Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the page's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

---

This article was preserved after a vote for its deletion. See its archived VfD entry for details.

BD2412 T 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

This whole page is totally POV. Someone really needs to fix this. All the quotes on this page are trying to make him look bad from a liberal POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.111.72.245 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 August 2004 (UTC)

Oy. Let's start small so you can understand.

1. Bill O'Reilly said those quotes.

2. Those quotes make him look bad from a liberal POV.

Therefore: 3. Bill O'Reilly is making himself look bad.

Nicely done. I love it when a dumbass Neocon's futile efforts work against him. Ericster08 03:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fix it yourself —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdhowe (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this page is terrible. I'm going to fix it a little... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.57.51 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous basis for a dispute. If he were misquoted, it would be a different story. He always looks bad from a liberal point of view because liberals disagree with him. There are people who like O'Rielly and agree with what he says. I'm removing the dispute tag until you come up with an actionable and specific NPOV violation. Savidan 05:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

MediaMatters, ha. The problem is everytime I try to bring legitimate quotes to the table I get blocked for vandalism. Whereas alot of you can go and cite sources such as mediamatters which IS nothing but a smear site. The database of quotes should be larger and not just parts of sentences butchered to paint oreilly in a bad light. I know most of you would view Oreilly as a source of vast misinformation, but you honestly need to look back at yourselves and willingness to slander/censor anyone who disagrees with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.26.94.166 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Wake up will you? Bill O'Reilly, in his limitless numbskullery, has only ever made himself look bad. He's a jackass, and the quotes are straight from the ass's mouth. Ericster08 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually I'm willing to bet you get blocked for taking his quotes out of context to try to make him look better than he is as a "commentator". If you're going to whine about the source being biased when given a legitimate quote that shows truths you don't like, that says a lot, and nothing good. He IS a source of vast misinformation. You might as well argue that Goebbels wasn't a source of race-based propaganda. Nice job, you got us there, we oppose Bill O'Reilly's lies and distortions so we must be trying to "slander" him by pointing them out. Stay off of Wikis and get back to work writing the next memo on how to slant the news. Sorry to be so harsh, but it had to be said, and I'm fed up with Faux News, as is anyone who knows what's really going on here. If you're going to cite something I've said to you as "slander", don't bother--both sides face insults, but the true sign of matured ability to support what one says is the ability to look past insults and tackle arguments. This is where some Liberals who go on "The O'Reilly Factor" in a state of outrage fail, and where Faux News fails whenever it relies on slanderous terms or misinformation on a guest to somehow attempt to make it's own points legitimate (i.e. "You buy into far-left propaganda and you're a mouthpiece for it", "North Korea loves John Kerry", etc. 64.231.191.38 01:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On women from Muslim countries

• "..the most unattractive women in the world are probably in the Muslim countries." - From a w:Stuff magazine interview in 11/02. (This quote was meant jokingly in context with the rest of the article)

Whats the problem here? Theres dozens of funny quotes around-its still a quote, whats the difference. If no-one objects within a week I'm going to add it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdhowe (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

On w:Eric Alterman w:The Nation's media columnist

• "...another Fidel Castro confidant." [5/3/04] (O'Reilly later apologized on 6/15/04 after Alterman threatened to sue O'Reilly for defamation)

And why delete this?????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdhowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

Dates

The dates in this article appear to be in US format: this is rather confusing to UK readers (6/10/04 means the 6th of October). Is this a Wikiquote policy or something particular to this page? — Kate Turner | Talk 08:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no Wikiquote policy on the date format as yet. I personally prefer the UK format to that of the US, but have usually have added dates in the long form of the U.S. format to avoid too much confusion, and avoided the short format altogether (ie: September 2, 2004 vs 2 September 2004, 2/9/04, or 9/2/04). My favorite format for my personal use is YYYY-MM-DD (2004·09·02) but I know that this is among the most rarely used, and have never used it in any articles, though for a brief time I used it in my signatures. ~ Kalki 15:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... OK. Should I change the dates in this page to something more international? (I figure I should ask first rather than offending everyone ;-) I'd imagine "January 1, 2004" is best - I like YYYY-MM-DD myself as well, but it may not be obvious to someone who hasn't seen it before... — Kate Turner | Talk 18:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I consider either of the long forms acceptable, and I am beginning to think that with the Wikimedia software now apparently defaulting to the UK/European date format that it might be time for me to switch my own habits, and begin using it. I really don't think there should be an absolute rule imposing either format, but simply a guideline to avoid the use of short format dates as far too ambiguous. ~ Kalki 19:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bill's quotes

Bill's quotes speak for themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.233.152 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 24 December 2004 (UTC)

I truthfully don't care if people like Bill O'Reilly or not. I personally don't like him most of the time. My problem is that I do like Wikipedia/Wikiquote alot and the choices of quotes and more importantly the ordering of sections here is clearly meant to be biased against him. Even if it is true that he is a liar/hypocrite, putting several remarks about specific people immediately before a quote saying he doesn't make personal attacks is obviously meant to send a message. Wikipedia is not the place for political messages.

Agreed. Fox News, on the other hand, is. Ericster08 03:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.25.206.215 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Reality has a well known Liberal bias." 69.156.104.196 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, let's dumb this discussion down, shall we? I can do the same. “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Re: Andrea Mackris

The quote re: Andrea Mackris is taken from her legal filing and allegation of Bill O'Reilly. The supporting link references that allegation, but does not actually reference the words of Mr. O'Reilly. The quote should be removed, or at least moved to Ms. Mackris' quote page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.147.21.124 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Ineffective

"Less than half the quotes here are from his Fox News show, The O'Reilly Factor. The majority are from Leftist sites and sources, most notably Media Matters for America's site [13 quotes]."

I've got news for you - QUOTES ARE QUOTES ARE QUOTES. Whether they come from Mediamatters or Newsbusters, O'REILLY said them. Mediamatters is merely reproducing what O'Reilly said. There's nothing leftist about that. Ericster08 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If this is true, then why are they even on this site? It's ridiculous to put quotes up and then tell everyone before they read them "oh, by the way, half these quotes aren't authentic". I'd rather have a bunch of quotes that he made that make him look good that are genuine than half a webpage that make him look bad, but have questionable merits. Please, I hate O'Reilly too, but it is ineffective to put up debatable quotes. We need to solve this because what is up right now doesn't make the reader very confident in the authenticity of this webpage.The happy philosopher 01:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy, I have removed the inappropriate article content discussion that you quoted above. Looking at the history, I see that it came from article creator Diberri's attempt to economize on sourcing info by stating "All quotes are from his Fox News show, The O'Reilly Factor, unless otherwise indicated", and that 210.20.154.196 (talk · contributions) changed it to its more critical form. Both edits were unwise. Since anyone might add quotes at any time, blanket statements like Diberri's are routinely invalidated without being removed, which makes the entire article subtly inaccurate. 210.20.154.196's edit was a content discussion, which is inappropriate to post in the article, and instead should be posted on this page, as you have done.

What we want is proper sourcing for each and every quote, so editors can verify that they are accurate and (especially for controversial subjects like this) that they are not taken out of context. Frankly, if I hadn't already spent too much time straightening out the discussion on this article, I'd be sorely tempted to move anything that doesn't have a source explicitly described in a sourcing line into "Unsourced" and force editors to make clear what their sources are. (Bare links are easy to create, but they hide the nature of the sources. Sources should be provided in a sub-bulleted line and explictly described by title, date, URL, and any other specific information available to uniquely identify them.)

MediaMatters.org seems to be a reliable source by Wikimedia standards, but it's obviously anti-O'Reilly, so, as you say, we need to be scrupulous about sourcing and verification of such material. Providing specific titles and dates of O'Reilly appearances helps. (If available, segment descriptions, like "Condolezza Rice interview", would be useful, too.)

In the end, it's the interested editors who decide what goes into any Wikiquote article. My advice to everyone is to work on crafting an article that represents the full range of O'Reilly's comments, opinions, etc., acknowledging that different folks find different quotes of his worth mentioning. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; thankyou for putting so much time into your response. 68.183.9.193 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Coatrack

This list of quotes seem like a classic example of a WP:Coatrack article. Many of the quotes are not even given real context and are there just to make O'Reilly look bad. I'm sure anyone with independent thought and integrity would consider this an embarrasment to this site. 65.54.154.118 23:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to post what you've just written. I stopped reading this page when it said, "watch video of O'Reilly telling various guests to shut up." This isn't DailyKos or Huffington Post, and has NOTHING to do with what wikiquote's suppose to be about.