Jump to content

Talk:The O'Reilly Factor/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Broad influence of the 'Factor'

Hi Daniel, I sent you an email but I'm not sure how this whole thing works so I'll repeat it here. I'm a newish wiki editor, so I'm not too sure how to discuss the 'reversion' you did on my O'Reilly entry. I disagree that the Dawkins/Wyndgate controversy really isn't about the 'factor. I think the fact that the owner of Wyndgate made the decision to not allow Dr. Dawkins to rent a room for a fundraising dinner only after seeing Dawkins on the 'factor'. This incident will apparently result in legal action regarding equal rights. I wonder if you would think this incident is relevant if they had discriminated against gay people, Muslims, a minority? Thanks for the conversation and your consideration. Skepticinpub (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Linda Long

I got you email Linda. I appreciate your willingness to discuss, but this really doesn't belong here. Think about if we were writing a book about The Factor, would we have a chapter about this incident? If it does turn into a huge lawsuit we can include it if and when that happens, but Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --Daniel 02:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

New Salon article

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/

It has a lot of information about this show. It's a liberal POV but not a hit piece or full of cheap shots. 173.55.140.132 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The O'Reilly Factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The "No Spin Zone"

As of the current edit, [Nov. 30, 2015, 11:33 p.m., UTC-0700], the section "No Spin Zone" is written in a rather rhetorical manner. See for example "[George Lakoff] is clearly demonstrating how...", or, 

   "There is an obvious account of you either love him or hate him view towards O’Reilly, but should he be faulted for using the very tactics that Lakoff wishes the Democratic party would like to utilize more? While some claim that O’Reilly “performs” belief rather than fact in the news, while others like Jon Stewart performs “irony” in the news. It is also suggested that O’Reilly “re-makes” the news to appeal to his audience that clings to his beliefs rather than facts.[12] Again, just like Jon Stewart, this is another way of framing the news as Lakoff suggests over and over again. Love or hate Bill O’Reilly, he has simply mastered the concept of framing the news to a mass-appeal to his followers of his beliefs."

There are multiple instances of "weasel words" and value judgments, as well as ungrammatical sections. I'm not sure if the section can be edited without deleting so much that whatever remained would be so skeletal as to be completely unenlightening.

On the whole, I feel that the section reads more like a personal commentary than an encyclopedia article, and I propose that it be deleted. 2001:56A:731B:C400:7874:F5A2:5A34:EFEE (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Throwback: 2007 Fight with Geraldo Rivera

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Factor

Should The Factor now get it's own page or should this one be renamed? I'm not sure which one we should do. I do have the references to the new name: Bill O’Reilly’s Name Has Already Been Scrubbed From ‘The Factor’, Fox News scrubs O’Reilly’s name from ‘The Factor,’ says viewers ‘will have a lot of feelings’, and Bill O’Reilly’s Name Wiped From ‘The Factor’ After Fox News Parts Ways With Star. I do not wish to make any mistakes with any changes and maybe the new show should have its own page. I'm just not sure what other editors think. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good sources, this page is currently outdated. Sagecandor (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Segments" section

I wonder whether the Segments section is necessary. Seems that the section is summarizing the whole series, which was under O'Reilly for a long time. --George Ho (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. No references and amounts to trivia and cruft and inordinate amount of trivial details. Could be worked into paragraph form. With references. Sagecandor (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was gonna remove the whole section, but thank you. :) --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Some other sections

Also, what about other sections, like "Notable guests" and "Parodies"? I thought about renaming "Parodies" to "In popular culture" to broaden the scope, but I welcome other opinions on the sections. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed from "Parodies" --> "Cultural impact". Also agree with removing anything with no references. Sagecandor (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Removed unreferenced info about WP:BLPs. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced info on living persons

Info is hereby contested.

This is a contentious topic.

This contentious topic involves controversial events and individuals.

Info is related to living persons, per WP:BLP.

Per WP:BURDEN, info must not be added back into article unless there are references.

Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Being listed as a guest on a television show is not contentious. The names qualify "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge," per WP:PRIMARY. Removing them per per WP:BLP is an abuse and misapplication of that policy. It does not forbid factual TV appearances. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted User:Sagecandor 's sudden removal of guest information from this article. User has said it violates WP:BLP, but the guest information isn't controversial. Let's discuss here instead of edit warring. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Contains information NOT included in the show.

2. Info is contested and on a contentious topic.

3. Info is unreferenced.

4. Controversial topic, individual fired for accusations of sexual harassment.

5. Best practice is to have sourced material only. Sagecandor (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Per WP:BLP AND WP:BURDEN, burden is on the user that wishes to add BACK the unreferenced material to get sources and consensus, and NOT the other way round. Sagecandor (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The guest appearances are most certainly included and credited in the show, just as guest actors are credited in any narrative TV series, so listing frequent guests in my view does meet PRIMARY. References would be preferable, of course, but relating the host controversy with all other factual info about the show is just ridiculous. Because Bill O'Reilly is toxic does not mean the guest or production information is now all automatically contentious. It's a complete stretch to remove facts unrelated to O'Reilly due to BLP- appearing on the show is not damaging to their reputation, it's factual. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User neglects to mention he removed material not sourced to the show itself, no mention of any episode number, where or when from the show material came from, and user made zero efforts to do any due diligence whatsoever. Sagecandor (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Biographical info on the guests in the list with no sources

Where is this biographical info describing the guests sourced to ?

What episode ?

What year ?

Was the biographical info describing the guest mentioned on the program ?

Was it pulled from their Wikipedia article ?

Sagecandor (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced notable guests info

Notable guests

The first guest was General Barry McCaffrey, then the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (or "Drug Czar"). Over the years, many other well-known political figures and celebrities appeared regularly on the show.[citation needed]

Regular guests

Per consensus at WP:BLPN not to use the edit history as a form of communication, let's instead work on sourcing here on the talk page, and only move back, with consensus to do so, if and when the WP:BLP info is properly cited. Sagecandor (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced format info

Unsourced format info

A producer would research the story and book guests, and an information packet would be produced with possible angles for the host to explore.[citation needed]

For each show, the host, with the assistance of his staff, produced a script with the words for the "Talking Points Memo" and "Tip of the Day" segments, and points of discussion and questions for the guests that would appear on the program.[citation needed]

On February 2, 2009, the show launched in high definition and moved to the studio previously used by the Fox Report.[citation needed]

Chris Wallace,[citation needed] Jesse Watters,[citation needed] filled in as guest hosts.


Per consensus at WP:BLPN not to use the edit history as a form of communication, let's instead work on sourcing here on the talk page, and only move back, with consensus to do so, if and when the WP:BLP info is properly cited. Sagecandor (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Listing of guests and intricate detail for encyclopedia article

Is it appropriate to list such a large number of guests on this page?

Could there maybe be a "list" page for such a thing?

Is this undue intricate detail for this page?

Would such a thing be noteworthy or encyclopedic about this particular show in 100 years time?

Perhaps instead work such information, if commented on by secondary sources, into a history of the show format, in paragraph format?

Sagecandor (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced cultural impact info

Richards also played O'Reilly in an episode of Mind of Mencia where O'Reilly is a senator in the year 2016.[citation needed]

The show was also spoofed by the TV series The Boondocks; first in the episode "The Trial of R. Kelly" where O'Reilly is shown talking about R. Kelly's latest legal trouble. Later in "Return of the King", O'Reilly is shown attacking Martin Luther King for saying that America should "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek", even in respects to the 9/11 attacks.[citation needed]

CNNNN, an Australian comedy show which satirized cable news, featured a recurring segment entitled "The Firth Factor". These segments typically showed Charles Firth, a member of the Chaser comedy team, presenting his opinion on topical issues, often through use of over-the-top comparisons (such as dipping a paper heart in a can of black paint and claiming: "This is how black Saddam Hussein's heart is") and outrageous statements in a parody of O'Reilly and Australian current affairs personalities. The Chaser's War on Everything also featured a segment in its second season where it poked fun at The O'Reilly Factor.[citation needed]

Per consensus at WP:BLPN not to use the edit history as a form of communication, let's instead work on sourcing here on the talk page, and only move back, with consensus to do so, if and when the WP:BLP info is properly cited. Sagecandor (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Was able to source and add back to article, for all of above except the CNNNN stuff. Will work more on researching that later. Sagecandor (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Dana Perino as presenter

I have completely changed my mind on this issue. Neither Perino nor Gutfeld were ever listed as the show's replacement hosts. They were, for all intents and purposes, guest hosts who happened to host the show's final three episodes. O'Reilly is the show's only presenter, and he should be listed as such (although I still believe that the years of his tenure should be included, since he was terminated).

I have deleted the earlier post due to the senseless feuding that was going on in the replies.

RaymondCHedges (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_O%27Reilly_Factor/Archive_2&oldid=1030815930"