Talk:Political views of Bill O'Reilly/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political Affiliation

I made a minor change to the section to take out "incorrectly". Although my edit summary says BLP, that is a typo, it should read NPOV (mixed up my wiki-acronyms). My basic objection is that although BOR position makes no sense and is unlikely on several levels, he disputes the MMfA article, and we should present the information neutrally. Saying he incorrectly said something appears to be Wikipedia taking a side. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The notion that there was "no box to fill in" when there clearly was is not something we need to lend credence to. There is nothing wrong with saying something untrue is untrue. Croctotheface (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you 100 percent. As long as the facts are presented I don't see why Wikipedia needs to take a position on the issue. I view it as violating NPOV and OR. I've said my piece and will now move on. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV holds that we must consider "all significant views." The idea that there was "no box" when there was a box is not a significant view that we are required to represent. In this case, what you call "taking a position" could more correctly be called being accurate. Croctotheface (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was typing this while you responded: I don't mean to be as dismissive as I appear in my earlier post. It's just that we are definitely viewing this from totally opposite standpoints, and as it is really a miniscule style issue for me, I am not going to make a stink about it to the point where RfCs or bytes upon bytes of the talk page are used up. As for your snide characterization of "what I call taking a position". I think the viewpoint of the subject of the article, Bill O'Reilly is significant and should be presented without editor characterization and comment. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

His viewpoint that he is not partisan should be represented. The notion that there was "no box to fill in" is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact, and O'Reilly was just plain wrong. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Croctotheface (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that O'Reilly was "plain wrong" is clear in the edit I made without explicitly stating "incorrectly". If it's not, put the word back in. This is not an attempt to whitewash the article. I honestly don't feel that strongly about it. The only reason I posted the explanation on the talk page was that I used the wrong acronym in the edit summary, and I wanted to cut off any accusation of policy shopping. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We can (must) provide O'Reilly's statement, however we also must clearly identify that his assertion is incorrect. That being said, I'm sure there is some neutral way to do so that doesn't give spin to the circumstances... we can't give the impression that he was lying, or that he wasn't lying. We simply provide the facts and let the reader decide. At first glance I thought Ramsquire's edit was well stated, but I'll take a look again and marinate on it for a bit.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking at the sources cited for the second paragraph for "political affiliation" in this article, I see that we are accepting Mediamatters.org as a reliable source? That's like accepting the Huffingtonpost as a reliable source for something reported on Keith Olbermann..! Wikiport (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That was initially just a source for the documents. Though we may want to find and use a different source that has a less partisan reputation, there's nothing automatically wrong with doing what we did. However, the sentence about "many other reasons" and "generally thought to have a bias toward the right" really would need to be well-sourced and phrased in a different, neutral way, so I removed that line. Croctotheface (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not vote for Democrats?

Media Matters, which is a partisan group, states that BOR said to not vote for some democrats cannot be extrapolated to imply that BOR only targets Dems (which is what is being implied). This is a clear violation of OR. Arzel (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support your position that he does not target Democrats exclusively? If not, I'd say you're clearly in the minority.Jimintheatl (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article, at least as of my last edit, said that O'Reilly doesn't endorse, but he does "anti-endorse," or whatever you want to call it. So far, I've seen only examples of such anti-endorsements of Democrats, and if there are no Republican candidates that have received such treatment, it's hardly incorrect to say as much. If he's told his audience to not vote for a Republican, find a source and put it in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He said he would not vote for Giuliani, but never urged his viewers not to. That's the closest one. 96.250.227.76 (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... has no one noticed that the sentence is in the wrong place? It has nothing to do with the 2008 election. I would move it, but then I fear I'd get sucked into the bubbling edit war. Also, no where in the source is O'Reilly telling voters not to vote for Cleland or Pelosi, so Arzel has a point about the edit being original research. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim's edit just clarified a statement that had already been there, which was designed as background for the section in question. Maybe it should go somewhere else. As far as sourcing, that's a fair point, but lacking a source isn't the same as original research. From what I know, O'Reilly has only anti-endorsed Democrats. If he's done it to Republicans, too, we can edit the article to reflect that. Croctotheface (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim's clarification changes the meaning of the original section significantly. Also making points without verification is basically the definition of original research. Finally what you and I know is irrelevant, its what the sources say. Here, the source does not say what the edit says. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No, OR is about unpublished thought, analysis, and synthesis. Not having a source is a very different issue. For instance, saying that O'Reilly went to Marist (which he did) without citing a source is not OR, it's just putting in something without a source. You can tag the Cleland and Pelosi line with a cite tag, and maybe we'll find one. There's a big difference between saying he anti-endorsed Pelosi when he did, and just not citing a source, and saying he did something he didn't do. If Jim's edit is accurate, then there is not a problem with "changing the meaning significantly" to make it more accurate and specific. If you want to put it someplace else, like maybe a section called "thoughts on Republicans and Democrats," that would be fine, too. Croctotheface (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim saying that because O'Reilly called Pelosi a nut, and said Cleland was strange means that he was "anti-endorsing" them is presentation of unpublished thought, and his analysis of sources--i.e. original research. We can agree to disagree on that point, but his analysis may also be inaccurate. BOR opinion of Pelosi and several other Democrats is clear, but that is not the same as explicitly telling people not to vote for them as he did for Daschle and Edwards. I've tried my hand to fix the issues, and would also warn about putting unsourced information about living persons into articles. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's all O'Reilly did, then I agree that it's OR to extract that meaning. I had assumed that Jim had more to go on than that and just didn't cite a source. Croctotheface (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Interview with Hillary Clinton

Why no mention of this? This is a famous interview and should be noted in the presidential politics section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.12.71 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was famous but this article is about his political views, not the setting of new precedents for his program. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

Hey I think there's a contradiction in here. In the introduction it says that O'Reilly leans right on the death sentence, which I think means he would like to keep it in place, right? However, in the 'Prison System' section it says that he wants to replace the death sentence with something else. Wouldn't that be left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.212.168 (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

STOP BEING SO LIBERAL WIKIPEDIA! Change you articles and make them neutral.

Instead of complaining, why not help contribute to make the article better. Wikipedia is not supposed to be any political platform, whether liberal, conservative, or transexual nazi eskimo. MrMurph101 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see where this article is supposedly "liberal" or anything else. It does in the main cite its sources, all of which can be verified. It doesn't come over as "liberal" or anything else come to that to me. Whisperwolf 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Iraq War segment seems more like an argument against Bill O'Reilly than his actual views on the subject. Dabomb691 09:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag from the top of this article but kept the one that Dabomb691 added on the Iraq War segment. There seems to be no specific argument with the general POV of this article. There is a specific argument with the Iraq War segment. Sperril 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV problem with the Iraq War section. Everything in it is verifiable. Sweeping O'Reilly's statements about the Iraq war under the rug to protect O'Reilly would be an NPOV violation. 130.126.245.245 23:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly vs. O'Reality

Like his polar opposite Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly seems to be suffering from a political self-identity crisis. It is clear from the content of The O'Reilly Factor broadcasts that Bill is more conservative than independent. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, and the list of other conservative talk-show hosts, Bill O'Reilly refuses to acknowledge he's conservative. Perhaps he does so to appear "fair and balanced", which he clearly is not. Yet the fact remains that most people can tell that O'Reilly IS a conservative. We should find NPOV sources (not from mediamatters or dailykos) that substantiate this truth. Ericster08 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion on Keith Olbermann on this subject (though I am in no way suggesting that one sets the precedent for the other). Self-identification comes first, then we can say what the sources say. Soxwon (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Though this is a few months old, I would like to say I feel though he does lean quite a bit to the right on issues, he has some leftist beliefs. For example, taking aside traditional definitions of liberal and conservative, leftists in the current political climate are inclined to target the oil industry and promote corporate responsibility. These are the last two issues on this page, and he adheres to the leftist belief on both issues, according to this article. I say this while fully admitting I hate O'Reilly with a passion- I believe he is the anti-Christ. However, the most accurate depiction of him would be middle-right, or a Conservative Moderate. Something like that. A better issue to consider is that perhaps the organization of this page lends more to his rightist beliefs, as the page sort of shifts as you read through it: starting right, working to middle, and ending on the left. Personally, it's interesting to see the masterful way this was approached. So, that's my two cents on the matter.

Dudewhiterussian (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

O'Reilly might be considered conservative on some issues such as supporting the Catholic Church and worshiping a God. However on economic issues he seems to be very anti-capitalistic in his apparent opposition to profit maximization. RHB100 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I really have no idea where this should go, but it's important and should be somewhere on wikipedia

In this video, at 1:21:10, O'Reilly says that the problem with political discourse in America is capitalism. He says there's lots of money in going on the air and being a hater. If you listen, it's quite clear that this is him being frank about himself and what he does. While it might be too much editorialization to make that last leap on Wiki, the statements in themselves are hugely significant to his views on media. 07:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Saying that is what he believes he does is a anti-O'Reilly stance that violates NPOV. O'Reilly has stated many times there are a lot of haters on both sides out there, but only because he specifically is against their rhetoric. His comments are directed at those who spew hate speech whether they be Michael Moore, Michael Savage, Paul Krugman or other extremists. Arnabdas (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)