Talk:The O'Reilly Factor

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060702212326/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog/ to http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6417561/mad_dog/

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 II}_{Talk 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

• Transcript: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/04/06/oreilly-and-geraldo-on-illegals.html

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040602262.html

• http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Immigration-shoutfest-TV-s-Bill-O-Reilly-2603884.php

• http://articles.latimes.com/2007/apr/07/entertainment/et-quick7.2

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)

Requested move 20 April 2017

The O'Reilly Factor → The Factor – Update article title. Name should reflect name used in the most recent television broadcast itself. Agree with rationale by Kiraroshi1976, in this comment [1], and also agree with Trainsandtech, in this explanation [2]. In addition to sources suggested by Kiraroshi1976 and by Trainsandtech, we also have: Bill O’Reilly’s Name Has Already Been Scrubbed From ‘The Factor’, Fox News scrubs O’Reilly’s name from ‘The Factor,’, and Bill O’Reilly’s Name Wiped From ‘The Factor’ After Fox News Parts Ways With Star. Gotta fix this so Wikipedia isn't outdated. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support, per sources suggested by Kiraroshi1976 and by Trainsandtech, as well as: The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and Deadline. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, for all intents and purposes "The O'Reilly Factor" is over and "The Factor" is a new show which should be on its own page. --В²C ☎ 17:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:NAMECHANGE (and WP:BLP and WP:NPOV if possible), change it right away. Also, AOL, Deadline, and WaPo confirm the change. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, as they appear to be completely different programs. It has a different name and a different host. "The Factor" appears to be a placeholder show that will only run for three days. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 18:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

"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)