 'confrontational' is a poor choice here. I agree with you in replacing it, but only if the replacing terminology refers to his particular style (whatever you choose to call it), because it is quite noteworthy and significantly important for the article. His style is what separates him from the likes of Larry King and Tim Russert, and this needs to be noted. --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen Russert, King, Anderson Cooper, all of them, slice and dice guests on occasional, interrupt and other things. A word I have used which fits is 'direct' but of course that was deleted 33 edits ago. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think "confrontational" or "provocational" is the best term here, as it accurately describes how O'Reilly deals with guests: he does his best to "push buttons". Perhaps the best NPOV to do this is to note (with sources) descriptions of O'Reilly's style. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• O'Reilly is regularly criticized for being too liberal by people writing into the show, is that mentioned? No, nor his liberal views on many subjects. Instead a very liberal Harvard publication and a generally liberal CBS News report are mentioned as sources for O'Reilly 'promoting a conservative agenda'. As it happens the sources don't even claim that but they look the part so perhaps no one will notice.

So you're saying the multiple books, websites, documentaries, and newspaper articles that have dogged the man about a conservative bias are just as noteworthy as a few angry letters he gets alleging he's too liberal? The wikipedia article header doesn't even grant these claims any creedence, it just mentions their existence, as does O'Reilly on many broadcasts. --72.224.182.201 03:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with 72.224.182.201. Widespread commentary on O'Reilly's alleged conservative bias is noteworthy, but nearly non-existant commentary on his alleged liberal bias is not (unless you have citations to prove that it exists). --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

He gets letters on the show very regularly accusing him of being a liberal. A CBS interview[8] of him expressed surprise at his liberal views on the death penalty and other issues. His views are not easily categorized and I think attempts to characterize him by liberals (or conservatives) are merely an attempt to attack him for whatever reason. None of it is encyclopedic. None of it is interesting. Elsewhere the issue of his political beliefs is examined (albeit in a hamfisted way) and even that analysis makes more sense the above. I have no doubt he is to the left on many issues than Joe Lieberman and to the right of Pat Buchanan on others. The bottom line is that you're on very dangerous territory accusing someone of being a conservative or a leftist when they deny it and when the truth is a complex mix of views. He is a populist by his own description and I think the desire to paint him as something else using unambiguously left-wing sources proves my case that this article is not fact-based and not neutral. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the best way to go from here is for Fluterst to provide some sources; the CBS interview would be a good one, as it will almost certaintly describe what Ilyag is talking about, i.e., that O'Reilly is uncontroversially regarded by most as holding mostly conservative views. We should be aware of NPOV issues here because O'Reilly definitely wishes to avoid being called conservative. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• The fact that 420 stations carry O'Reilly's radio show might be significant but we can't leave it in lest we undermine our attempt to besmirch and disparage this non-journalist. I think this has been deleted nearly ten times.

If you want "420 stations" to be included instead of a general statement like "his radio show is syndicated nationwide", then please accept a similar position relating to his television ratings, as per your first complaint. --Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is important to explain why he's in Wikipedia in the first place. A neutral fact-based article will record the fact that he's a journalist, hosting the most watched program on cable news with a radio program syndicated across the country on 420 stations (a lot I think although that might need further examination). The guy is (for now) a success as a journalist and refusing to acknowledge it makes this article more than a little stupid. It's why we're here is it not? Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

420 stations (with sourcing) is fine, not worth arguing about. More facts are better. Sdedeo (tips) 11:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Shall I continue on to third paragraph? Perhaps later but meanwhile do not delete the TotallyDisputed marker, it stands as does my valid criticism. I won't be editing the article as that is clearly a waste of time but I will be pointing out its smear and lack of sourcing and verifiability. Right here. Fluterst 03:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please continue with your other grievances. Debating them here is far more constructive than debating them through edit wars on the article itself. Don't you agree? --

Ilyag 06:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The assumption that the muck that's up there is valid and that any change needs to be agreed by a group of anonymous leftists is a deeply flawed process in my view. I am quite a reasonable person most of the time. I compromise in my job every single day, every hour. I negotiate for a living. But this is not a negotiation, look at the 'commentator' issue. A no-brainer issue really, he is a journalist, calls himself one, is called one even by foes, his colleagues doing the same work are journalists and yet he will not be called on Wikipedia because it's a hoot to stick it to the man. I just wonder how long all of this can last. A day of reckoning must surely approach, as it does all of us. Fluterst 08:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluterst, please try to stick to the particular issues in the article. In particular, please let Ilyag and others know if his suggestions are acceptable, and if not, why; further, please continue either to edit the article directly to achieve NPOV, or discuss your problems here on the talk page.

The "commentator" issue is considered generally settled by the other editors, but if you wish to dispute it further there is nothing to stop you. However, you should be aware that name-calling is unlikely to get people to come around to your side. You will find most people here are open to compromise when confronted with someone polite and reasonable. The best way to get people to agree on that particular issue is to cite major media organizations (New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, National Review) using the term "journalist" to describe O'Reilly.

Please also remember to assume good faith in your dealings with others here, even if you think you shouldn't have to. If you believe that wikipedia is solely and forever, as you put it "a smear machine where anonymous people could besmirch and defame public figures they didn't like", it may be best if you leave the project. However, if you feel that you can change that, and you put in a constructive, good faith effort to deal with people, you may be surprised.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 11:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Removing the Cleanup Tag

Oddly enough, one result of the increased chaos around here has been a much improved article. Flute's questionable deletions resulted in other users coming in and re-writing, re-sourcing and re-organizing the article to great effect. Obviously, Flute is vocally objecting to the results but what do other editors think? I personally feel that the cleanup tag can come down. The article is more balanced and succinct right now than it's ever been. Sign on...

Vote to Support or Oppose removal of the cleanup tag:

• Support --relaxathon 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Ilyag - The article is well-organized, gramatically correct, and has good citations. Nothing to "clean up" here.
• Support --ThreeAnswers - Though I don't believe the article gives nearly the full picture of how controversial he is.

Perhaps not, but the opening paragraph gives a pretty good idea. Also, the 'Political Opinion' section is fairly representative.

• Support Hal Raglan 07:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC) The article is pretty good as is, much more concise and readable than before. The cleanup tag should be removed.

Problems with the article

Hi all -- I think there are problems with this article. Importantly, I think we take BO'R's claims to not be "conservative" too much at face value, which may be a violation of NPOV. In general, big chunks of BO'R's positions are missing: for example, the article does not discuss BO'R's views on major political questions, including the war in Iraq, affirmative action, civil liberties and the PATRIOT act, immigration, health care, taxes, environmental legislation, etc. etc., and focuses too much on a few "hot button" issues.

My guess is that if these were detailed, broad statements such as "BO'R's views are mainly in accord with mainstream Republican positions, except in the following circumstances" (which I believe are his inconsistent statements on capital punishment and his gay marriage views) could be made, and these should be highlighted. Citing battling press releases from BO'R and Media Matters are a much worse way to go about this: wikipedia should try to be more detailed and not just give up by citing the combatants.

Something for people to think about when going forward on editing the article. Sdedeo (tips) 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservative criticism of O'Reilly

When O'Reilly is wrong

---

Posted: October 14, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

When Bill O'Reilly is right, he's as right as rain.

But when Bill O'Reilly is wrong, he is ever so wrong.

And he was ever so wrong last week in his on-air "memo" to religious conservatives.

The Fox News Channel star supports adoption of children by homosexuals "when there is not a heterosexual alternative." First of all, adoption is not about sexual agendas at all. Adoption is a practice that should be encouraged only for married couples – and there are plenty of them looking for children. Anyone who has tried to adopt a child in recent years can attest to the fact that there is a long wait – thanks to 1.5 million abortions a year and a government foster-care system whose lowest priority is permanent placement of children in caring homes.

There is no need, as WorldNetDaily columnist O'Reilly suggests, to place children with homosexuals because no one else wants them. Just knock down the barriers to adoption and, in no time, you will see every child in America placed in stable homes headed by married couples.

O'Reilly goes on to suggest it is "unconstitutional to deny a foster child a good home because of an American's sexual orientation."

I don't know which revisionist version of the Constitution my good friend Bill has been reading, but, there is simply nothing in the document that would remotely suggest adoption by homosexuals is a civil right. No one – homosexual or heterosexual – has a "right" to adopt a child.

In adoption, the best interests of the child are always considered paramount, not the best interests of the parent.

But, let's face it: O'Reilly's real beef is with people who take their faith seriously and try to act on their beliefs in the public square.

"The founding fathers took great pains to keep the laws of our country secular so that all beliefs and behavior, legal behavior, would be tolerated," he says. To which I say: Utter nonsense.

Is this what they teach at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard these days, Bill? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Nevertheless, it's pure fiction. Let me give you some examples of specific actions by the founders that should dispel any such notion:

The very first Congress of the United States allocated money to print and distribute Bibles throughout the nation.

During the War of Independence, Congress allocated money for the import of 20,000 copies of the Bible.

In 1787, the same year the Constitution was approved, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, one of the most important pieces of legislation because it was the blueprint for admitting new states into the Union. One of the provisions was that new states had to encourage education. Why? Because religion and morality were absolutely necessary for self-governing people.

The treaty between the colonies and Great Britain ending the War of Independence began "In the name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity ..."

The Constitution expressly exempted Sunday as a work day for the president in the article concerning vetoes of legislation.

General George Washington required all of his men to attend Sunday services.

Every president since Washington, has when taking the oath of office, said, with his hand on the Bible: "... so help me God."

Since the days of the colonial army, chaplains have been required. Initially, during the days of the founders, those chaplains were all Christians.

Of the 15,000 writings of the founders, the most heavily quoted work is the Bible – and specifically the Book of Deuteronomy, which is the Old Testament book of law.

On the same day the Congress ratified the First Amendment, it also called on President George Washington to proclaim a day of national prayer and thanksgiving. I could go on and on. I could provide hundreds of similar actions if space permitted. I could also cite hundreds of quotations from the founders that articulated their heartfelt convictions that only a people steeped in the faith and morality of the Bible were capable of governing themselves under the Constitution they ratified.

And, if O'Reilly really wants to argue that the Constitution drafted by those men justified adoption by homosexuals, perhaps he can explain why Thomas Jefferson, as governor of Virginia, proposed the death penalty for those guilty of sodomy. By definition, homosexuals are practitioners of sodomy.

I've praised O'Reilly when he's been right. I just can't hold back when he's wrong.

---

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is "Taking America Back." He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.