Talk:The O'Reilly Factor/Archive 1

Add a criticism section

Not sure why there isn't a criticism section here, particularly since [Countdown with Keith Olbermann] has a fairly sizable one, no doubt there are some well sourced valid criticisms to be found about the show itself. But if it isn't appropriate to have a criticism section then please remove the criticism section from the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article.

I agree. Obviously this is extreme bias at play.

@unsigned, step up to the plate and research and flesh out a well sourced, standalone "criticism section. You can edit this article as well as anyone else can. Veriss (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it seems like you have a liberal bias then. At least O'reilly actually has liberal opinions such as global warming despite being a conservative. =)184.98.139.7 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not News

As Fox News Channel has repeatedly stated, the O'REilly Factor is not a news show. It is an editorial segment of their lineup. All references to the show as news should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.175.37.128 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

News commentary is still a news show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe the impact The O'Reilly Factor has had on the format and content of contemporary television news is significant, and would strengthen the article if included. Unfortunately, finding NPOV articles on this topic is proving quite difficult. 24.155.185.195 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "news". There is a difference between "news" and "propaganda". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.63.159 (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

There is no 'reception' or 'criticism' section on the O'Reilly page as is the case with liberal pundit shows such as Countdown With Keith Olbermann. This needs to be in place as O'Reilly's show does draw a lot of criticism. I would also point out that the show is referred to as "The Factor" in the article which I think gives off an air of bias, it sounds too chummy or something, as if a fan of the show edited it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.44.66 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'reily refers to it as the Factor exclusively, and never as the O'reily factor. It's not bias, it just a shortened name. Ink Falls (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert

I think that it was just an isolated incident and I believe that it has been corrected. Chessdude111 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

~CortalYX^Talk? 01:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Is this show called the o'reilly blather in reality? Or refer to potty breaks? I've never heard of it before, but from the logo, seems like vandalism again to me.

Paris Business Review

Paris Business Review redirects here but there's no mention of it here.

Reply: During a 2004 “O’Reilly Factor” debate with Heather Mallick, a columnist from the Toronto Globe, Bill O'Reilly stated that as a result of the “Factor’s” Boycott of France that country has, “...lost billions of dollars according to 'The Paris Business Review.'"

Although I believe there may now be a journal with a similar name, at that time there was no evidence of a publication named "The Paris Business Review.", "Revue des Affaires de Paris," or any similar French name.

There apparently is a journal called "European Business Review," which is published in England; however, over the past two years, "European Business Review" has apparently not mentioned an American boycott of France.

Currently, there are two domain names for Paris Business Review, the Paris Business Review.com and the Paris Business Review.net. Each was created in July 2004. The debate between Mallick and O’reilly occurred on April 17, 2004. - Dryfus 19:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

MrMurph101 claims a real life... I think that needs a citation.

As a matter of fact each of you should consider placing anything that might be questionable in another block and let the rest of the world enjoy an easy-to-read, factual, nutshell explanation instead of this silly civil war of the factor goonsquads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butchpenton (talk • contribs)

Instead of making accusations without anything to back it up, it would be better to make suggestions about the article and be civil. Also, please add comments at the bottom of the page, not on top of an older disscussion. MrMurph101 20:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article violates the NPOV policy in the following statements (bold for NPOV Policy):

"He claims that his show is a 'no spin zone' and that 'the spin stops here,' though many observers from both sides of the political spectrum consider O'Reilly (and his show) for the most part conservative in viewpoint." (If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts--since there is no reference listed, this statement is suspect)

Some critics believe that The O'Reilly Factor has a conservative bias. O'Reilly often makes the claim that he is politically independent. However, this refers to his independence from political parties, not political ideologies. On occasions where he disagrees with the current Bush administration, he usually does so while keeping in line with standard conservative positions. (If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts, Does the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each?--since there are no references and no opposing points of view this section is POV)

The quotes section (I'm not going to quote a specific NPOV section, but I get a strong feeling that these quotes were selected for an attack on the credibility of the show. While this may or may not be valid, it needs to give the context of the quotes and also include quotes that are not *only* intended to attack the credibility of the show. I think this section should be deleted and the non-obsolete items added to wikiquote.

--Burzum 15:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, either Burzum is right and O'Fucktard is as partisan as my half-and-half, or Burzum has shown part of the insanity of trying to maintain NPOV. There ain't no such thing as NPOV.

Ok, I realize O'Reilly tries hard to distance himself from the label "conservative", but a little diggin on Google gives at least one reputable source worth quoting.

"It's hard to find examples of O'Reilly attacking conservatives (other than Goebbels, of course) or their favorite causes with such vigor. For a commentator who scrutinized every action of the previous administration, O'Reilly's softball treatment of the Bush White House speaks volumes." - FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), available online at "http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070"

I admit, they're not unpartisan themselves, but it's a valid quote which supports the statement currently in place. Good job pointing out POV language! I really do applaud your efforts with this article. Hopefully we can get it to a point where statements are substantiated instead of just being placed without challenge into an already controversial article. Let me know what you think about the above quote, and if necessary I'll go digging for a few others. --ABQCat 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"memorable" quotes?

Calling these quotes "memorable" sounds strange to me. These are "shocking" quotes (like the one on Denmark, or Katrina). I know we can't say "shocking", but we do need to find something else. "Memorable" means "worth remembring", and that's to positive I think. I'll change it to "quotes" for now, without adjective. Michaël 15:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

O'reilly is a force to be recond with a smart out going man that makes a living by hosting a talk show host(edited by Alex Dimbath) That's very very poor 'editing' then. 須藤 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Propaganda?

This category has been added to articles on some of Michael Moore's films (and the addition reverted, and the revert reverted). As someone who agrees with Moore and not with O'Reilly, I think all these "Propaganda" tags should go, but I put this one on here as an alert that the issue is under discussion. Please see Category talk:Propaganda. O'Reilly admirers and detractors are invited to join the Moore admirers and detractors in thrashing it out.  :) JamesMLane 00:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, for one, if this is an accurate category for this program. I think it probably earns a "news magazine" or "entertainment" title, (clearly not NPOV news), but to list it as propaganda without specific instances seems POV, to me. I support leaving category:propaganda if specific instances are cited (~5 at least). --ABQCat 02:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd have a hard time putting a news analysis program in the propaganda category. Both sides get equal time to speak on the show, the only problem might be some influence from O'Reilly. Even so, both sides get a chance to speak and make an argument, unlike in Moore's films. I'd like to see some examples before this is propaganda. --Nabber00 06:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Moore is a propagandist, but unlike Bill O'Rielly, he doesn't try to discuise himself as a reporter or try to convince people that his movies are "Fair and Balanced". --NoPetrol 06:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calling Michael Moore a propagandist is itself, I think, a perfect example of propaganda. Moore is an Oscar Award winning filmmaker and best selling author. His work, while it does express, some say, a liberal or left-wing a point of view and is not without flaws, is much more accurate and fact-based than the works of Mr. O'Reilly. For example, see Moore's web site's detailed fact-checking section for his film Fahrenheit 911, then have a look at the analyses of O'Rielly's broadcasts as presented by the media watchdog group Media Matters for America. Notice too there is no "fact-checking" section on O'Rielly's official site. Who's the propagandist here? Check the facts, then decide. Calicocat 17:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh...and Bill isn't a best selling author? Also I would have to say if I watched a documentary I would expect it to be factually correct (which Moore's films are not).

I think there's some value in the notion that if a person presents themselves as a fair journalist, they have an obligation to try their best to BE a fair journalist. We can't know if O'Reilly TRIES to be a fair journalist, but we can evaluate his attempts based upon his programs. If you can at least cite instances of non-fair segments on his show or in which he presents opinion as fact, I think you would have a good case for DISCUSSING adding propeganda as a category for this program. I've often felt (during or after wathching the O'Reilly Factor) that the program wasn't quite the most balanced, but somehow can't ever put my finger on exact instances. Bill yelling down guests presenting opposing ideas or Bill refusing to hear an alternative point of view after making up his own mind are the best examples, but those are already noted in the article. It certainly adds a POV to his show which wouldn't be tolerated on Wikipedia, but it's not clear that it rises to the level of propeganda. Still, if you can cite some examples you think make your case, I think you'd find quite a few people who would be willing to discuss the topic. --ABQCat 07:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to find out if O'Reilly is or is not a propagandist, why not start with some analysis of the factual accuracy of his so called reporting. He's repeatedly and consistently been found to offer as factual news items disproven and clearly is a propagandist. I added a link to this page to allow a reader of this article to get some analysis of NPOV checking There is propaganda on both left and right, here's some examples of the right-wing propaganda efforts by O'Rielly. Analysis of O'Reilly Calicocat 23:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TO think that O'Rielly is spewing Propaganda, is basicly saying that someone who invites others to debate with them is as well. Moore however only presents his side of a Far-left POV, and does not allow others to contribute to a disscussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.173.251 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Moore is an artist. Comedians don't invite people on stage to dispute their hatred of airline food. That's ridiculous. O'Reilly isn't a journalist, he's a clown, and I think when we try to use kid gloves with things like this article and all repeat the mantra of neutrality, we do a disservice to people who come here for information. I don't think "Propaganda" should be a section as it's a baseless claim. However, the fact that there are multiple organizations who report daily on his inaccuracies and misrepresentations makes him eligible for a sizable "Criticism" section. F33bs (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Conservative v independent

The article states that "columnists and news broadcasters routinely call him a conservative pundit. However, he denies this heavily, and considers himself an independant." I don't think that conservative and independent are in any way opposed. He has called himself a populist and this is more relevant to claims that he is conservative. That he calls himself independent would be relevant to claims that he favours Republicans. Even if he doesn't distinguish between conservative and Republican, we should. Tim Ivorson 13:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there might be confusion here. He's independent, but does openly endorse positions that are close to those of the Republican Party. He is independent in that he uses reason to make up his own mind. He is conservative in his own values. Partially because of this, it just so happens that his positions on politics tend to come down nearer the Republican base values than the Democratic Party's base values. He's considered "conservative" by the media because of where his politics tend to come out, but one would be hard pressed to claim that he blindly follows the party line.

I'd agree with clarifying text which makes this point: he's conservative, tends to hold republican positions on issues, but independently arrives at those positions. --ABQCat 07:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

iirc, he is a registered republican (see page 77 of the hardcoverf of lies) -- Cannibalicious!

Ugly

This article is really toxic. O'Reilly's show is very successful and deserves a better treatment than it gets here. I have had a stab at delousing it to some extent but it needs much more work. Fluterst 13:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the references, it would be helpful to find more objective sources for this article. I will attempt to find them on the web. The show is news analysis so OReilly will take positions on issues. Definitely POV. Hoosier 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that controversial topics have trouble being NPOV. This article is a good example of that. People will bring in facts that benefit their point of view that may make the edit seem NPOV. The best thing to do is to research facts that contradict or balance out an edit if a reversion does not seem necessary. I did this with one of the "bias" topics about not having on third party guests when in fact Ralph Nader has been a guest on several occasions. I also wonder if some of the content here should be under Bill O'Reilly when it comes to him personally and what is relevant to the show. Some things may need to be moved around. MrMurph101 19:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

None of the quotes eve have a citation. How are readers to know the context in which they were said, or even if they are tru, without citations. This whole articel needs a rewrite becasue it is very POV problematic and just plain messy.

The show dates are given, and if you're a paying member of the factor, (or if you know how to use LexisNexis) you can easily visit the show transcripts. The "context argument" as I'd term it can reach an absurd extreme - under this logic, you can argue that no quote may be taken from a show such as this without posting the transcript from the entire show segment from which the quote was extracted. Note - if you can find evidence that any of these quotes are taken out of context, clearly that's different and we can discuss them here. --ABQCat 23:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not a member of his web site, and I do see your point. It is just that when I was reading the quotes I wanted to be able to go to a transcript or something to read them in context, so I fugured others would too. To be, quotes on a page are like famous quotations or one liners a person is known for, and the ones on the page seemed like random quotes from shows. Furthermore, most of them seemed like they were intentionally trying to make the guy look like an arrogant jerk, which can only be confirmed by reading the quotes in the context they were originally said in. Quotes should always be cited, shouldn't they? You don't have to post the transcript, but a citation with a link should be included, right, or am I way off base?Jellonuts 04:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I see there is a wikiquotes site for O'Reilly, so maybe they should all be moved there? I am new and I am not sure how to do it though.

I am an Irish Australian. Born Ireland Lived here in Australia 60 years. I never heard of O'Reilly until I got satellite TV. No affiliation with any party. I looked up this article after I saw him a few times and believe me this article is ridiculously full of criticism of him. It is not even remotely like the guy I see on TV. Some Bio.

There can be many explanations - You can't make out his Irish American accent. You haven't watched enough shows. You don't know much about politics to understand how much he spins the truth. You are a friend of Bill O'Reilly. You are Bill O'Reilly himself. You are Hannity from Hannity and Colmes or Neil Cavuto pretending to be Australian.

Look, if you think there is too much criticism you can explain why you differ, because you might be right, even though you aren't. Deepstratagem 07:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-O'Reilly links

I note the recent addition of "http://www.oreillysucks.com" to the list of links at the foot of the article. I'm not sure it's apropriate for the page, as it's certainly a *very* POV source, but at the same time I see that criticism of the show seems apropriate in the context of a well-written and NPOV encyclopedia article. I've changed the link description text from "O'reilly's 'lies' here" to "An anti-O'Reilly website" in an attempt to avoid backdoor POV introduction. What are the feelings of others? Should the link stay or go? --ABQCat 23:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say that in the spirit of fairness it is acceptable. However, the former title was surely out of line. I think it is ok after the change you made to "an anti oreilly site". It is rediculous to call it "oreilly lies" Jellonuts 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On WP we explain both sides, there is pro and against, the link should stay Mike 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I Changed the title to "Criticism of The O'Reilly Factor at O'Reilly Sucks.com." Mike 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the link "factual analysis of oreilly by Media Matters for America" link should be renamed as well. Media Matters for America is well known to be critical of only conservative people and organizations, so I see it as more of a liberal opinion site than a "factual analysis". I think the name of the link should be changed to something less misleading.Jellonuts 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title of it to "Criticism of The O'Reilly Factor by Media Matters for America." Jellonuts 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out the "spoof" section because I do not see how it was necessary or added anything but POV negativity. If people want to learn about Colbert's show they can go to his page to read about it.24.11.154.78 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the bias section to "Some critics believe that The O'Reilly Factor has a conservative bias, while others claim it has a liberal bias."ecause that is rue and much less POV. Just listen to his reader mail section on the show, lots of peole think he is too liberal too.Jellonuts 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out - his viewer mail section consists of letters he finds humorous, interesting, or insightful. They're hardly a random sampling of the mail he receives. His selection bias eliminates the possibility that we can take as fact that "lots of people think he is too liberal too" (proportionately, anyway). I like your edit, though I may take issue with the fact that it presents a balanced view of the criticism of his show, even though the criticism may not in fact be completely balanced. --ABQCat 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Keepsleeping, if you are going to keep reverting the edit please tell us why here on the talk page.Jellonuts 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoof Section

I think this section is useless as it is. It just seems like a plug for Colbert's show, but I see it was reinstated. What do you people think about it? How does it add to an encyclopedic article about the Oreilly Factor? Should this section be removed? ......Jellonuts 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what should be done, you signing your name even if it is a ip address - Mike Beckham 18:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes it should remain as it compares and not just a "ad" for the colbert article - Mike Beckham 18:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

SHEESH......sorry I am relativley new and I forgot to sign my name. Here you go......Jellonuts 18:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC) I added up there too. Anyway, what does it add to a readers knowledge about the Oreilly factor other than the fact that it has been spoofed? It just seems like maybe a link to spoofs of the show would be more appropriate than a whole section about Colbert.

Dont want to create extra pages for a section its fine where it is. - Mike Beckham 06:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This section is highly noteworthy. Think about it. There is a daily 30-minute television show whose entire purpose is to mock O'Reilly's show and basically act as the yin to Bill's yang. Despite the fact that much of the spoofing is of an anti-conservative nature (something that conservatives obviously find insulting), this is highly relevant and important information in this O'Reilly Factor article. --Ilyag 07:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost half a section on Stephan Colber's TV show which sounds more like an advertisement is way to much. Him asking people funny questions about President Bush has nothing to do with the O'reilly Factor TV show, neither does David Cross making cameos on his show. The spoof section is to focused on Colbers show as is even after my edits. Sorry I was'nt trying to vandalize just trying to contribute and clean a page that appeared to have gone off on a tagnet. If you want to know about Colber's show go to his page and put alot of that information there. Not where information on the O'reilly Factor should be.

Are you going to answer mer? You change this article back you send me a message threating me as a vandale with banning, I respond and you don'nt answer me? Then I check your profile and it turns out you are a person that refers to themselfs as a political "liberal", why should someone who has a political motive have any say over this article more so than I do?

I myself think that the "spoof" section is somewhat too long. Obviously, we must talk about the Colber report, because to some extent it's largely a parody of O'Reilly's show. However, the detailed description of the Colber does not belong in this article, but in the article about Colber. I've made the move accordingly (you may revert me if you disagree). David.Monniaux 05:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite and Citations

1. Citations need to be made for the claims made in this article. I added some citation requests.

2. This article needs a rewrite. For example, the paragraph: "There are numerous documented controversies over O'Reilly's current and previous ties to various conservative political organizations, including the Republican Party, which further add to his perception of being a conservative. O'Reilly is a former member of the Republican Party (though is now a registered Independent) , is openly involved in the Thomas More Law Center, an organization that litigates for a variety of conservative Christian causes, such as banning same-sex marriage and abortion and teaching intelligent design in public schools, and has used his television show to call on people to vote against Democratic senator Tom Daschle [1] and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jon Corzine [2], while rarely criticising Republicans over their politics, choosing instead to criticise them over corruption, failure to act on various matters of public concern, and other apolitical issues."

It is full of run on sentences and difficult to read, plus it needs citations for the claims made in it.Jellonuts 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Paragraph

"O'Reilly often tries to paint himself as a moderate, most notably in his viewer mail segment. Regardless of the content of the show, O'Reilly always presents an equal number of letters from conservatives accusing him of being too liberal, and from liberals accusing him of being too conservative. It is unlikely that this equal proportion is indicative of all the viewer mail he gets , especially since criticism of O'Reilly over being a conservative is far more widespread, particularly on the Internet, in numerous newspaper editorial columns, and even by politicians."

This sounds like your opinion rather than fact. What evidence do you have that he skews the precsentation of his viewer mail. I think you should either cite it or delete it.Jellonuts 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the statement by saying "It is unknown if this equal proportion is indicative..." This seems far more accurate, not POV, and retains the original point of the section. --Ilyag 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that edit, much more NPOV now.Jellonuts 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that he nearly always has 2 guests on for controversial subject discussion, each with opposing viewpoints. He may disagree with the liberal view more often (which is fine since the show is his anaysis), but he does allow both to be equally presented on the program. Jellonuts 19:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC) added a small section on this that I think is NPOV

Segments

It would be nice to see this expanded to include a short description of the segments. I woudl really like to see this get back to being a description of the show rather than a debate about O'Reilly's views and politics. I am not familiar with the show enough to write descriptions for the segments though. 24.11.154.78 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back

I reverted to the previous version Here are the changes that were reverted back and why:

"from both sides of the political spectrum consider O'Reilly (and his show) for the most part conservative in viewpoint. He regularly refers to "the lunatic Left" and those who espouse more liberal views as "drinking the cool aid", an apparent reference to psychoactive chemicals."

I reverted back because this sounds more POV, nothing wrong with the NPOV version before, and lastly, Oreilly's "cool aid" comments are not in reference to drugs, they are in reference to what he thinks are people blindly followig an idealistic leader like all the kids that followed the Kool Aid guy in the commercial back in the 1980's. Furthermore, he also refers to the far right negativly too, but I see no need to mention either one.

"commentators claim he routinely exagerates, misrepresents and distorts information to make his points. There are several websites devoted wholly or in part to debunking his statements."

I changed it back to "observers from both sides of the political spectrum consider O'Reilly (and his show) for the most part conservative in viewpoint." Much less POV than the above.

"routinely interrupts his guests and has been known to turn off their microphone or shout them down when he does not like their point of view. His defense of this behavior is often, but not always, that he feels that the guest is "spinning" the subject."

I changed it back to "he has been known to interrupt a guest when he feels that the guest is "spinning" the subject, and he often interjects his opinion during the debate." Again, this previous version is much more NPOV obviously.

"Regardless of the content of the show, O'Reilly always presents an equal number of letters from conservatives accusing him of being too liberal, and from liberals accusing him of being too conservative. This is viewed by many as a structural attempt to "spin" his own political bias, since it is unknown whether this equal proportion is indicative of all the viewer mail he gets, especially since criticism of O'Reilly's over conservative viewpoint is far more widespread, particularly on the Internet, in numerous newspaper editorial columns, and even by politicians"

Again I reverted it back to "Regardless of the content of the show, O'Reilly always presents an equal number of letters from conservatives accusing him of being too liberal, and from liberals accusing him of being too conservative. It is unknown whether this equal proportion is indicative of all the viewer mail he gets, especially since criticism of O'Reilly over being a conservative is far more widespread, particularly on the Internet, in numerous newspaper editorial columns, and even by politicians."

Obviously, whoever made these changes does not like the show and is interjecting his or her POV. If you want your changes made please tell us why here on the talk page whoever did these, so that it can be discussed and agreed upon.Jellonuts 19:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "Kool-Aid" reference is about Jim Jones and his followers who drank the poison Kool-Aid. MrMurph101

Bias Section

I think this part should be moved to Bill O'Reilly:

In his book, The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly wrote: "You might be wondering if I'm conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what... I don't want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn't have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That's my political position. I'm conservative on some issues, liberal on others, and sane on most."[1] Although he does come under fire from the far-right on several issues, notably some of his decidedly moderate stances on homosexual rights, most of O'Reilly's criticism comes from liberals. Most of O'Reilly's views are well-established conservative beliefs. These include his stances on American foreign policy (the war in Iraq), support of supply-side economics, and furthering restrictions on immigration. On some issues, particularly the issue of illegal immigration, he is opposed to the policies of the current Bush administration, although most self-described conservatives disagree with the Bush administration on this issue themselves.[2]

This refers to his book and his opinions, whether perceived or accurate, not the show itself. This article should just describe the show, notable events and guests, and the more frequent topics of the program. The quote is in the personal article but the rest is different. That should be put there, not here. MrMurph101 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should eliminate the Media Matters report, they are not credible.Giza D 16:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, why are they not credible? They are certainly more credible than O'Reilly. Deepstratagem 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary Section

The section titled "vocabualry" is awful. "Pussy-nomics" is not a word, and O'Reilly isn't improving the American vocabulary with gib little catch-phrases like those listed in this section. Maybe renaming it "catch-phrases" and rewording it a bit? I've tagged the section, and I hope someone more familiar with the show will fix this section, as it really compromises the NPOV of the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.24.172 (talk • contribs) .

Good call on the POV. I removed all the politically charged words because O'Reilly never uses them at the end of the viewers' mail segment. Honestly, I'm not sure if the section is encyclopedic. I'll have to look into the requirements. Lawyer2b 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, and sorry I forgot to sign my last post. I think the intro text still needs some work so it makes sense. I'd do it myself, but like I said I don't really watch the show and don't want to misrepresent anything.

As a side note, is there a sorce on the statment in that section that states that his average viewer lacks a high-school education?

"Pussy-nomics" and the high school education reference seem to be the work of a vandal. The vocabulary section is ok as long as it is brief and only uses a few main examples. MrMurph101 03:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the vocabulary is encyclopedic. I am going to take the banner down. Calwatch 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading this edit and the article and one other article (that's all it took) I will not rely on this site for anything other than entertainment. I only trust myself and even so, I still have to keep an eye on him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.51.176.23 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure this section should be here at all. The opening paragraph looks like a ping-pong battle between O'Reilly lovers and haters. How about a single sentence introducing the vocabulary, and leaving it at that? CalebNoble 22:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I will adjust it. MrMurph101 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, the word "poltroon" is closely related to the French word "poltron", which basically means "coward" Johan Buret

Perhaps this section is encyclopedic, but it strikes me as original research. How do we know these words are not in "the standard vocabulary of the average viewer", or that they are even uncommon or obscure? I would contend that this section also isn't notable enough to include in the article; I just did a Google search for bill o'reilly vocabulary and didn't get any non-Wikipedia hits on the first page of results. On the second page of hits I got two relevant links, one of which was a user comment on a blog (not a reliable source), and the other does not look terribly reliable to me either. Schi 18:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

People who don't/are not allowed to appear on show

I'm not sure if I'm just being liberal here, but why exactly do these two categories exist? They seem pretty pointless in my point of view, and it looks to me like they are mainly there to make O'Reilly seem like some special figure whom other people are afraid to confront. NcSchu 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It is notable in regards to the show since O'Reilly makes a big deal about certain people not coming on it. In that regard also, it should be noted who O'Reilly does not let on the show. MrMurph101 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

See below: Wikipedia policy prohibits including information about living persons in articles without citations of reliable sources and verifiability.--NYScholar 22:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this information from the article section to this talk page, as they involve living persons and are unverified at this time: see W:Verifiability in relation to Wikipedia's policy re: living persons. See WP:BLP: it includes menions in articles of other living persons. Please watch out for potential defamation of character and libel concerns in Wikipedia articles of living persons and referring to living persons. If there is no verifiable and reliable source given--see W:Citation--the material does not belong in the article, and Wikipedia policy is to remove it (which I have just done). The rest of the article needs to be scrutinized for similar violations of Wikipedia policy if any exist. Also, it needs to more be in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOR. (Some of my recent changes in articles linking to this article attempted citations and cross-references to avoid breaches of both policies in them.)

<<

• Alan Dershowitz: O'Reilly proclaimed that Dershowitz is banned from The Factor because O'Reilly questions his honesty.
• Stephanie Miller: Host of The Stephanie Miller Show said on her show that she was contacted by a producer from The O'Reilly Factor, but never followed up following the initial interview, where she indicated she would be willing to be a guest on The Factor.

>> --NYScholar 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stephanie Miller section NEEDS to go. It is unverifiable and apparently, after 2 weeks, noone seems to be able to source it. Kyaa the Catlord 16:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is sourced. The source is she said it on The Stephanie Miller Show. There is just no hypertext link that can be provided. If you were to enforce the standard that we must have a hypertext link to back everything in the article, lots of other things are going to have to go. --Asbl 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please learn about editting articles and using reliable, verifiable sources. "She said it on the show" is unverifiable and therefore worthless as a source. Also, simply because he was cancelled once does not equal that O'Reilly does not allow someone on his show. Kyaa the Catlord 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need a source stronger than Bandarik's own blog... Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bandarik's blog is Bandarik's words (or at least he authorized those words), and as for Stephanie Miller, every word she said on the show can be verified as she puts all her old shows on her web site. If you are so inclined, purchase a subscription, and listen to her show at your pleasure. --Asbl 17:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you really need to refresh your understanding of verifiability and reliability when it comes to using sources on wikipedia WP:RS. A paid for stream, without a link to the exact stream, is worthless and not credible. Kyaa the Catlord 17:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one who needs a refresh. Wikipedia does not allow links to paid sites, but that does not mean that they cannot be used as references. For example, The Los Angeles Times puts their articles on the free portion of their web site for only two weeks. Therefore, after two weeks, when the article is retrievable only with payment, you cannot link to it any more, but you certainly can continue to use it as a source.

Wikipedia is tricky, and I certainly understand your confusion. --Asbl 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still poorly sourced. You cannot verify it beyond "she said it on her show, go fish!" It MUST be sourced better or removed. Kyaa the Catlord 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A valid source would be the date that the statement was made. Paid for sources are of course acceptable. Calwatch 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's overview this section. David Brock is the only legitimate entry in this section right now. Badnarik is only sourced through him and his followers, nothing is stated by O'Reilly saying he will not have him on the show. I remember O'Reilly saying Dershowitz was banned so that can be there once someone does a lexis/nexis search and cites it (it's an older one). I took out Glick but now don't have a problem with it being there. However, all that needs to be said is O'Reilly comments after the interview:"If I knew he was gonna be like that..." The Miller one needs to go becuase the entry nearly contradicts itself and like Badnarik, does not cite anywhere of O'Reilly not wanting Miller on. In fact, the producers originally called her. Right now, it does not seem to go beyond booking issues. MrMurph101 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You lost me. Why is the Miller statement self contradictory? --Asbl 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly contradictory, since it states O'Reilly's producers originally showed an interest. All we have now is speculation about what is really going on. If someone can show where O'Reilly specifically states he does not want her on, then it's ok to be there. MrMurph101 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So why "nearly contradictory"? If it was the other way around, where Miller would have called O'Reilly, then who cares if she does not get a call back. Since O'Reilly's people made the call, then it shows they showed an interest. Since Miller claims that she told O'Reilly's people that she is interested, the lack of a follow-up indicates O'Reilly nixed the idea. Miller has been a guest on other Fox News shows, most notably Hannity & Comes, so it's not as if O'Reilly's people called some wrong number. --Asbl 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indication is speculative. It does not verify anything. Also, if it were the other way around, that could be considered contradictory too. MrMurph101 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

These sections rely heavily on sources which are of dubious reliability. These sources need to be improved or the statements they intend to support need to be editted. Kyaa the Catlord 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys got only THREE DAYS to add the following

Alright I heard that he choppes up and edits his shows, you guys have 3 days to put this in, or that's it, I will.

With that sort of introduction, you will not be successful. Your changes will be reverted if you post that it is something you "heard". Moreover, there really should be some reason that this is an encyclopedic bit of information. --Blue Tie 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Blue Tie, This is an encylopedia's discussion board not a place to threaten contributers. You have the power to change any part of this article at any time yourself and as long as you can make a valid reference to what you write. May I suggest that you try to avoid confrontation by taking a non-threatening and politer tone in the discussion. Also, please remember, that just becasue a person places information on this page does not necessarily mean that they are pro or anti-Fox News or O'Reilly - although (and I hesitate to add this as I don't want a flame war but I can't resist the opportunity) this article should not be "fair and balanced" in the O'Reilly sense. 8)

Candy

Candy, You have made an error. I did not threaten anyone. I was responding to the threat, which is unsigned. It was a person named "TheBird999" who made the threat and was subsequently blocked. Incidentally, I think the article is pretty well balanced. --Blue Tie 13:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops Blue Tie. On re-reading I did. Sorry, I read it as all from you (as there were no quotations or comments). Many apologies. OK "TheBird99" it applies to you instead.

Candy 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it was an error! I have no hard feelings and no animosity. I was not offended. I simply wanted to clear my name with you. (is that a sign of respect?) --Blue Tie 22:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Political Spectrum

"with guests from opposing ends of the political spectrum."

I understand where this is coming from but I think it would make it more accessible to all readers if it read - "...from opposing ends of the mainstream US political spectrum." The US political spectrum represented on the show is quite narrow compared to say France, Italy or Austria. Furthermore, there are statements from former Fox employees that the liberals on the show are chosen becasue either they are not liberals (ie have right wing sympathies and would be in the middle) or very weak debaters (or simply unknown). Personally, I would see the the term "perported" in the sentence ....

My final version would be, ""with guests purporting to be from opposing ends of the mainstream US political spectrum."

I haven't seen the O'Reilly factor in its entirely (only snippets) for some time so I would appreciate a more avid viewer's opinion on this before I change it.

Candy 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is overly wordy and it is based upon an assumption of "narrowness" that you preceive but others may not perceive. (I do not see it and I am quite familiar with world-wide issues and opinions). However, it is not just politics that the show involves. So, IF there was a change I would make it: "with relevant guests who have opposing viewpoints". --Blue Tie 13:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The definitions used within US politics are fairly incomprehensible to UK readers. Liberal, for example, is not left-wing in the UK. If I perceive them then I'm pretty sure many other people will perceive them too.

If, as well, the show is not just about politics, then maybe the article needs to state so?

Candy 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we just disagree or maybe not... let's see. I did not discuss definitions. I was more concerned with your statement that they are "purported" to be such and such. This is sort of weasle wordy to me and uncalled for. As far as left-wing and Liberal and all that, I generally do not like such labels. I think that they are way too shallow as indicators to configure at least half of the reasonably intelligent people that I meet. (O'Reilly refuses to declare himself as one or the other). They are somewhat deceptive stereotypes. So generally I avoid them. If you are looking to remove those, I would agree with that. But notice that my edit did not claim one way or the other, just that people on different sides of an issue would be involved. Sometimes these are not political issues. Sometimes they are. If O'Reilly takes on the Catholic Church and pederasty, its not a political issue, is it? If he attacks academicians for what they teach, is that a political thing? It may depend upon what you consider to be political. If anything involving human interactions in society is political, then his show is political. But that is not how I view the word "political". --Blue Tie 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article blows

This article reads as if it has been changed a million times and sanitized by O'Reilly's people. I suggest a complete rewrite. Phrases like "At times, O'Reilly will cut off the guest's microphone and/or abruptly end the interview if he feels the guest is 'spinning' too much" sound like they are written by Ann Coulter. Instead of qualifying every single poorly written allegation of bias with a equally poorly written allegation of neutrality, how about people write contentions and then support them. Counterpoints should have separate SECTIONS. How about we write an article that doesn't read like it has been written by ESL students. -Mac

How about we remember that this is an NPOV article, and that it clearly says at times, O'Reilly will cut off the guest's microphone and/or abruptly end the interview if he feels the guest is 'spinning' too much. Piuro 00:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that this is the epitome of a rhetorical slight of hand. Let me remind you, Piuro, that this quotation occurs within the "Allegations of Bias" subsection. Nowhere in this section does it say how cutting off a person's mic relates to a bias (perhaps because it is inflammatory and almost never done?). By stating that getting one's mic cut on the O'Reilly Factor only occurs after one "spins" the facts is misleading. What O'Reilly does is cut a person's mic if he DISAGREES with their point of view to a point where he is looking bad. Obviously the decision to cut a person's mic lies with O'Reilly. You highlighting "if he feels" was not insightful. To me that phrase sounds like weasel words. -Mac

That is a POV argument, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Also, please formally sign your posts with ~~~~. Piuro 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic how much like O'Reilly you sound there, Piuro. You skirted the issue and instead attacked the way he signs his posts. Are you trying to discredit him or something? Regardless of whether or not he nows how to use a talk page, his point was valid. There's no POV involved with claiming that O'Reilly cuts off people's mic in a vain attempt to save face with his veiwers; that's an apparent truth to anyone who watches the show. Frankly, the man is an abhorrently bad journalist, the only thing missing is a source citing it as such. Until then, try not to burn on newbies so much when they forget to 'tilde'. Bigbrisco (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Didn't there used to be one? I remember one that was pretty well researched and summarized, but it seems to have been deleted. Can anyone find it in the history? I'd do it myself, but my comp has some sort of weird problem when it tries to search history pages on WP. Ikki the Fox Breeder 06:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Still can't find it. Ikki the Fox Breeder 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It may have been moved to Bill O'Reilly controversies or Critics and rivals of Bill O'Reilly. That section must have been there a long time ago because I do not remember any such section, just the allegations of bias section. Try those articles. MrMurph101 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Demographics strangely missing from article

Isn't the average age of a O'Reilly Factor viewer like 70 years old or something with about 10% less college graduates than The Daily Show?

Pew research center has some much maligned, dastardly things called "facts"... maybe some brave soul would like to make this article more factual and add some O'Reilly Factor demographics culled from various sources? Just an idea. Cowicide 00:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts? You mean what O'Reilly is allergic to? Deepstratagem 07:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

O' Reilly name calling

O'Reilly a few days ago interviewed mayor Rocky Anderson on the O'Reilly Factor and critisized him for his "impeach Bush" speach. During that show, O'Reilly was losing against Rocky Anderson and resolved to calling him "Kooky". O'Reilly later edited the show to make himself look better.

Please add this info to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.118.17.178 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

This happens on every show; He raises his voice if he disagrees, or cannot get his point across. He repeats a sentence over and over to interrupt his guests so as to prevent them from getting their point across. If all fails, attack the person or tell them they are entitled to their opinion and that Jesus would forgive them for their statements, but that he won't. Then he'll say that the viewer can make his own decision (to appear fair and balanced) but what he is really implying is that the viewers cannot possibly agree with his guest because he is "Kooky". This makes O'Reilly appear be softening his punches when in reality, he is undermining the credibility of the interviewee without making a single legitimate argument.

Then there are all the meta-shows where he invites a body language expert to analyze short key scenes where any lay person can tell that the interviewee is losing an argument and O'Reilly is briefly winning. Naturally, this makes O'Reilly look better than the opponent, even if the opponent won the argument. Or he'll invite a neutral guest and a far-right individual like Michelle Malkin, who will say worst things about the guest than O'Reilly. O'Reilly can then say Michelle is going too far and appear fair and balanced, because the range from his other neutral guest to far-right Malkin gives the illusion that O'Reilly is being sensible or moderate, when he is being anything but.

Finally, this all works, because O'Reilly's regular audience is relatively retarded in comparison to the regular audience of less serious shows like the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Deepstratagem 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am seriosly wondering... How can people, even conservatives even trust this guy? Anyway I think that name calling thing should be added to the article

Deep, I think that the part on the relative intelligence of O'Reilly's viewers and the Daily Show's viewers is not appropriate for this article because it is not related to the content of the O'Reilly factor. If this article was about "The relative intelligence of the Daily Show vs. The O'Reilly factor" or if that was even relevant to the content and style of The O'Reilly factor (which this article is about) then I could see it as an inclusion, but in this case the only purpose for this information is to demean the audience of the O'Reilly factor, which is not really appropriate for this article. 68.9.195.203 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Lisette

How can anyone trust liberals? Stephen Colbert? They do the same things, they are just as human as conservatives, they just have a faulty philosophy. --71.224.19.29 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!

Honestly. I don't care whether or not the section is titled "Bias" or "Alleged bias" or "Allegations of bias" or "Deuce Bigalow 3" (better for the last one to be the title of a section than of a movie). I don't care if those Factor vs. Daily Show lines are included or not. At this point, I think inserting every other letter of those lines or only the consonants as a compromise sounds like a far better idea than continuing this edit war. Just stop edit warring, and instead talk it out in here and reach a compromise. Otherwise, neither side is going to accomplish anything, except making a mess of the article. --Poochy 07:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The main picture of Oreilly needs to be taken down. It has been altered to make his eyes red and in the top left corner, there is a picture of satan. This is so disrespectful.

Ingenious. But why is this disrespectful? Deepstratagem 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-O'Reilly-Related Criticism of "The O'Reilly Factor

Or O'Reilly unrelated, I should say. This is subtle and there's not really any place for this: in terms of being consistent with the charge that this show is right-wing biased although O'Reilly himself claims he is independent (or "traditionalist")....whenever O'Reilly is absent, his guests are often very-very-right wing slanted, e.g., Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, or John Kasich (R)...has there been any systematic look at this or discussion? Jakerforever 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Reich has been a guest host. There are few people that are more liberal than he and still remain somewhat credible.Arnabdas 16:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I must have missed that day. Just from casual observation, it would also seem to be an exception, not the rule. That's why I'm asking if there was any sort of systematic look...even just a tally of times certain people have hosted. Jakerforever 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it's the kind of thing FAIR may have looked at at some point. Or Media Matters. There are some NPOV problems with those sources, but if they counted up the various guest hosts I think we could use that since it's pretty quantitative and therefore neutral. If you can't find anything online, I'd recommend sending an e-mail to FAIR--they would probably reply and try to help you out. I think it would be useful information to add to the article if someone has done the research and would fit in well in the criticism sections. Also I wholeheartedly agree with you that Reich is almost certainly the exception, though it's been years since I watched O'Reilly with any regularity.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion...I wrote them both an e-mail some days ago but haven't heard back yet...I'm sure they may have bigger fish to fry than spend time on me...oh well...I'll keep looking if I find anything elsewhere on the internet, or will post if I get any information...stay tuned... Jakerforever 18:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters references

Hi, I recently cleaned up the references so they would show up in order ect,.. I noticed a large portion of these links are from media matters. Seeing as they are obviously in a pissing match with bill oreilly I dont think most of our links should be from them as they are an involved party (not to mention its just not good to have one source used over and over). they are obviously not neutral to this situation and while they may verify the lines they are being cited by, the rest of the article is all anti bill O'Reilly blather about other topics that is more like a blog then anything else. I think some of those citations should be removed and replaced with more neutral Articles that explain the situation but don't take sides and that do not have a stake in the discussion. what do you all think? -~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracer9999 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

There is an ongoing discussion regarding this at the BLP talk page. Come join us! Kyaa the Catlord 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The O'Reilly Factor has frequently been criticized by liberal groups as biased

The article states that "The O'Reilly Factor has frequently been criticized by liberal groups as biased". Yes, because it takes a liberal group - which by the way is the same narrative Bill himself uses to discredit educated and reasoned people - to realize that Bill lacks credibility and facts and is ignorant and racist at the same time and here's the evidence: (copyvio link removed) Typical Wikipedia moderator parsing - Loofa ("Typical Wikipedia moderator parsing" note added)

I propose that this Wiki article be edited and the word "liberal" emitted.

- Loofa

Yeah, but have you seen Keith Olbermann? He's the racist guy, and he's criticized by conservative groups. Olbermann used the Nazi salute on his show.

98.226.26.89 (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Section Linking O'Reilly's POV

Shouldn't there be a section linking to O'Reilly's POV on the issues? He develops the Factor based on all of them after all.Arnabdas 16:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters

I've read through this article about 15 times and I am furiously angry that Media Matters is being passed as a credible source on Wikipedia. They are nothing but a hit-piece organization. I think any article that cites reports from Media Research Center (right) or Media Matters (left) should be disputed and edited accordingly. For as many citations as you can pull from Media Matters, just as many could be pulled from MRC to dispute it.

Ratings

O'Reilly talks about The Factor's ratings vis-a-vis other shows. Would anyone have any information on that? Pertinent to the wiki in my opinion. Supernaut012 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paris Business Review redux

The Paris Business Review redirects here but no mention of it is made here. Given that this was a noteworthy incident, it should be included in this article or as its own. 70.245.79.20 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It makes no sense for Paris Business Review to redirect here and then not be mentioned at all.SeaAndSand 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Clips

The Youtube links are entirely out of character for the wikipedia, at least when presented in such a manner, im going to remove them for now, if a consensus can be reached abouttheir relevance and whether or not they are appropriate then feel free to return them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.100.142 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. It doesn't matter if there is any video evidence on him. Instead of posting actual evidence of him urging terrorist attacks on San Francisco, we should edit out the link, add a citation needed comment, and then remove the entire subtopic since it does not meet wiki standards. This is the most fair and balanced method for improving our collective knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.225.216 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed on show section

This is poorly sourced since the source is one sided, namely media matters. The whole section should be removed or rewritten in a NPOV it seems. --Tom 04:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out the direct quote and just highlighted what the source reflects in the Brock entry. Although I don't know why Franken is in there since I don't believe he is really interested in being a guest. MrMurph101 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

404 error- footnote 10

footnote 10 (under "references") leads to a 404 error equivalent. What do we do? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 02:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Maher Time

I really wish Bill O'Reilly would replace his "Miller Time" segments with "Maher Time". Every time Maher goes on O'Reilly's show, it's the highlight of the week it seems. But I guess Dennis Miller fits in line a bit better with O'Reilly viewers... Imagine if there was a section soliciting Maher for his take on the gay militants in funny costumes who "invaded" the Catholic church in San Francisco. :-P Halond 01:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Invaded" what do you mean "Invaded" it was apparen they mnet to attack the church, just not phisically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.173.251 (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Those that decline to appear on the Factor

This section seems to slowly build up over time to the point where it loses any context other than a list of names without any references to which someone can check. I am suggesting that names not be added unless references are provided such that the context of why a person declines to appear. I just removed a number of names without references. Arzel 13:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Needed?

Does this section need to be in article? Why does an article need a list of people/places/things that didn't happen? Akerans (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Had trouble finding this section :P. It's important for two reasons. First, sometimes people claim that O'reilly talks badly about people, but then doesn't let them come on to defend themselves. This section shows that these people have been invited but decline. Secondly it answers questions as to why they are not on the above list and why they aern't regular guests, and also it's interesting to see who declines to go on. Ink Falls 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. In that case, the section should be adjusted to say that. An appropriate lead should be written for that section explaining just that, so readers understand the purpose of the section. Otherwise, someone like me reads it and says, "huh, I don't get the point of this. This doesn't make sense. Why is this here?" Akerans (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense, and is impossible to verify. How about " topics not discussed on the Factor"?Jimintheatl (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will add a lead sentence explaining that. Ink Falls 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's impossible to verify, then it shouldn't be on the page; because wouldn't the section constitute WP:OR? Or, based on what little information is there, isn't the section WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:TRIVIA? Basically, I'm saying the section is poorly written. If it can't be improved, it should be removed. Akerans (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to verify? Which part exactly? I've heard all of these things argued and said before, and I'm sure you can find it somewhere in the transcripts of the show and in anti-Bill O'reilly sites. I'm sure this can be improved, so I fee we should just leave it to the next hardy soul who is looking for something to do to improve this page. Ink Falls 20:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be the only editor in favor of including this TRIVIA. Jimintheatl (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well obviously who ever originally put it there favors its inclusion as well. Please explain what is trivial about people that refuse to come on when clearly it demonstrates that O'reilly allows his opponents a platform to speak, and shows how some dislike his program. Ink Falls 04:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That argument seems like textbook WP:OR.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

Rachel Masden's entry has been deleted, and protected from re-creation, with the grounds that she is "not notable". I have therefore removed her from the list of O'Reilly factor guests. Please do not revert this edit. 206.248.174.96 (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Format section

Are there ANY sources for the material about the different sections of the program? This whole part reads as original research? Anyways, --Tom 15:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The descriptions of each section are probably OR but just saying the sections are called is pretty straight-forward and does not need to be sourced. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a minimalist, but I would agree. The descriptions should be watched/culled it would seem, especially since the material changes over time one would think. Anyways, thanks for the reply, --Tom 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Frequent topics section

I removed this as unsourced/OR material. Thanks, --Tom 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regular guests

This section is big, ugly, and pretty poorly done. Some descriptions have periods after them, some don't. Random words are capitalized. Missing commas, names of people nobody has heard of. Honestly this section is just really bad, and I don't have the knowledge or patience to change more than just a few errors. 68.99.241.168 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly got GoatSe'd

I'd say this is significant since it produced many lulz and ties heavily with American pop culture. GoatSe has a wikipedia entry as well.

http://digg.com/television/Bill_O_Reilly_got_Goatse_d_last_night

Shall we discuss it before another edit war starts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicKuz (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Paris Business Review...

For the longest time, Paris Business Review redirected here but there's no information on it. Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.55.239 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

Well, this is mainly for the introduction.

"The O'Reilly Factor has often, but not always, been the most watched cable news show.[2][3][4] O'Reilly is known for his confrontational interview style and strong opinions, for which the program has been criticized."

There is no citation for "confrontational interview style".

Also, who criticized his program for having "strong opinions" and a "confrontational interview style"?

I'd like to see sources. 98.226.26.89 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed that as unsouced. I accidentially marked it as a minor edit. Honestly. Anyways, Tom (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the "most watched cable news show" needs a qualification. I assume the reference is for the US (and perhaps Canada) not World wide. --Candy (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i think it 's sad that millions are so retarded they actually think bill o' reilly is real conservative & retarded enough to watch his show & like it july 1.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.188.50 (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'reilly is a self proclaimed independent :P. Ink Falls 17:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

archive this page

does someone want to archive this talk page? Its getting a bit long (some of the comments are like 4 years old) and I have no idea how to do it. automated archiving would be nice -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)