| Revision as of 02:49, 3 March 2007 editInfo999 (talk | contribs)565 edits →[]← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:25, 20 October 2024 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,575 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 93.109.98.78 (talk) to last revision by CewbotTags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|long}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=mid|a&e-work-group=yes|politician-work-group=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{WikiProject Radio|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{JournProjectArticles}} |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{| class="infobox" width="150" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Oreilly, Bill|1= |
|
|- align="center" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}} |
|
| ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low}} |
|
''']''' |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=Mid}} |
|
|- align="center" |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}} |
|
| ] ] ] ] ] ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Television|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes |American-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 202K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{BillOReillyRMArchive}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 16 2017 (10th)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Malmedy == |
|
==RM Post close== |
|
|
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case ] was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. ] (]) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, it wasn't ignored. The proponents of the move, however, chose to cite only one part of it and ignore the other. Pageviews are ''not'' the only thing that counts for primary topic status. And plenty of those opposing were not cricket fans. -- ] (]) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::BOTH have long term significance. 1 for 1 on PT2. However only 1 has page views. 1 for 0 on PT1. That means only one of them has both PT1 and PT2. It is the strongest argument, they are not equal. -- ]] 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::But we don't ''know'' whether the political commentator has long-term significance. With some exceptions, it's very difficult to judge that for living people who are still active in their careers. And political commentators like him are the sort of people who tend to fade from history after their careers end. Anyway, the RM has been closed. If you object to the close then take it to MRV. -- ] (]) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::He's nearly 80 years old now, his career is mostly done after he left Fox in 2017, I think it's safe to judge him by what he has done and not what he will do. In the context of the culture war period 1996-2017, there was probably no one with more weight and importance on the right-wing of US political commentary.The O'Reilly Factor had been the highest-rated cable news show for 16 years, and he was described by media analyst Howard Kurtz as "the biggest star in the 20-year history at Fox News" at the time of his ousting (and Fox News was the most watched news channel in the USA). His influence on US politics and culture is hard to overestimate. -- ]] 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes but Bill O’Reilly 2’s influence on cricket is hard to overestimate. That’s the issue— they’re both influential in their respective fields. ] (]) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::] To me that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what people are actually looking for... someone could be the Babe Ruth of Rubik's Cubes and it wouldn't matter if the other person is getting searched for five times to one. ] (]) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::But cricket is hardly Rubik’s Cubes. ] (]) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). ] (]) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. Even if you agree with the result of the close, this absolutely should have been closed by an admin, because it's a very contentious RM. Or by a very esteemed non-admin involved in RMs for a long time. A weak close by a passer-by just makes it more likely that a similarly futile RM will happen in the near future because this close isn't seen as very strong. (To be clear, I would urge this close to be withdrawn / overturned for either an admin or a respected closer to do this ''even if the result had supported my !vote''.) ] (]) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Agree. It takes someone with experience and confidence to close in a way that is maybe not popular but correct in terms of rules. In any case, if this comes up again, I hope the framer will force voters to address all the facts, summarize the core arguments and rules and request they be addressed, so it doesn't turn into yet another "idontlikeit" bias free for all that closes NC again. The framing of the RM is everything, it takes some time and effort. -- ]] 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' - as someone who supported moving, I understand that this close was correct. There was no other reasonable conclusion that could have been made. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
* FWIW my comment wasn't to overturn the close. I would have formally gone through that process if I thought that was possible. It was just on observation on the poorly written close and relatively mob rule nature of the entire discussion. We do the average user a huge disservice when we make information more difficult to find. Anyway, I don't really care about either one of these people and the political commentator is rather annoying. Thanks to the weak nature of the close this will likely come up again since the majority of end users will be perplexed at the status quo. ] (]) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close'''. It's clear that there was no consensus here. Speaking as the editor who proposed the move, even if I understand why some editors may feel that an uninvolved admin should have made the choice to either close it or keep it open, I personally don't believe we needed to wait for more responses to prove just how divisive this move was. ] (]) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' Unsurprising I suppose as I was an editor who asked that conversation to be closed. ] (]) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' reopening would have no benefit. ] (]) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Reasonable close, but @], unless a discussion is very clear to basically every reasonable editor in it, it's better to wait for a very experienced closer. I think many experienced non-admins would have waited. ] (]) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
He has not corrected his error about Malmedy. Instead he offered that he confused it with a massacre perpetrated by American troops slightly later in the war. Of course, there was no such massacre. This is not an apology. |
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' - Was hoping for a different result. Oh well. ] (]) 16:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk archive cleanup == |
|
*Then offer those details you listed above. Misplaced Pages has a reponsibility in reporting accuratley and leaving details out like that is not only biased but it is irresponsible. |
|
|
He got it confused with chenogne which Americans did massacre German SS soldiers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose ] be renamed ]. The same with ]. These pages are blank/useless except for their edit history content. At some point the content was moved out of the page into Archive_4 and now they are interfering with auto archiving (I think). -- ]] 16:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Inflamatory comment added == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks like this was never done. No need o retain a blank copy, I'll just ask they be speedily deleted. ] (]) 03:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is a lot of play below about the tens of thousands of people who claim that Mr O'Reilly tells lies. All this shows is that the man has tens of thousands of enemies (not surprising considering tha that there are a lot of webites who tell their readers to attack O'Reilly) - not that he tells lies. As for presenting Mr Letterman as an unbiased judge..... well that is a bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Newsmax == |
|
I should point out that I am not a Roman Catholic or an American (nor am I a great fan of President Bush or the Iraq war) - so I have no personal reason for defending Mr O'Reilly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". ] (]) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Newsmax started airing it in 2020, then the First did as well. Updated. ] (]) 17:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
I removed the following comment that was recently added because, without a citation, it looked rather inflamatory. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"''Bill O'Reilly is well known for fabricating information in order to support his arguments.''" |
|
|
] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::<u>You</u> removed it? I thought <u>I</u> removed it. :-) ] 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. I called it vandalism because it sure seemed like it. Perhaps I am mistaken if the person who put it in is a wikipedian tyro. ] 02:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
We may have tried to edit the file at the same time. I have noticed that sometimes when I revert using ], that if someone else happens to be reverting that edit at the same time, they seem to win. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not really vandalism. It's true, but it does need a citation. Just as an example, he argued that the economy of France had been affected by a personal boycott of his and when challenged, he cited the "Paris Business Review" confidently and unequivocally. It was later found out that there is no "Paris Business Review". |
|
|
|
|
|
:David Letterman has accused O'Reilly twice of fabricating information in his last two visits to the show. In particular, it was found that the examples he cited regarding "the war on Christmas" were also made up. He also accused U.S. American troops of torturing and executing POWs in Malmedy in support of his argument, when the opposite was actually true. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Media Matters has transcripts of these incidents and Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" does, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
:In fact, if you do a search on Google for "Bill O'Reilly fabrications" you get 300,000 results, most accusing Bill O'Reilly of fabrications. When you do the same search for another journalist say, Wolf Blitzer, you get only 2,000 results, and the fabrications are attributed to people ''other'' than Wolf Blitzer (namely guests). |
|
|
|
|
|
:He also claimed multiple times to have received a Peabody award for his show Inside Edition, which at the time had never won a Peabody award. |
|
|
|
|
|
Most people don't even know what a Peabody award is, and the ones that do would likely immediately know he didn't win one. Why would O'Reilly intentionally lie about something that he could so easily be found out on? |
|
|
|
|
|
:If this information is true, and you can check the transcripts, it's not vandalism, and it is not libel. If Misplaced Pages is going to have an entry about Bill O'Reilly, it might as well be factual. ] 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure your intentions are noble but your arguments are filled with assumptions: |
|
|
|
|
|
*1) It is at best a leap of faith go from acknowledging that the "Paris Business Review" doesn't exist to stating "and O'Reilly fabricated the idea of its existence." Perhaps he did and perhaps he was just misinformed. Until there is uncontrovertible proof, any charges leveled at him of "fabrication" are POV and probably inappropriate for the article. |
|
|
*2) Well if David Letterman accuses O'Reilly (twice!), that's good enough for me. NOT! Re the Malmedy controversy, again, there needs to be proof before labeling what could have been an honest mistake as outright fabrication. |
|
|
*3) Unfortunately, I don't think the sheer number of ] results is good indicator of their validity. |
|
|
*4) I'm starting to see a pattern here. If I recall, one time O'Reilly told me it would rain over the weekend and it <u>didn't</u>. <b>LIAR!</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
You should really read up on ] and ], etc. ] 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think you should sue Bill O'Reilly for falsely telling you it would rain over the weekend, you have my deep sympathy for your loss. As for (1) he either made it up or was misinformed. There aren't many other options. (2) David Letterman is one of several people who have accused him of this, and it happens regularly on his show, where he is regularly called a spin doctor. (3) No, the number isn't the only factor, he's a statistical outlier when it comes to internet statements about his fabrications, and the number of sources attributed to his fabrications within those results. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Finally keep in mind the number of times he repeats such statements before he corrects himself. How do you honestly believe that you've won a Peabody award if you didn't, tell everyone about it incessantly, then deny that you ever claimed it, and then tell people you misspoke each time? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems like an outright lie to me. So don't take Letterman as an isolated incident. Everybody knows (deleted by ] <sup>]</sup> per ]). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe I can't prove this by BLP standards, yet, but I hope others reading this can post such evidence and improve the article. ] 05:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Geneva Conventions and Uniforms== |
|
|
"He also thinks that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention expicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform." |
|
|
|
|
|
I can not find a uniform requirement anywhere in the Geneva conventions. Am I missing it, or is it not there?] 19:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe it should be "he claims the soldiers must be wearing uniforms". See the citation to see if it accurately defines what he said. I haven't looked at it recently, but I think I expanded the text at one point. ] 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:From the GC "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." which certainly implies uniforms. Do you know any other way they can distinguish themselves from the civilian population? ] 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not off the top of my head, but that certianly would require a rewrite of where the article says it "explicitly states that the soldier must be wearing a uniform" ] 12:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:What part of the GC did you find "The parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare the civilian population and civilian property." ? I've found that mentioned on websites describing the Geneva Conventions, but not anywhere within the Conventions themselves. ] 15:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The uniform "requirement" is found in several places of the 1977 revisions, particularly Protocol I. However it is irrelevant whether it is found there or not. The article says it is Bill O'Reilly's reason. Since the article is about Bill O'Reilly rather than about the Geneva Conventions, it is Bill O'Reilly's interpretation (which is pretty much the common interpretation) that is important. --] 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please don't suggest that Bill O'Reilly's interpretation is "the common one". If the uniform requirement is a matter of interpretation, we need to make that clear. If it isn't, we should clarify that. So which is it? -- ] 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Why shouldn't I say that if it is true? It is the common interpretation. The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniforms. However, recognizing that some more impoverished combatants may not have "regular" uniforms, the Conventions also allow for insignias and other such items "recognized at a distance" as being functionally equivalent. However, the most common phrasing when describing this requirement is to use the term "uniforms". Why is this a problem? --] 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It may be commonly used to describe it, but no, the Geneva Conventions do not specifically mention uniforms anywhere as a requirement for combatants. This was my main complaint about the original wording. ] 17:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Incidentally there are some folks who do not need uniforms or identifying insignia. These include civilians of a non-occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms to defend their country against an invading force, and have not had time or means to organize into an actual commanded army. Also civilians who accompany armed forces (such as reporters) do not need such ID to be protected under the Conventions. --] 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
To get a clearer picture, I have re-read the source. The reference cited has three significant quotes from O'Reilly: |
|
|
|
|
|
* "According to the Geneva Convention, to be a POW and to get protections under it, you've gotta wear a uniform, Judge. They don't wear uniforms." |
|
|
* "I don't think that was torture. Torture is takin' off a limb. Torture is takin' somebody's eye, somethin' like that." |
|
|
* "Military tribunals, yes. Geneva Convention, no." |
|
|
|
|
|
Given these statements, do we need to determine that the convention explicitely states "you've gotta wear a uniform"? Or can we rephrase it so that it talks about his interpretation that uniforms are required? I will play with the wording and let me know what you think. ] 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Election changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article should be updated when "Democratic ] ]" becomes "Democratic ] ]". The official change hasn't taken place, so this is more a heads up. Also the wording should reflect that the statement made was when she was House Minority Leader. ] 21:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Editors here are usually on the ball with those kind of updates. Sometimes they even jump the gun. I had to do stop a good bit of that premature updating in January 2005, and during the changes on the Supreme Court earlier this year. It's very tedious, but you're right, it needs to be done. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Jeremy Glick== |
|
|
|
|
|
The link under the picture of Jeremy Glick should be changed from ] to ] to avoid ambig link. Thanks. ] 15 November 2006 6:47 <sub>P.M.</sub> EST |
|
|
:Done ] 00:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This is what he gets == |
|
|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly has fought vehemently against the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-faith sludge being spewed out by the mass media. He has opposed the ACLU which has fought for the removal of God from the schools and public places and against anti-American, anti-military rants that have found a safe-haven in liberal universities across the U.S. and around the world. Of course he is wrong in some respects but I give him credit for standing up for his beliefs, my beliefs Christianity and America in general. God Bless |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly is a good man, and of cours, people hate him. This is how good people are treated. ] |
|
|
*He's a muckraker who brings it on himself, and loves it. "You can take the boy out of '']'', but you can't take ''Inside Edition'' out of the boy." ] 04:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I'll think of a better response when I STOP LAUGHING AT THIS. hahahaha. "A good man" ] 01:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Hello, look at the article. He really is a dumb old conservative neo-con idiot but according to wikipedia standards we're not allowed to put that in articles, hence it's not in there. So don't whine about people hating him, most of us do, but we'll make sure not to put that in an encyclopedia. ] 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Can you post a link to the poll indicating "most of us" hate Bill O'Reilly please? |
|
|
*It is claimed he has the top-rated cable news commentary program. I guess all those "most of us" who hate him still watch him anyway, eh? ] 11:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Still waiting for that link showing "most" of us hate him...I guess it's not coming. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''I agree-- It's so funny that this guy says that 'most of us hate' O'Reilly when the truth is that he has one of the top rated shows in the entire country.''' A better guess might be that there are those on the 'far-Left' as Bill calls it, who are incapale of self-criticism-- in fact they 'hate it' since they already have all the 'answers' figured out. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Equally funny is the tendency of many non-FOX reporters to call him a "Conservative Journalist".''' Anyone who watches OReilly and actually pays attention knows that the '''he has a mixture of views''' that variously '''range from''' what could be traditionally considered to be ''''Moderately Liberal'''' on the one hand (he is not opposed to Civil Unions for gay couples, he hates racism, he wants to protect the environment without going overboard, he is not anti-Union and he is no fan of corporate fat cat CEOs who exploit their workers pension funds) all the way over to '''moderately Conservative on other issues''' (he believes in self responsibility over bailouts, he doesn't like political correctness, is anti-abortion, supports the War on Terror, he is tough on crime and believes in higher testing standards for students and tougher vetting of teachers). |
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, the O'Reilly doesn't follow any ideology-- he basically thinks by the issue and figures it out for himself. '''He is tough in some ways and compassionate in others-- overall he is a Moderate Centrist or, as he says-- a 'traditionalist' with little patience for ideologues of the far-Left OR the far-Right.''' But he is tough on the politically-correct far-Left set and doesn't hide the fact that he hates their formulaic and impractical neo-socialist thinking-- and so they label him as a 'Conservative'. What a laugh! |
|
|
|
|
|
] 15:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*He's a muckraker first and foremost, and a major league egotist. Never forget that. He's also good entertainment. I like the shouting matches he gets into; never mind the constant liberal straw men, and characters like Al Franken (that book publishers' TV show encounter was priceless); how about his arguments with folks like his supposed friend Donald Trump, or Fox co-workers like Geraldo Rivera, or neo-cons ranging from Newt Gingrich to Ann Coulter. Not to mention picking fights with other right-leaning hosts such as Neil Boortz and Rush Limbaugh. It's a refreshing change from the Sean Hannitys who fawn over those right-wingers. I'm sure it's no accident that they never have O'Reilly and Hannity on together. That would be good for pay-per-view, to see those two highly opinionated "Fighting Irish" slug it out. ] 07:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
He's a bigot who invites people on his show but cuts them off when their views disagree with his ] 01:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
He identified himself on his radio show as approx. 65% conservative, 35% liberal. ] 04:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr O'Relly has some odd opinions. For example, his belief that high oil prices were created by speculators and that this is proof that the oil market is rigged. |
|
|
|
|
|
Of course all commodity markets have people trading in futures - such "speculation" is nothing to do with "rigging" a market. |
|
|
|
|
|
Whether people decide to call such opinions "liberal" or "conservative" is up to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
On the general government provision for the poor area, Mr O'Reilly is clearly in favour of government schemes, but thinks they have grown a bit too far. Given the size of (for example) Social Security now (compared to its start in 1935-1937) or Medicare and Medicaid now (compared to their start in 1965), it is hard to believe that F.D.R. and L.B.J. would not have agreed with him. |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
** I still think it's funny that one of the posters above considers disliking racism to be a liberal position. Here I thought that shuold be a universal position. ] 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
***A "universal position", eh? So if everyone's supposed to be against racism, who in fact is racist? |
|
|
] 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GTMO suicides == |
|
|
|
|
|
Old news by now, but I wonder what the connection is. Maybe he called them the Arabic equivalent of "pinheads", and their fragile egos were devastated. If only they had sent Dr. Phil instead of Dr. No-Spin. ] 18:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How is the suicides correlated to his appearance there? Should be removed. |
|
|
*The media made a big thing of suicides there shortly after his visit, and shortly after he went on TV and said everything was peachy there (as detention sites go, that is). It's that aspect of the story that makes it relevant. However, that key point is not developed in the article. It should either be developed, by someone better than I, or should be zapped. Contrary to my sarcastic comments, I'm not aware of any evidence that connects him to the suicides other than bad timing. ] 22:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Stephen Colbert's Parody == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am almost positive that soon after Colbert's show premiered he clarified that he was satirizing pundits in general and not specifically O'Reilly. While segments like "The Word" obviously satirize certain parts of O'Reilly's show is it worth putting Colbert in O'Reilly's article? I apologize for the lack of sources, maybe someone else can find where Colbert said this. ] 05:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== I think Media Matters citations violate ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I find references by Media Matters to be useless in this article. Because O'Reilly criticizes them so much, we have to take any citations to their website or their stories as a violation of ]. -] 05:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've often wondered if Media Matters can be considered "reliable" as per Misplaced Pages policy? One would not think they possibly could be. ] 19:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've brought this issue up on Ann Coulter's page and on the ] talk page, and was told that since MMFA uses transcripts it is OK. However, I am unconvinced. There is a problem with using them as a source especially concerning "right-wing" persons. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yeah, I'm not buying that, either. ] 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The other problem with MMFA is that it often just places the defamation one click away. So it's not at Misplaced Pages, but if you go over to MMFA, it's there for all the world to see. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't see why. The Media Matters website contains both transcripts and videos. Those are essentially primary sources. In addition Media Matters hardly inserts any commentary. The focus of Media Matters may be biased against the right, BUT, the individual articles are not. If Bill O'Reilly makes some outrageous statement and later denies it Media Matters may compile a list of dates when it occured. See as an example. Each quote is taken from a transcript and the commentary is kept to a minimum. Most of the time, the entire transcript of a particular segment is shown in it's entirety. Can someone point out the alleged bias? ] 21:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The problem is, that MMFA does its own transcripts, which bring up the reliable publisher issue regarding transcripts. Also, their commentary is always biased against the conservative. There have been times where their criticism has fallen flat because they're commentary has been misleading. And then there's my big concern about using it as a source in articles; if you click down to comments, you are likely to be exposed to all manner of defamation re: the living person. If ] is to protect Misplaced Pages from defamation suits and embarassing situations, should there be some consideration of where Misplaced Pages leads its readers? ] <sup>]</sup> 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::That's a very good point. Perhaps someone more familar with the purpose of BLP can address the question of where Misplaced Pages leads its readers. That aside, FOX News edits Bill O'Reilly's transcripts to sanitize them every now and then (frequently enough to question FOX's transcripts). From the point of view of FOX, it's advantageous to sanitize the transcripts. From the point of view of Media Matters, it's advantageous to be as accurate as possible. Thus, Media Matters' transcripts are probably more reliable (and to be sure, one can watch the videos). ] 02:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Media Matters could be considered an advocacy source which is discouraged in wikipedia under BLP policy. I believe is is ok to use Media Matters as a source as long as you do not use their interpretations and only what they source. But it would be better to find more neutral, third party sources that aren't pro- or anti- O'Reilly. ] 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would not be at all suprised to find that they don't research thoroughly. In fact, I figure once they find anything, however skewed or out of context, supports their claims, they will publish it as 100% verified fact. Anything that support Bill O'Rielly? They will bury that by either omitting it or mentioning it only as a minor footnote that gets lost in the stream. Their reason? "Who cares about him?" -] 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:At this point, we appear to have a consensus to drop the Media Matters references. I suggest that we wait for 72 more hours (from the time on my sig; I use ] at the moment). If there are no futher objections by then, lets remove those references and the materials that refer to them. -] 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I would like to point out that the goal isn't to find incriminating quotes from any single source, but to look at many sources and reflect the overall pattern of opinion of the person (in this case O'Reilly). A good example is O'Reilly's views on Jessica's Law. Clearly he has opinions there, and they are clearly stated in his interviews, radio program as well as essays. And he has a ton of essays. It should be easy to find verifiable references from him without going to a secondary source. Also, his essays are more verifiable than transcripts because they are penned with thought and not spoken in the heat of debate, and are less subjective. Not that ither sources aren't valid, but given the choice to quote Media Matters, or an essay from O'Reily, the choice is obvious. ] 08:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't see how quoting from his essays is more subjective than quoting from his interviews. Transcripts contain what he said, instead of what he wants people to think (thus a more objective metric). And between choosing to quote Media Matters and O'Reilly, the choice is not obvious. ] 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. If we are attempting to list his opinions, why rely on others to tell us what those opinions are? -] 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because the article is not just about his opinions. It doesn't make sense to delete every Media Matters reference on that basis. ] 12:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: but if the Media Matters article is quoting O'Reilly on a speicific subject, is is far better to find an essay on the subject and use a reference there. If he is quoted as saying "I believe in X", find an essay written by him that says the same thing. Go for the primary source first. ] 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure, but that's not a good reason to delete all Media Matters references. Doing so implies that all Media Matters transcripts and videos are unreliable, which no one has established. In matters of opinion, I agree that the best source might be O'Reilly's essays, though why omit what he has said or done on his show? He is inconsistent, and the best way to establish that reliably is to cross-reference. ] 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
As stated above, I do have a problem with MMFA --the defamation-- so I'd never use it. But in terms of reliablility (if there were no comments section), I wouldn't support deleting every citation to MMFA here. There is video along with the transcripts, so the readers can see and hear for themselves what O'Reilly said. But even with that MMFA should be used as a last resort, and never for it's commentary. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed, but defamation is contingent upon false statements. As far as I know MMFA does not fall under that category. ] 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am referring to the defamation in the comment sections of MMFA. If MMFA says that BO said something "baselessly" or "falsely", that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about a contributor at MMFA using that post to write something nasty and vile about O'Reilly that may not be true, and Misplaced Pages leading someone to that comment because MMFA was used as a source here. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Last time I checked, all comments are hidden so that's not really an issue to be concerned about. ] 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's not like you have to log in to see them though. All you have to do is click "Show". If it were on some separate page, that would be one thing but unfortunately it's not. But on a larger note I have brought this issue up in a few places here and no one seems to think it is a big deal. It's just a restriction I've placed on myself in support of what I feel is the spirit of BLP. It's not just MMFA, I don't ever link to any Internet source that allows for general comments on the front page. If I had my druthers, MMFA would be banned as a source on this basis, not the accuracy of their transcripts. However, I concede I have seen no consensus for my position yet. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have is simply that Media Matters has been ''accused'' of taking this out of context, misquoting, etc. That makes me nervous. <!--];Will Pittenger-->] <small>(] - ])</small><!--ESC:Will Pittenger--> 21:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That's why we shouldn't use their commentary, but if we need proof that O'Reilly said something (without characterizing it) since MMFA has audio and video, it should be OK in that limited sense. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Can you be more specific? Who has accused MMFA of taking things out of context? Is there any evidence for that? ] 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Usually the subjects of Media Matters's posts defend themselves by saying their quotes were taken out of context. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::But is there any evidence for that? - If John Kerry says his "education and troops" statement is taken out of context by FOX News, does that mean we can't use FOX News as a source? I would imagine the right thing to do would be to use accurate sources (whether they are from FOX News or not), not erase all FOX News references just because Democrats believe they are being taken out of context. ] 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::That's why (outside of my unrelated objection stated above), I don't think MMFA is a inherently bad source provided it is used in the narrow manner I mention. The problem is editors here don't like to write "On X date Bill O'Reilly said Y" with a citation to MMFA. They prefer to write "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank)" with the citation to MMFA or "Bill O'Reilly is a (blank) because he said this" with the cite to MMFA. The first sentence seems to be non-BLP violating way to use MMFA (again outside my other objection). ] <sup>]</sup> 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Certainly, if MMFA (or any source) is going to be used, the word choice must be neutral and specific to the instance sourced. Context should be provided to avoid blanket statements. Seems that the major issue is really poor wording by editors or inaccurate blanket statements (vandalism?) rather than MMFA being inaccurate. ] 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I would agree with that in a general sense. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Scare Quotes== |
|
|
|
|
|
I just reverted a bunch of edits that added "]", expository and nNPOV section headings, and other biasing info. Sorry to the IP editor who added them, but if you want to take issue with words like "radical", "liberal", and "agenda", adding "quotes" around the words doesn't really accomplish your goal in a good-writing way. It just makes the article, "harder to read," and it looks a little "sarcastic". It would be better perhaps to cite a source that offers an opinion on the way that O'Reilly uses those "words". Don't write it yourself, but find a source and quote it briefly; Misplaced Pages says, "]." This and other policies cover to "op-ed" writing as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes we know him, we love him or we hate him, but we have to treat even a paragon of (something either demonic or angelic) like ] in a nonbiased way here on el Rancho Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!--***ERIELHONAN Start Sig***-->]]]]<!--***End Sig ERIELHONAN***--> 05:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article on the FAIR group clearly states that the group is liberal. Labeling them in this article is for the sole purpose of pre-empting any legitimate issues they might raise, dismissing them on the grounds of "liberal bias", thus pushing a personal point-of-view agenda. ] 11:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This article doesn't even classify O'Reilly as a conservative, why do we need to classify FAIR as liberal? ] 12:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:O'Reilly frequently takes liberals to task, but he denies being a conservative, but rather calls himself an independent. He delights in reading e-mails that take him to task when he doesn't kiss up to the Bush Republicans, and warns his viewers not to expect "ideological stroking". I would say the majority of his views align with the conservative checklist, but he's totally at odds with some of them. ] 13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Rather than having a paragraph about FAIR and the "], why not use the book as a source? This article should not be about labeling either side as liberal or conservative. That judgement should be left to the reader. If he claims they are a liberal group, find the citation and note it. If they call him a conservative, cite it as well. Misplaced Pages presents verifiable facts, not opinions. ] 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Surely dismissing issues due to liberal bias is a choice left to the reader? When judging a historical source, for example, one should not only look at the comments themselves, but also who made them. I think the addition of "liberal" helps clarify what background the issues raised are from. Is it any better if the liberal reference goes at the end of the paragraph, so that it reads something along the lines of: ''The book catalogues what are argued to be distortions and inaccuracies on the part of O'Reilly from a liberal perspective.''? ] 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Have you read the book? I haven't. But some or all of their claims about O'Reilly could be factually true even if ''not'' viewed from a "liberal perspective". An obvious example is the Peabody vs. Polk award fiasco. It does not require a "liberal perspective" to assert and prove that ''Inside Edition'' got the latter and not the former. Whether it's a mistake important enough to deserve a flogging from Al Franken is another matter altogether. ] 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Good example. So do you write "O'Reilly lied about getting a Peabody" or "Left Wingers attack O'Reily claiming..."? No, you write "He has been criticized for claims that he got a Peabody.(reference) He explained his mistake that he mispoke and meant that it was a Polk. (reference)" Now Franken may be referenced specifically if O'Reilly criticized him specifically, or talked about "Left winger" attacks mentioning this specific incident, but it is not up to us to put labels on people without references. ] 00:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The fact of the matter is that he (or his researchers) got it wrong in the book. Then, if you want to bring O'Reilly back to ''Inside Edition'', you could talk about the catfight that he and Al Franken got into thanks to Franken beating that minor issue to death on C-SPAN. Or, you ask yourself if it's worth even mentioning in the article. He has acknowledged that it was a "mistake". Of course, he also says the grounds for invasion of Iraq were a "mistake". All in all, the latter mistake seems a tad more important to the course of human events than the former does. The point being: yes, stick to the facts. Labeling FAIR as "liberal" is not representing a "fact", it's an ''opinion''. ] 00:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I might accept this text if cited properly == |
|
|
|
|
|
An apperant vandal added "He's frequently called a bigot, naïve and narrow-minded" which was reverted by ]. I would accept that if we can find a citation for that. It actually sound rather plausible and in keeping with ] as we would only be reporting someone's essay on what they ''believe'' he is like. Notice the keyword: Believe. Does anyone agree? <!--];Will Pittenger-->] <small>(] - ])</small><!--ESC:Will Pittenger--> 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We'd have to see the source first and make sure it's not just conjecture by the editor based on the source. Just to make sure you're not violating WP:BLP, you may want to just provide the diff and not it's text. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the link to the outfoxed documentary belongs on this page. I'm gonna take it out if no one cares in a little bit. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Levittown vs. Westbury == |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] has been broken on this. There are comments saying to stop it, so we need to come to a consensus. If it is changed again, we need to issue warnings. Whoever keeps reverting, stop! ] 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I have usually just reverted any change to this section, as I assumed that the comment implied some sort of factual correctness / consensus. But having actually looked into this a bit further, I realise the issue is not as clear cut as that. |
|
|
:The article that the comment refers to (]) does not seem to me to reach a firm conclusion. The correct name of the place seems to change with time, and hence the place to name in the article depends on which time is referenced. The choice of name seems to be very POV loaded and ought to be sorted. |
|
|
:I can see two possible compromise solutions: |
|
|
:* Name the place twice, as it was at the time of O'Reilly's birth and the current name. For example, something to the effect of ''O'Reilly lived in Levittown, but the address is now in Westbury''. |
|
|
:* Name a broader geographical area and refer to the controversy page, allowing the reader look into the controvery themselves, should they so wish. For example, something to the effect of ''O'Reilly lived in Long Island, New York, but there is some controversy over the actual address.'' |
|
|
:Without having looked at the issue fully, these are the best ways I can see of maintaining NPOV, but I'm open to suggestions! ] 02:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I would prefer listing both names, with the expla |
|
|
: Anination (your first solution), at least temporarily. Hopefully this will end the revert war until we further determine the true state of things. ] 21:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Have added words to the effect of the first one, with a link to the O'Reilly controversies article. ] 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: It still sounds POV to me. "He was born in Wesbury, but he ''claims'' he was borin in Levittown" could just as easily be written as "he was born in Levittown, but critics ''claim'' he was born in Westbury". I think we need it to be presented as fact "He was born in what was then Levittown, but boundary changes moved the address to Westbury. This has causes some critics to ..." with a link to the criticism. ] 18:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Does the City Recorder have some weight on this issue? Look at . Bill O'reilly's mother's house is in Levittown. Stop with the Westbury nonsense and fix the article to represent O'Reilly's upbringing accurately. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I have changed the article to reflect the reference (actually quote it): "In 1951, his family moved to ], in an area that overlapped with the outskirts of ], on ]." ] 23:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is still inaccurate. O'Reilly is not from Levittown, he is from Westbury, and there is a difference. The reference cited above to the frankenlies.com webpage specifically says "It may help to know that, beginning in 1947, William Levitt built thousands of homes in Island Trees (renamed to Levittown). He then continued his development within the villages of Wantagh, Hicksville, and Westbury, and these newly developed subdivisions were often identified together with Levittown.2" |
|
|
So, Westbury, as well as other subdivisions, were lumped together generically. In addition, his own mother in a Washington Post article dated 12/13/2000 is quoted as saying he grew up in Westbury "a middle-class suburb a few miles from |
|
|
Levittown." But she's probably just another factually inaccurate secular progressive out to bring down the mighty Bill. |
|
|
] 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ''This is still inaccurate. O'Reilly is not from Levittown, he is from Westbury'' |
|
|
:: Sorry, but you are wrong on this. O'Reilly has produced the actual deed from the home with the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. (It does not say "Westbury" anywhere.) See it at ] The Levittown reference is correct. Maybe you got your information from Al Franken. He was wrong on this. ] 17:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering the reliable sources (here the City Recorder deed to the house) says Levittown, any statement that Bill O'reilly grew up in Westbury is ]. Of course we can mention both sides of the controversy, but to come down on any side of this issue violates ]. So the current version that says Levittown, with the Westbury explanation is the only way we can present this information. Enough. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just read the article on Mr O'Reilly and my memory of the article is that it says comes from "Westbury". As pointed out above he actually produced the title deed of the house and it says "Levittown". |
|
|
|
|
|
It is rather like the choice of the words "private school" rather than "Catholic school" to describe where this person was educated. My aim is clearly to imply that Mr O'Relly's family were well off - which they were not. Mr Frankin has stated that the source of his information on the O'Reilly family is Bill O'Reilly's mother - as this lady has been suffering from dementia for some years such a source (even if any interview really took place) is not reliable. For example, the regular family trips to Florida (a claim by Mr Frankin) turns out to be one trip to Florida - a trip made by bus. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just because Mr Frankin (or mediawatch or whoever) says the O'Reilly family were well off does not alter the fact that they were not well off. |
|
|
|
|
|
I write as the product of a government school and from a government (or as we say in Britain "Council") house. |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
O'Reilly has produced the actual deed from the home with the words "Levittown, New York" right on it. (It does ''not'' say "Westbury" anywhere!) See the deed at ] The Levittown reference is completely correct. Al Franken was flat-out ''wrong'' on his assertion. ] 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: anon user 71.252.106.46 is wanting to start a 3R war on this subject. I thought you should know. I have pointed out that the deed says Levittown, but he seem to think that it isn't the case. Please discuss. ] 07:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Single word removed == |
|
|
|
|
|
The final sentence in the ] section read "wanting to leniently try terror suspects in civilian courts." I removed the word "leniently." As it originally stood, it was unclear to me whether the word referred to O'Reilly's views, or if it was intended as a factual statement about what the "SPs" wanted to do. ] 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: The word "leniently" in this context amounts to a NPOV violation. By using "leniently", the author is agreeing with O'Reilly. ] 09:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
How did that thing about Clay Aiken get in there? Is there any evidence about a relationship or does that picture even exist? |
|
|
|
|
|
==He put his foot into his mouth== |
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a sense of humour failure here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When he stated that "] is the most powerful woman on earth" he revealed to the world that he is mentally unbalanced. ] 12:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you have a reference that calles him mentally unbalanced? Opinions don't matter on Misplaced Pages, as they fall under original research. We welcome your contributions, but please give us something useful. ] 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::O'Reilly might actually be right about that. However, I'm also mentally unbalanced. (Too much to the left, not enough to the right). ] 23:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead image on page == |
|
|
|
|
|
As per the caption, "The image above is believed to be a replaceable fair use image. It will be deleted on 2007-01-04 if not determined to be irreplaceable." Has it been decided that the image is usable? I removed the image because today is 2007-01-06, after the date. If the image is fair-use, the tag should be removed; otherwise, the reference should be removed ] 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the reminder. DONE. ] 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe the current image is acceptable for use on this article, and have removed it. As explained on the ], this image includes a copyrighted logo which must serve to illustrate the "organization, item, or event in question" to qualify as ]. I would say that the image is OK for the ] article, but not here, where it is used to illustrate the person. Aside from this issue, I would also suggest that, in the same way as the previous image, the image is replaceable and hence should be removed. →] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I added the image from article ]. It seems a bit unusual to have his picture in a sub-article about him and not the main article. ] 06:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Gay rights/marriage == |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, as conservative as Bill is, I believe he supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, and may even support gay marriage....I remember him being sort of like "just leave gay people alone; I wish I was gay, maybe someone would ask me out" and that is very similar to what he said on his show few years ago, the radical right was shocked. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
*While his views on gay rights are fair, he does not approve of gay "marriage", at least not if sanctioned by courts rather than by the citizenry through legislation. He also doesn't believe in public flaunting of sexuality in general, which is a very traditionalistic viewpoint. ] 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Mr O'Reilly has stated (for example in his recent book "Culture Warrior") that he supports homosexuals being allowed to foster and adopt children. This clearly puts himself outside the teaching of the Church (the Roman Catholic) that he belongs to. |
|
|
|
|
|
On "gay marriage" (as opposed to "miserable marriage"?), the position of this person would seem to be against homosexual marriage, but in favour of civil unions. It seems to be the word "marriage" that Mr O'Reilly draws the line at. |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Outfoxed image == |
|
|
I removed the image of the Jeremy Glick interview from Outfoxed from the Controversy section, as neither Glick nor Outfoxed is ever mentioned in the article. Image captions are not an appropriate place to introduce topics, and certainly should not be the only place an issue is mentioned. Please feel free to readd it with appropriate in-article context. ] 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==National Headliner Award== |
|
|
There's a reference to O'Reilly winning two National Headliner Awards for his work at ''ABC World News Tonight'', where he worked from 1986-89. |
|
|
|
|
|
But he's listed nowhere on the "past recipients" page at the National Headliner Awards website -- which also says the award only goes back to 1997. Where did this information come from, and can we verify it? --] 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I assume the information came from his Fox News bio . Other people claim to have received the National Headliner Award previous to 1997, so I suspect that the official website just doesn't go back that far. I will do a news search to see if I can verify this fact independently. ] 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: According to ], they've been given out since 1935. - ] 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Neutrality == |
|
|
|
|
|
This man's views are often incoherant, uninformed, and blantantly internally inconstistant. Is there a reason that the wiki page sanitizes his opinions and career to this degree? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 11:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Another problem with the autthor's lack of neutrality is his reference to the "War on Christmas" as if it were real. ] 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*The issue of the so-called "War on Christmas" is an annual crusade of O'Reilly's, whether such a "war" is objectively "real" or not. ] 15:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is obvious that you all do not understand the concept of neutrality on Misplaced Pages, and the neutrality tag was in bad faith. Misplaced Pages isn't here to judge whether or not he is right; this biographical article is to state what he does, and why he does it. It is not here to judge whether or not he is correct. -- '''] ]]''' 23:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Under terrorism heading == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a sentence that reads "He has been critical of politicians such as Democratic Speaker Of The House |
|
|
Nancy Pelosi and George Soros for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts." This is incorrect as George Soros |
|
|
is not a politician. |
|
|
|
|
|
Then there is this one: "He was also critical of Attorney General John Ashcroft for CIA blunders in intelligence over |
|
|
weapons of mass destruction." First of all, it should read "former Attorney General John Ashcroft...". |
|
|
Second, it makes no sense because the CIA does not fall under Justice Dept. purview and never has; the FBI does.] 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thanks for yor comments. Misplaced Pages encourages users to '''be ]''' - why not change it youself! →] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==O'Reilly's comments on kidnapped boy== |
|
|
|
|
|
Curious whether O'Reilly comments on the Shawn Hornbeck case are notable enough to be included. Here's a partial transcript: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Bill O'Reilly: You know the Stockholm syndrome thing, I don't buy it, I never bought it, I don't think It happened in the Patty Hearst Case. I don't think it happened here... |
|
|
|
|
|
:Greta van Susteren: Woah, Can I just say something? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Bill O'Reilly: Yeah go ahead and jump in. |
|
|
|
|
|
:GVS: First of all we don't know all the facts, Don't forget that Elizabeth Smart likewise had an opportunity to leave and she did not. She was on the public street for some reason when young people are picked up and taken under the influence of adults they are very receptive of what adults do. So I would not dismiss the Stockholm syndrome -- |
|
|
|
|
|
:BOR: The difference in the Smart case, and correct me if I am wrong, was this guy was always around the little girl and she wasn't gone for the long period of time as this guy was. Now what we have learned -- and this is why I don't believe in Stockholm -- this guy Shawn Hornbeck gone four years from 11-15. Authorities actually say that he taunted his own parents on his website. He's got these piercing this is a troubled kid in my opinion -- |
|
|
|
|
|
:GVS: The piercings, a lot of kids do the piercings. As far as the taunting goes on the website I think what can be established is that someone on this particular login taunted the parents. Was it done from this particular computer? If it was done from this particular computer that means that Michael Devlin did it, or Shawn did it or someone with access to the computer... let's not forget he is a kid.... He may be 15 now... |
|
|
|
|
|
:BOR: No, I am not buying this if you're 11 years old or 12 years old or 13 and you have a strong bond with your family. Even if the guy threatens you this and that. You're riding your bike around, you got friends -- the kid didn't go to school. There's all kinds of stuff, if you can get away, you get away. If you're 11 -- |
|
|
|
|
|
:GVS: Bill it seems bizarre to me, I agree it seems bizarre. Why not run, why not yell, why not scream? But the thing I keep going back to is, what was Patti Hearst's story... |
|
|
|
|
|
:BOR: I didn't buy that Patti Hearst story for a second. |
|
|
|
|
|
:GVS: Why was she so willing to sign up with her kidnappers and like wise Elizabeth Smart, she had opportunity -- nice kid, nice family, why was she unwilling to run...? |
|
|
|
|
|
:BOR: Let me answer your question. This is what I believe in the Hearst case and in this case. The situation that Hearst found herself in was exciting. She had a boring life, child of privilege. All of a sudden she's in with a bunch of charismatic thugs and she enjoyed it. The situation here with this kid is looks to me to be a lot more fun then when he had under his own parents. He didn't have to go to school, He could run around and do what he wanted. |
|
|
|
|
|
:GVS: Some kids like school -- |
|
|
|
|
|
:BOR: Well I don't believe this kid did. And I think when it all comes down what's going to happen is there was an element here that this kid liked about his circumstances... <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
I think it probably isn't noteworthy in and of itself, but if it can be used in conjunction with his overall opinion on a subject, such as child exploitation, then it can be included. He also made comments about the Smart girl's kidnapping, and others, and how relavant are they now? ] 19:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The story is on going (for example in yesterday's "Factor" Mr O'Reilly reported a "Newsweek" article directly relevant to the case). It would be unwise to include anything about the case in a Misplaced Pages article before the facts are fully known. |
|
|
|
|
|
Of course in a British context Mr O'Reilly's comments would not be allowed (as they might bias a jury in the forthcomming trial). However, Mr O'Reilly is an American commenting on an American case. |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, from what I have seen, Mr O'Reilly is normally very strict on child abuse matters - regarding (for example) the punishment of child abusers in Vermont as far too mild. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for Pattie Hearst: this women claims she was raped by her captors - hardly "exciting". I hope Mr O'Reilly is correct in thinking that nothing like that happened (but I doubt he is correct). |
|
|
|
|
|
There are also such things as the behaviour of American P.O.W.s in Korea and Vietnam. The "Stockholm Syndrome" may indeed be very rare, but there are various ways of making even adults speak and act as their captors would wish. |
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Marks. |
|
|
*It is hard to figure why O'Reilly has taken the stance he has in this case. I suspect there's a double-standard here. That is, I suspect he thinks boys should be held more accountable somehow. He is certainly getting some heat for this, though. ] 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've rephrased the blurb about O'Reilly's commentary on the Hornbeck case. The previous version was phrased as such: ''O'Reilly...stated that a Missouri pre-teen, Shawn Hornbeck, who was abducted and held prisoner for four years by an alleged child molester...'' which, to be fair, implies that Delvin had already been charged with a sex crime prior to O'Reilly's comments. I changed the section to reflect that formal charges had not been brought against the kidnapper at the time O'Reilly made his comments. I personally disagree with O'Reilly's take on this issue, but to be fair, he was apparently speaking from the angle that no sex charges had been brought upon Delvin at the time. Though it seems that O'Reilly is the only person around that doubted that the boy was abused. Anyway, I hope I made sense here... --''] 23:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)'' |
|
|
::::Oops. The accused's name is "Devlin", not "Delvin". I've rectified the misspelling in the article. --''] 07:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)'' |
|
|
:::It sounded like he always thought that the boy had been molested, but he knew that if he didn't pretend to give him the benefit of the doubt after telling off the leader of the Black Panthers over the Duke Rape Case that he would be called a hypocrite again, and that he would have no way to refute the accusations. Cheers, -- '''] ]]''' 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ACLU == |
|
|
|
|
|
He appears to have suggested the ACLU are traitors in the 31st January? episode he asked someone if he thought they were traitors when that other person said no they're pacifists who are entitled to their opinions he said he thinks they go a bit further then that ] 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*It fits right in with his opinion of the ACLU. ] 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== You know, I've figured out what bugs me about this article. == |
|
|
|
|
|
The thing that bugs me about this article, no matter what my position on Bill O'Reilly, is that NPOV is not really being followed. There's a whole "Controversies" section (really a disguised "Criticisms" section, IMO), but yet I see nowhere that details why supporters of the program believe it is so good! This article really seems biased, in my view. And I don't necessarily like Bill O'Reilly. - ] 08:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*There might be a shortage of citable sources singing his praises. He reaps what he sows. ] 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is biased because no body on this site likes him. Until we get a hardcore American Republican on this site the page is pretty much screwed. -- '''] ]]''' 00:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I somehow doubt that. - ] 08:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, and he could write a book: ''The Edit Warrior''. I'm a liberal-leaning sort who watches O'Reilly for the entertainment value (think ''Inside Edition''-type entertainment) and the occasional expository piece. So that makes me a fan in a perverse kind of way. I've tried to correct vandalism and blatant POV-pushing as it arises. But it's difficult to be an Army of One. ] 03:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm a centrist, plain and simple. He's entertaining, and I think he's correct on some stuff and wrong on others. I'm at this page to protect it from the blatant vandalism and POV edits as you are. I'm no source to correct what has already been done. We need someone as far right as he is to piss everyone off and get wheels turning. Anyone have any friends like that whom you could convince to join Misplaced Pages? Cheers, -- '''] ]]''' 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If the structure is poor, clean it up. Get rid of the controversies and weave them into his various positions. When I found this article, it was a bullet list of his opinions, and good thing they were referenced. I went through the references and found the true point of each of his articles (most of the references are from his weekly column), and put them into coherent paragraphs. So, if there is a criticism, find where it fits into the paragraphs of his beliefs and weave it it. If a criticism doesn't fit anywhere, it is probably too vague to be referenced. ] 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Don't lose sight of the fact that a significant part of his ''modus operandi'' is to court controversy. Spiritually he's still doing ''Inside Edition''. ] 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I thought the controversies section was there to soften the criticism (make it less blatant). The reason it wouldn't matter if there were any "hard-core conservatives" editing the page is because you can't turn his lies into truths. And you can't present his exaggerations neutrally. His self-aggrandizing nature requires that he is always right morally or factually, even when he contradicts himself. ] 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I concur with ] but understand what you are saying '''] ]]''' about the article having an overall biased feel. We can only work with what Bill O'Reilly gives us to work with regarding his statements. I've tried but I seriously don't think it's possible to put him in a centrist light considering what he says and how he says it. Contrast him with other conservative commentators like ]. Seriously, give it a shot yourself to see what I mean. Perhapos you'll actually write the neutral sounding article we are all hoping for, or you'll understand why the page reads the way it does. Either way you win. ] 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::O'Reilly shouldn't be portrayed as a centrist. He is a traditionalist, and that is what he should be portrayed as. However, since in the minds of many, including myself, traditionalist = conservative when a bunch of liberals have to write the article (this talk page confirms that) it is going to be biased. There is no way to avoid it. I know that it hasn't been done on purpose, but it still happened. 1,000,000 monkeys will write Shakespeare, but 1,000,000 communist monkeys will write the Communist Manifesto ;). Something along those lines happened here, but it was 1,000,000 liberal monkeys, and it was about Bill O'Reilly. We need some conservative monkeys to balance this out. Cheers, -- '''] ]]''' 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I know that's a weird metaphor, but let's just roll with it ;). Peace, -- '''] ]]''' 01:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I have heard him refer to himself as a traditionalist, but that is a very vague label considering his views on certain traditions. For example I understand he would support civil unions for homosexuals, which seems to acknowledge he doesn't mind a homosexual couple pledging to live together in monogamy as long as it isn't called a marriage. "Traditionally" speaking a gay couple seeking recognition of a marriage-like situation might get beaten or killed. Can anyone point to a page that expands what should define a traditionalist as O'Reilly sees it. ] 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::"Traditionalist" is pretty slippery as a label, but that's what he calls himself. He is by no means a gay rights advocate. I think he sees civil unions as a reasonable alternative to the presumed sanctity of marriage. It's safe to say that in general, he is not happy about the "gay agenda" being pushed. ] 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==NCMEC Dinner== |
|
|
|
|
|
It may not yet be worth noting in the article, but their statement seems to imply his cancelled appearance may not be so much about his comments about Shwan Hornbeck as it was popular demand. ] 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
But the popular demand was driven by people's reaction to O'Reilly's comments, which makes it, in effect, the reason why he was dumped. -- ] 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree with you, but the NCMEC has left itself an "out" by not citing the specific comments they were receiving. I wonder if they fear a lawsuit from him, otherwise I'd think that an organization like NCMEC wouldn't let anyone in the media say the stuff he did without voicing a reaction. ] 06:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== About controversies section... == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does "The Colbert Report" really fit there? I mean, I know it belongs in the article, but I hardly see how it fits in the controversies section, O'rielly doesn't really seem to mind the parody, and I highly doubt he would remain silent about it if he didn't like it. He has even commented that he likes "The Colbert Report". Perhaps it could be placed somewhere else.--] 19:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O'Reilly has two choices: appear to have no problem with it (and make the "issue" of how he feels about it go away) or complain about being professionally and competently mocked (which Colbert is doing, virtually 100% of the time), and appear to be an oversensitive whiner who couldn't handle having a mirror placed in front of him, which is how he appeared dealing with Franken's spot-on criticisms of a few years ago. Regardless of O'Reilly's public attitude towards Colbert, I think it belongs in this section, because it's an accurate satirization and mockery of O'Reilly, and many of his fans and apologists gun for Colbert frequently.-- ] 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Limbaugh blurb" as MrMurph101 calls it is not a quote from Limbaugh, it's a quote from O'Reilly, and it's about how according to O'Reilly, he is a "journalist" and should therefore be held to journalistic standards. Please stop deleting this text, as it's a key quote for this section to understand how O'Reilly is "fair game" for his critics, who frequently demonstrate O'Reilly's playing fast and loose with the truth.-- ] 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I concur with ], O'Reilly is comparing himself to Rush Limbaugh and saying that Limbaugh is held to entertainment standards whereas O'Reilly himself is held to journalistic standards. Personally I see it as a nullification of Limbaugh's credibility. Essentially O'Reilly is saying Limbaugh is free to not know what he's talking about, but as a journalist O'Reilly has to "know the facts" for lack of a better term. ] 10:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am not saying the Limbaugh blurb quoting an O'Reilly opinion(which I never mentioned was Limbaugh's opinion by the way) should be completely deleted from the article. I just thought it was misplaced and misused. As it is stated now it is ok but this criticism should be elaborated more. Just stating an O'Reilly opinion as it did originally should have been put in the personal views section. I believe the gist of this criticism is how some believe he is an objective journalist when in reality he is a guy who presents his opinion with guests that may debate or concur with him. This part just should have been explained better. ] 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The new statement looks like an improvement, it started to sound like all mention of it was to be removed. ] 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You have to understand that the Controversy & Criticisms section can have more in it than simply direct criticisms; the overwhelming majority of criticisms of O'Reilly stem from the fact that he continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false. The inclusion of the quote from O'Reilly helps to place these criticisms in context; if comedian Rush Limbaugh isn't held to a factual standard, perhaps others may be encouraged to let O'Reilly off the hook as well, telling us that we're making too much of the situation. That O'Reilly opens the door to hold himself to the "journalistic standard" is certainly relevant here. And Murph: you may not have wanted to communicate this point, but when you said "took out Limbaugh blurb, states an opinion of O'Reilly", your sentence construction means that you think Limbaugh said it about O'Reilly. If you had meant that you understood it to be an O'Reilly quote, you should have used "...states an opinion of O'Reilly's." Also, if you never meant that it should be "completely deleted from the article" - why did you in fact completely delete it from the article? Why not simply move it, and explain your reasoning? Sounds to me like you fell on the wrong side of the prevailing wisdom and then tried to scramble back and agree with us from the start. Very much like O'Reilly! :) (just a joke, not a personal attack).--] 03:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false. If that were so there would be a lot better examples to go by here that go beyond what advocacy groups like Media Matters come up with. There are those out there that claim all his critics have been immediately proven to be false and that is POV also. People can decide which side to believe if any. As for the article, in hindsight I should have explained my intentions and that was my bad. I believe it is the goal in wikipedia to reach consensus, not have everything my way or any certain way and be inflexible. I was just trying to keep the article section from getting bloated with tangential references. For instance, I concur with Metasex's take on the Colbert reference. Until Colbert actually goes on record as saying "I do not like O'Reilly and I'm here to mock him" (the real person, not the character), it's POV and original research(connecting the dots) to consider it crticism. Colbert is just a comedian at this point. The Colbert Report is mentioned in ] article and has been for quite some time. As for my edit summary on Limbaugh, here it is: "took out Limbaugh blurb, '''states an opinion of O'Reilly''', nothing really controversial or any criticism noted" I probably should have used "O'Reilly('s)" instead to make it more clear. The sentence in the article at the time just stated something without elaborating. However, the entry is now better so I do not have any issue with it. That is our goal, to make articles better as we go on. ] 00:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::: I'm not sure to whom you're referring when you say "it is POV to automatically say that everything he says is immediately proven to be false." I never said that, and I never even came close to saying that. What I said was that O'Reilly "continually offers as facts items which are almost immediately proven to be false." This is a true statement of fact. For several years, analysts, critics and journalists have demonstrated instances where O'Reilly made a claim of fact that turned out to be false. I'm not talking about opinions, political beliefs/stances, or predictions - I'm talking about things that O'Reilly have said were facts which were proven not to be so, from the Peabody to Malmedy and so on. These are not things that "people can decide which side to believe" - they are instances where O'Reilly is demonstrably wrong. I never stated, either in this discussion or in the article, any sense of how often he does this, only that he does "continually" (meaning he has done so in the past, and despite being called on it, correctly, again and again, continues to do so) - which is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::In terms of Colbert, if you don't think a criticisms section belongs here, you're entitled to that opinion. If it belongs, however, then the three most significant critics of O'Reilly - Media Matters, Franken and Colbert - belong. And as a side note, claiming that Colbert is "just a comedian at this point" underestimates his (and Jon Stewart's, to whom Colbert has to be seen as connected to understand his signifigance) importance to current political discourse and political/journalistic criticism. You may not like them - that seems pretty clear - but it's naive to dismiss either as "simply a comedian."--] 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Spouse and Children== |
|
|
I wonder if the inclusion of the name of Mr. O'Reilly's wife and children is necessary. First, they are not notable in and of themselves. Second, Mr. O'Reilly has gone to great lenghths to keep their identities private. Third, there is no strong precedent of placing persons spouses and especially children in articles about them. Would anyone object to the removal of the names from the infobox per the privacy provisions of WP:BLP? ] <sup>]</sup> 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I did not know he was married so that part seems important. It is interesting to me that his wife's last name is not O'Reilly. ] 00:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The test is whether it is ], not solely importance. In addition, the importance of her name, is up for debate. That being said, if there is no objection in the next few days, I will delete the name of his children per the privacy provisions of ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sure I was just to know that he is married and has kids. ] 01:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
I object to the Colbert's description of his character as a ""well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot." This description of Colbert's character has no relevance to O'Reilly, except as to backhandedly call O'reilly these names. Such a characterization violates ]. When it comes to BLP, NO information is preferred over non-sourced negative information. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ramsquire: you win. Looking over your "contributions" and your discussions not only on this article but on several others, I can see that you're a committed conservative idealogue, doing whatever you can to protect and enhance the reputations of famous conservative idealogues, while trying to make it look like you're "only following wiki policy" ("...only following orders" can't be far off for folks like you). I personally find that reprehensible, and won't spend any more energy fighting you over the trivialities of your hero Bill. |
|
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". 104.202.135.219 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
