Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2007-03-23T02:50:29Z

Scientz:

== Conservative's edits ==

The total of those edits are given by [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=17299&oldid=17197 this dif] Objections to these edits include: 1) the removal of material discussing radiometric dating and starlight (it isn't clear to me why that material was removed given that the YEC responses are given). Second, he has thrown in a variety of quotes. Now, whether one calls these quotes quote-mines or not(they all are, but Conservative seems to dislike this term) a number of things are clear even ignoring issues of context, at least one of these quotes is out of date (1983 !) and none of them are at all relevant. This is an article about ''Young Earth Creationism.'' None of the quotes have anything to do with that since a) they aren't talking about YECism but possible issues with certain more standard scientific viewpoints and b) they don't alter the basic issues at hand such as the age of the earth(for example, whether or not we understand how "galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe" has nothing to do with the age of the earth or whether evolution took place or whether there was a global flood or anything else relevant to YECism. Furthermore, the citation given for these quotes is another Wiki, and wikis are inherently unreliable and not useful souring. 3) The added material is poorly organized; even if it were to be included, it makes no sense as an organizational matter to have in the introduction a long list of example quotes (and certainly not before basic issues like the global flood. Furthermore, since the end of the paragraph discusses what arguments they use, it would make far more sense to put it there. I must also register concern that Conservative has unilaterally protected this article after making his own changes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:16, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::Thank your for your feedback both in this talk page and on my discussion page. I used some of your feedback to edit the material. Secondly, CreationWiki sources the '''two quotes''' I used from CreationWiki. Thirdly, I believe that old earth creationist scientist such as Dr. Ross posit that the galaxies, planets, suns, etc were formed naturally as opposed to young earth creationists who believe they were created supernaturally at least for the most part. Third, radiometric dating discussion and starlight discussion can be found in one of the footnotes I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: To you second point A wiki sourcing anything is not reliable. It doesn't matter whether it is used for one quote, 10 quotes a thousand quotes or whatever. Wikis are not reliable and should not be used for sourcing. To your third point that the quote about planetary formation is relevant because Ross believes in natural planetary formation- we aren't talking about Hugh Ross here, we are talking about YECism. If we have an article about OECism then it might be relevant there. To your fourth point, yes they are mentioned in the reference but they are both important enough and major enough to mention in the article- in its current form it does not discuss at all the mainstream evidence and the YEC responses to that evidence; it is hard for me to see how that isn't important, especially in regard to radiometric dating. Nothing you have done here in any way deals with the issue that this bad organization having a large set of quotes in the middle before you get to basic issues like who supports YECism. Nor did you address the concern about the decision to protect the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:54, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Further problems with recent edits ==

At this point, you need to read almost a full page before one even finds out who actually supports YECism. At minimum, some of the evidence should be put in a later section so the introduction can be brief and actually give the relevant introductory details. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Unacceptable edit, clear whitewashing. ==

The section detailing the popular acceptance had a note that the acceptance rate among scientists was around 5% (and the 5% number put inside a footnote). That has been replaced with the standard DI claim that the number of scientists skeptical of certain aspects of evolution is on the rise. First, there isn't any point to it in the footnote since it isn't supporting anything in the article. If it going to be here, it should be in the article. Second, the DI claim at best is about evolution and has nothing to do with YECism. C) removal of the number, especially replacing it with the DI's (essentially unreliable, usubsuntiated claim) gives a misleading pciture. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Ok, we're getting slightly better now. Now, the DI part is still problematic. The DI 700 or so and all that has nothing to do with age of the earth or YECism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I wrote: "However, the ranks of scientists '''openly rejecting evolutionary ideas''' ([[macroevolution|macroevolutionary ideas]] posit the earth is millions of years old) is currently on the rise. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732]
The fact is that the effort in question is a very publicized effort and more scientists are signing on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: Um, that this is a very publicized effort yes, the rest holds no water. First, claiming that the numbers are on the rise because more people have signed the same petition is illogical- to show a rise, one would need to show that the number of people at any given time were more than the number prior. One would presumably do that with some sort of sampling, not a compiled list. Second, this still has nothing to do with YECism. One could completely agree with that statement and still not be a YEC (heck, one could still be a mainstream scientist who completely accepts evolution and still sign that statement if one thinks that neutral drift, sexual selection and other ways of modifying the gene pool are sufficiently important). Furthermore, one could completely disagree with basic evolutionary biology claims and still not be a YEC (take Hugh Ross for example). On the whole, putting the DI's claim here is both misleading and irrelevant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:07, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== 55% - macroevolution ==

The gallup poll did not say that 55% of scientists accepted "macroevolution" indeed macroevolution was not mentioned anywhere in the poll. The poll showed that 55% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process" and 39% agreed with the statement that "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." This gives a total of 96% accepting descent from a common ancestor (which is what I think the editor meant by "macroevolution" in this context). 22:49, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:Thanks for your input. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

I found this on source 23.

HUNTING

Schaller found that lionesses do 90% of the hunting and lions (males) only 10%. Furthermore the female leads the cubs to the freshly killed animal. (Rudnai 1973) This seems inconsistent with the Bible:

The lion tore enough for his whelps. (Nahum 2:12)

I didn't see how this source discredited science's claims about lions. Plus, you don't always have to be right the first time, you know. Science changes with new information. Until then, the best is done with what evidence is present. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:30, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Unproofed theories are not wrong theories ==

Hi,
I am new in Conservapedia. I think the most trouble thing here is that unproofed theories are equalized to wrong theories. But this ist wrong! Only falsifized theories are wrong.

Young Earth Creationism is a great Idea. It solves all the roblems about "time" before 6000 B.C.
But it is very very complex. It needs a creator. And this creator has a high complexity.
Most scientists look for the simplest solution for a problem, not any.

Einstein for example searched for the simplest way to solve relative speed and found a way in last century. It is a theorie, not the truth. It has not been falsifized jet. So we can trust.
So did Darwin. He tried to find a simple solution for flora and fauna. And he found a very simple theorie, that has not been falsifized jet.

Yound Earth Creationists try to falsifize the theory. But to falifize you need proofs. Not the lack of proofs. Not to find something is not a proof that is not there.
Sorry, we have to work harder to make Young Earth Creationism to a theory to be proud of. It has to be the simplest imaginalble!

== Proof ==

First off im an Admited Liberal and non Christian, just getting this out of the way. I have read your facts on Evolution and your facts on Creationism. I just have one question throghtout Evolution your editors and writters CONSTANTLY show the lack of evidence supporting Evolution, while when talking about Creationism you blame all lack on the fact that few scientists support the claim. Here is my quetion where is your proof. If Evolution is wrong and Creationism is correct then there should be evidence besides the Holy Bibles or books or scripture, take all Religion out of the argument and either prove that Creationism has as much evidence as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (yep theory not hard fact) and you will have a case but at no time in any writtings that i have seen or lectures i have heard has any evidence, besides GOD says so, been given to support your claim. Evolution though and theory that the earth is older then a hand full of thousdand years has been given evidence through proven scientific research. I would like to point out that the church has been fighting scientific theory for a long time including the earth is round and that the stars in the night sky are far away and not just jewls hanging right above our planet, or even that the planet earth is the center of the universe. and finaly that if God created everything how come the practice of Jewdism only seemed to appear after man became a hunter/gatherer tribe set giving up a portion of there nomadic ways and appeard in a comunity that animal husbandry became comon showing a need for a "shepard to watch his flock"
thats it just show some proff of your theory

== 45% support ==
The article currently states: "Roughly 45% of the United States population identify themselves as Young Earth Creationists, and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years." Neither of the citations support that statement. As far as I can tell, the relevant surveys showed that 45% of Americans believe that God created man about 10k years ago in his present form. Nothing indicated anyone's beliefs about the age of ''the Earth'' nor the ''labels people apply to themselves''. While all YECs ''do'' believe that man was created within 10,000 years, that doesn't imply that all people who believe that man was created within 10,000 years are YECs (believe ''the Earth'' was also created then ''and identify themselves as YECs'').

Since the article is locked, I can't reword it, but something more accurate would be:

: Roughly 45% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago, which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism.

[[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 01:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Bob. That sentence was put in by a evolutionist. LOL [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is a travesty ==

Citing to "bloodletting" as an example of science's major failures is beyond ridiculous, and using it as proof of how fluctual science is, well, that's even worse. Honestly, I don't know why [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] is an admin; the edits here are shockingly bad. Can an unbiased admin have a crack at this article...

PLEASE?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Medical science is part of science. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Alchemy is wrong? Well there goes the hope of hot fusion![[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::This article is one of the reasons for Conservapedia. To have articles without [[liberal]] bias. It should stay as it is. I'm sure[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] knows what he is doing.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Cracker, the two are ever so slightly different... I can't tell from your sarcasm whose side you're on :-).
:::Also, JC, the purpose of Conservapedia is not to be biased towards Christianity: it's to allow Christians to air their views ''on equal footing'' with other views. Am I right? Teach the controversy?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::::One of the things that bother me about this site is that the articles don't define what the subject ''is'' so much as getting straight to the refutation about why it's ''wrong''. And yes, AmesG, I do understand the difference betwixt alchemical and nuclear transmutation. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Exactly. Leave the Christian views on an ''equal footing'' as they are.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry if my failure at understanding sarcasm insulted you, Cracker!!! Not my intent!! I was just confused...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This whole project is a travesty. I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't beileve any educated, honest person would support this project. I don't understand how this project's critics can take it so seriously. Im sure you've all read the article on evolution. Like I said before the creators and supporters of this project are embarrassing themselves. - [[User:Jirt|Jirt]] 20:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== spent time proofreading ==

I received a short note regarding this article concerning some suggested improvements in grammar among other things. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some areas where the article could be improved. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

== This article is ridiculous ==
Do we want credibility? Do we want to be taken seriously in the world? Do we want to get rid of the loony liberals that are ruining our country? Then we need--at a bare minimum--to accept the basic laws of physics. This article is a travesty, and it is one of the reasons why "conservative" has become synonymous with "bat shit crazy." Can someone with half a brain and a decent understanding of the universe please fix this? Conservative should not mean "idiot," it should simply mean "conservative." Edmund Burke would be disgusted by you YECers. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:50 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-23T02:42:32Z

Scientz:

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmis background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonesense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have eveything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Big Bang theory

2007-03-23T02:37:31Z

Scientz: --whoops, repeated a sentence... anyone want to help me wikify this article?

In astrophysics, the term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to the interval of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago when the photons observed in the microwave cosmic background radiation acquired their black-body form, and in a more general sense to refer to a hypothesized point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an infinitely dense and physically paradoxical singularity. Space has expanded with the passage of time, objects being moved farther away from each other.

In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the observation that galaxies appear to be receding from each other can be combined with the theory of general relativity to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back in time. This leads to the conclusion that as one goes back in time, the universe becomes increasingly hot and dense.

There are a number of consequences to this view. One consequence is that the universe now is very different than the universe in the past or in the future. The Big Bang theory predicts that at some point, the matter in the universe was hot and dense enough to prevent light from flowing freely in space. That this period of the universe would be observable in the form of cosmic background radiation (CBR) was first predicted in the 1940s, and the discovery of such radiation in the 1960s swung most scientific opinion against the Big Bang theory's chief rival, the steady state theory.

Using current physical theories to extrapolate the Hubble expansion of the universe backwards leads to a gravitational singularity, at which all distances become zero and temperatures and pressures become infinite. What this means is unclear, and most physicists believe that this is because of our limited understanding of the laws of physics with regard to this type of situation, and in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity.

Big Bang theory

2007-03-23T02:36:32Z

Scientz: <-- took me a while, but that is a much better explanation... see talk page...

In astrophysics, the term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to the interval of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago when the photons observed in the microwave cosmic background radiation acquired their black-body form, and in a more general sense to refer to a hypothesized point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an infinitely dense and physically paradoxical singularity. Space has expanded with the passage of time, objects being moved farther away from each other.
According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an infinitely dense and physically paradoxical singularity. Space has expanded with the passage of time, objects being moved farther away from each other.

In cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing theory about the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the observation that galaxies appear to be receding from each other can be combined with the theory of general relativity to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back in time. This leads to the conclusion that as one goes back in time, the universe becomes increasingly hot and dense.

There are a number of consequences to this view. One consequence is that the universe now is very different than the universe in the past or in the future. The Big Bang theory predicts that at some point, the matter in the universe was hot and dense enough to prevent light from flowing freely in space. That this period of the universe would be observable in the form of cosmic background radiation (CBR) was first predicted in the 1940s, and the discovery of such radiation in the 1960s swung most scientific opinion against the Big Bang theory's chief rival, the steady state theory.

Using current physical theories to extrapolate the Hubble expansion of the universe backwards leads to a gravitational singularity, at which all distances become zero and temperatures and pressures become infinite. What this means is unclear, and most physicists believe that this is because of our limited understanding of the laws of physics with regard to this type of situation, and in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity.

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T14:41:29Z

Scientz:

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T14:39:36Z

Scientz:

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmis background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonesense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method has nothing to with ideology, it has eveything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T14:38:36Z

Scientz:

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T14:31:23Z

Scientz: syntax error

User:Scientz

2007-03-22T14:29:36Z

Scientz: New page: Go ahead, let me have it: If I have the time (schoolwork aside) I will respond in kind. -Scientz

Go ahead, let me have it: If I have the time (schoolwork aside) I will respond in kind.

-Scientz

Talk:Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T14:28:54Z

Scientz:

Big Bang theory

2007-03-22T00:08:12Z

Scientz: /* Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views */ this part is really crap and unnecessary... people don't actually believe this stuff, do they?

{{stub}}
The '''Big Bang Theory''' models the Universe as expanding outwards from a very hot, dense initial state approximately 14 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys[https://www.sdss.org/dr5]<ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/]<ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Theory of evolution]]
[[Category:Evolutionism]]
[[Category:Naturalism]]

Bill O'Reilly

2007-03-17T21:52:43Z

Scientz:

{{Infobox Celebrity
| name = Bill O'Reilly
| image =
| caption =
| birth_date = {{birth date and age|1949|09|10}}
| birth_place = {{flagicon|USA}} [[New York City]], [[New York|NY]], [[USA]]
| death_date =
| death_place =
| occupation = [[Author]], [[Print syndication|syndicated]] [[columnist]], conservative [[television personality|television]] and [[talk radio]] personality
| salary = $9,000,000<ref>[[Forbes]], [http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/X3QK.html ''Bill O'Reilly, The Top 100 Celebrities'']. Accessed January 8, 2007.</ref>
| networth =
| spouse = Maureen E. McPhilmy
| children = Madeline, Spencer
| residence = Manhasset, New York
| | website = [http://www.billoreilly.com/ billoreilly.com]
| footnotes =
}}
{{otherpeople2|Bill O'Reilly}}
'''William James "Bill" O'Reilly, Jr.''' (born [[September 10]], [[1949]])<ref>Pragoff, Cat. "Fox News' Bill O'Reilly was in classroom before newsroom", ''[[New Hampshire Union Leader]]'', February 9, 2005. Page D10</ref> is the [[host]] of the [[cable television|cable news]] program ''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]'', broadcast on the [[Fox News Channel]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1256,00.html O'Reilly's Fox News biography]</ref>

O'Reilly also hosts ''[[The Radio Factor]]'', a radio program syndicated by [[Westwood One]], and has written six books.

Thought to be and usually criticized as a conservative, O'Reilly is a self-described [[Independent (voter)|independent]]. O'Reilly has used several terms to describe his views. In his book ''[[Culture Warrior]]'', he identifies himself as a "traditionalist." Previously a registered [[United States Republican Party|Republican]] for an unknown period of time, O'Reilly has been registered as having no party affiliation since 2001.
==Biography==

===Early life===
O'Reilly was born in [[New York City]] to [[Irish Catholic]] parents William and Angela O'Reilly, from [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]] and [[Bergen County, New Jersey|Bergen County]], [[New Jersey]], respectively. His father was an accountant for the oil company [[Caltex]]. In 1951, his family moved to [[Levittown]] on [[Long Island]].<ref>[http://www.frankenlies.com/lies/levittown.htm O’Reilly and the Levittown Issue: Answered]</ref> After graduating from [[Chaminade High School]], a private Catholic boys high school in Mineola, New York in 1967, O'Reilly attended [[Marist College]], a small, co-educational private (and at the time, Catholic) institution in [[Poughkeepsie (city), New York|Poughkeepsie]], New York. While at Marist, O'Reilly played punter in the National Club [[American football|Football]] Association,<ref>{{cite web |author= Duffy, Don| title="Campus Stuff" (''The Circle'')|url=http://library.marist.edu/archives/Circle/1970/1970-11-19.pdf |publisher=Poughkeepsie, NY: Marist College (Originally published in ''The Circle'' on November 19, 1970)| year=1970 | accessdate= December 26 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> and was also a columnist and feature writer for the school's newspaper, ''The Circle''. As an honors student majoring in history, he spent his junior year of college abroad, attending [[Queen Mary, University of London|Queen Mary College]] at the [[University of London]].<ref>{{cite web | author=Marist | title=2001 Commencement Program| publisher=Poughkeepsie, NY: Marist College, Office of Alumni Relations (Originally published in the May 19, 2001 Commencement Program)| year=2001 | url=http://www.marist.edu/alumni/oreillyb.html | accessdate= December 26 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> O'Reilly received his [[Bachelor of Arts|B.A.]] in [[History]] in 1971. He played semi-professional [[baseball]] during this time as a pitcher for the Brooklyn Monarchs, and had an unsuccessful tryout with the American professional baseball team, the [[New York Mets]].

=== Broadcasting career ===
[[Image:0301061billo1.jpg|thumb|right|Bill O'Reilly in 1975 as the "Action Consumer troubleshooter" for [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]] affiliate [[WNEP]] in [[Scranton, Pennsylvania|Scranton]], [[Pennsylvania]], USA.<ref name=wnepaction>TheSmokingGun.com (2006) [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0301061billo1.html "Bill O'Reilly, Big Pimpin': At 26, the future Fox News star just wanted out of Scranton"] via heirs of an O'Reilly correspondent, accessed October 2, 2006</ref>]]After graduating from Marist College, O'Reilly moved to [[Miami, Florida|Miami]], [[Florida]] at age 21, where he taught English and history at Monsignor Pace High School for two years. After leaving Miami, O'Reilly returned to school, earning a [[Master of Arts (postgraduate)|M.A.]] in Broadcast Journalism from [[Boston University]] in 1976. While attending Boston University, he was a reporter and columnist for various local newspapers and alternative news weeklies, including ''[[The Phoenix (newspaper)|The Boston Phoenix]]''. O'Reilly did his broadcast journalism internship in Miami during this time, and was also an entertainment writer and movie critic for ''[[The Miami Herald]]''.

O'Reilly's early television news career included reporting and anchoring positions at [[WNEP-TV]] in [[Scranton, Pennsylvania|Scranton]], [[Pennsylvania]], where he also reported the weather. At [[WFAA-TV]] in [[Dallas, Texas|Dallas]], [[Texas]], O'Reilly was awarded the Dallas Press Club Award for excellence in investigative reporting. He then moved to [[KMGH-TV]] in [[Denver, Colorado|Denver]], [[Colorado]] where he won a Local [[Emmy Award]] for his coverage of a [[skyjacking]].<ref name=FoxBio1>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155,00.html Bill O'Reilly's Bio] ''Accessed August 2006''</ref><ref name=biofile>{{cite web | author=Malinowski, Scoop |title=Get 2 Know Bill O'Reilly! | year=November 8, 2004 | publisher=TheBioFILE.com| url=http://www.thebiofile.com/articles/stories/101950230.php | accessdate= September 9 | accessyear= 2005 }}</ref> In 1978 while in Denver, Bill was offered a job as the [[Marlboro Man]]. He turned it down because he didn’t smoke nor wanted to promote it. (radio factor/ Feb. 21, 2007). O'Reilly also worked for [[KATU|KATU-TV]] in [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]], [[Oregon]], as well as TV stations in [[Hartford, Connecticut|Hartford]], [[Connecticut]] ([[WFSB-TV]]), and in [[Boston, Massachusetts|Boston]], [[Massachusetts]].<ref name=biofile />

[[Image:IEPromoWJLA1993.jpg|thumb|left|[[WJLA-TV|WJLA]], [[Washington, D.C.]] ''[[Inside Edition]]'' promo featuring Bill O'Reilly, 1993.]]In 1980, he anchored his own program on [[WCBS-TV]] in New York where he won his second Local Emmy for an investigation of corrupt city marshals. He was promoted to the network as a [[CBS News]] correspondent and covered the wars in [[El Salvador]] and the [[Falkland Islands]] from his base in [[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]] (1982). He later left CBS over, among other tensions, a dispute concerning the uncredited use in a report by [[Bob Schieffer]] of riot footage shot by O'Reilly's crew in Buenos Aires during the Falklands conflict. (A 1998 novel by O'Reilly, ''[[Those Who Trespass|Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Television and Murder]]'', depicts a television reporter who has a similar dispute over a Falklands War report. The character proceeds to exact his revenge on network staff in a series of graphically-described murders.)<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060327fa_fact "Fear Factor - Bill O’Reilly’s baroque period"], Nicholas Lemann, ''The New Yorker'', March 20, 2006</ref>

In 1986, O'Reilly joined [[ABC News]] as a correspondent for ''[[ABC World News Tonight]]''.

In 1989, O'Reilly joined the nationally syndicated [[King World]] (now [[CBS]]) program ''[[Inside Edition]]'', a tabloid/gossip television program in competition with ''[[A Current Affair (US TV series)|A Current Affair]]''. He started as senior correspondent and backup anchor for British TV host [[David Frost (broadcaster)|David Frost]], and subsequently became the program's anchor after Frost's termination. In addition to being one of the first American broadcasters to cover the dismantling of the [[Berlin Wall]], O'Reilly also obtained the first exclusive interview with murderer [[Joel Steinberg]] and was the first television host from a national current affairs program on the scene of the [[1992 Los Angeles riots]].

In 1995, O'Reilly was replaced by former NBC News and CBS News anchor [[Deborah Norville]] on ''Inside Edition.'' He then enrolled at the [[Kennedy School of Government|John F. Kennedy School of Government]] at [[Harvard University]], where he received a Master's Degree in Public Administration. Upon leaving Harvard, O'Reilly was hired by [[Roger Ailes]], chairman and CEO of the then startup FOX News Channel, to anchor ''The O'Reilly Report.'' The show soon moved to a new time slot, and was renamed ''The O'Reilly Factor''.

===Personal life===
O'Reilly married Maureen E. McPhilmy, a public relations executive, in 1995. They have one daughter, Madeline, born in 1998, and a son, Spencer, born in 2003. According to an October 2005 interview in ''[[Newsday]]'', O'Reilly hired bodyguards and is very sensitive about the general public taking pictures of him, calling some of them "stealth [[paparazzi]]".<ref>{{cite book| first = Verne| last = Gay| year = 2005| title = "What's hate got to do with it?"| edition = October 18| publisher = Newsday}}</ref> O'Reilly has requested that no photographs of his home or family be made public. He and his family now live in [[Manhasset]], [[New York]].<ref>[http://cryptome.org/billo-birdseye.htm Bill O'Reilly Birdseye], cryptome.org</ref> 
On November 22nd 2003 the [[Los Angeles Times]] published an article linking O'Reilly to several groups known to have neo-nazi/white power beliefs. The article alledged that O'Reilly was funding their activities, however this was later proven untrue The article was later withdrawn and an apology issued. This incident did not seemed to damage his popularity with his viewers. 
Despite being married, O'Reilly got caught up in a phone sex scandal that O'Reilly and his employer, Fox News paid millions to settle out of court.

=== ''The O'Reilly Factor'' ===
{{main|The O'Reilly Factor}}
O'Reilly's television show, ''The O'Reilly Factor'', is routinely the highest-rated show of the three major U.S. 24-hour cable news channels ([[CNN]], FOX News, and [[MSNBC]]). The show is taped late in the afternoon at a studio in New York City and airs every weekday on the FOX News Channel at 8:00 p.m. [[North American Eastern Standard Time Zone|Eastern Time]].

===American Red Cross and the United Way===
In the wake of the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]], O'Reilly devoted substantial time on his television show and wrote pieces alleging that the [[United Way]] and [[American Red Cross]] failed to deliver millions of dollars in donated money, raised by the organizations in the name of the disaster, to the families of those killed in the attacks.<ref>[http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/celebrit.htm "O'Reilly rips celeb 'phonies'"], Richard Johnson with Paula Froelich and Chris Wilson, PapillonsArtPalace.com, November 2, 2001</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25667 "Fight the power"], Bill O'Reilly, WorldNetDaily, December 13, 2001</ref>
O'Reilly asserted that the organizations misrepresented their intentions for the money being raised by not distributing all of the 9/11 relief fund to the victims.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/30/171728.shtml "Red Cross Diverts Donations From Sept. 11 Victims"], Kevin Curran, NewsMax.com, October 31, 2001</ref> Actor [[George Clooney]] defended the United Way from O'Reilly's criticisms of a telethon that raised $129.5 million, plus an additional $12 million in CD and DVD sales, according to Jeannette Reed, spokeswoman for the United Way of New York City. The funds were given to victims and surviving families in the form of cash assistance, she said. Congressional hearings were called on the matter and an investigation by New York State Attorney General [[Eliot Spitzer]] took place. Bernadette Healey, the president of the Red Cross, resigned shortly thereafter.<ref>[http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2001/10/2001102601.htm "Red Cross President Resigns Under Pressure From Board"], Grant Williams, Philanthropy.com, October 26, 2001</ref> In sworn testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in November 2001, Congressman [[J.D. Hayworth]] asserted that media pressure, most notably from O'Reilly, helped cause the Red Cross to increase payments to affected people and helped cause other charities to participate in an oversight database established by Spitzer.<ref>[http://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy/oversite/107cong/11-8-01/hayw.htm Opening Statement of the Hon. J.D. Hayworth, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Committee on Ways and Means], Hearing on Response by Charitable Organizations to the Recent Terrorist Attacks, Committee on Ways & Means, November 8, 2001</ref>

===Sexual harassment lawsuits===
On [[October 13]], [[2004]], ''O'Reilly Factor'' producer [[Andrea Mackris]] filed a complaint of [[sexual harassment]] against O'Reilly<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html Photocopy of lawsuit]</ref> alleging that O'Reilly had made numerous references to "[[phone sex]], [[vibrator]]s, [[threesome]]s, [[masturbation]], the loss of his [[virginity]], and other sexual fantasies."<ref>{{cite web | author=TheSmokingGun.com| The details of some of these fantasies resembled scenes in a book written by O'Reilly, Those Who Trespass. The specificity with which Ms. Mackris recounted O'Reilly's telephone calls lead many to believe that she had taped the calls. The existence of these tapes, and O'Reilly's desire that they never be made public, were seen by many as the reason for the prompt settlement of the suit in Mackris's favor. According to many accounts, O'Reilly paid many millions to make the lawsuit go away. Ms. Mackris had been in debt prior to the suit, but after the settlement was able to purchase property in New York City worth at least $1,000,000. url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013042oreilly1.html| title=O'Reilly: Female Aide in $60M Extort Bid| publisher=Courtroom Television Network LLC (appeared October 13)|year=2004a |accessdate=July 11|accessyear=2005}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=TheSmokingGun.com |url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html |title=O'Reilly Hit With Sex Harass Suit|publisher=Courtroom Television Network LLC (appeared October 13)|year=2004b |accessdate=July 11|accessyear=2005}}</ref><ref>Howard Kurtz, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34312-2004Oct15.html "O'Reilly, Accuser Air Their Cases"], ''Washington Post'', [[October 15]], [[2004]]</ref><ref name="settleoct28">Howard Kurtz, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7578-2004Oct28.html "Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment Suit"], ''Washington Post'', [[October 29]], [[2004]]</ref> The complaint also sought additional damages and described alleged actions of retaliation by Fox, ''et.al''.<ref name="settleoct28"/> O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that O'Reilly had used the alleged language, but said he never broke the law and questioned whether Mackris was truly offended or was taking words and phrases out of context.

Earlier that same day, O'Reilly had filed a preemptive lawsuit against Mackris, her lawyer [[Benedict P. Morelli]], and Morelli's law firm for [[extortion]], contending Mackris had privately demanded more than $60 million (USD) to settle a claim of sexual harassment. Morelli did not deny that they had demanded the settlement prior to filing the complaint, but did deny the allegations of extortion.

Both cases were settled out of court and all parties agreed to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.<ref name="settleoct28" /> O'Reilly told reporters that there was "no wrongdoing in the case whatsoever by anyone".

==O'Reilly's public beliefs and points of view==
===Political affiliation===

On his [[January 10]], [[2000]] show, O'Reilly claimed he was an [[Independent (politician)|Independent]], but the ''[[New York Daily News]]'' reported on [[December 6]], [[2000]], that he was registered as a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] in [[Nassau County, New York|Nassau County]], New York, from 1994 to 2000. After the ''Daily News'' questioned O'Reilly on the matter, he re-registered as an Independent in 2001.<ref>{{cite news
|first = Michelle
|last = Ingrassia
|title = HE'S LIVING THE LIFE OF O'REILLY: The TV pundit looks at his success an d sees the Levittown factor
|publisher = [[New York Daily News]]
|page = 40
|date = December 6, 2000
}}</ref>

O'Reilly is a self-described [[Independent (voter)|independent]], but is often called a [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]], as the majority of his stated beliefs and positions align with conservatism in the United States.<ref> see [http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070 Seth Ackerman and Peter Hart, "Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness: Don't call him conservative — but he is" FAIR (July/Aug 2001)]</ref> In his book ''The O'Reilly Factor'', he describes his political affiliation this way: "You might be wondering if whether I'm conservative, [[liberal]], [[libertarian]], or exactly what... See, 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."<ref>Random House,
[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767905299&view=excerpt], Excerpt from the introduction of O'Reilly's book, The O'Reilly Factor, [[March 12]], [[2002]]</ref>

While O'Reilly often urges his audience to vote against particular candidates (some of whom are those O'Reilly believes are against "tougher punishment" for sex offenders, while the majority of them are Democrats), he has rarely, if ever, urged them to vote against Republicans or conservatives. O'Reilly has used several terms to describe his views. In his book ''[[Culture Warrior]]'', he identifies himself as a "traditionalist" who he believes are in a "culture war" with "secular progressives."

===The Iraq war===
Speaking on [[American Broadcasting Company|ABC]]'s ''[[Good Morning America]]'' on [[18 March]], [[2003]], O'Reilly made the following promise: "If the Americans go in and overthrow [[Saddam Hussein]] and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the [[Bush administration]] again."<ref name="cd-wmd-clean">[http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0225-10.htm "Bill O'Reilly's 'Apology': Still Spinning in the 'No Spin Zone'"] by Peter Hart, [[Common Dreams NewsCenter]], [[February 25]], [[2004]].</ref><ref>[http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=7251 "Devil in the Details: He Is the Eggman"] by Heidi Pauken, ''[[The American Prospect]]'', [[March 1]], [[2004]].</ref><ref>[http://www.flakmag.com/books/mybad.html "My Bad: 25 Years of Public Apologies and the Appalling Behavior That Inspired Them"] by Paul Slansky and Arleen Sorkin, ''[[Flak Magazine]]''.</ref>

In another appearance on the same program on [[10 February]], [[2004]], O'Reilly responded to repeated requests for him to honor his pledge: "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all." With regard to never again trusting the current U.S. government, he said, "I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time."<ref name="cd-wmd-clean"/> He has continued to publicly support the [[U.S. invasion of Iraq]], while criticizing the Bush administration's handling of it, often giving rhetorical advice to the administration.

After reading a poll showing that only 2% of the Iraqi people viewed the US Forces as liberators and 55% preferred that they leave, O'Reilly said they are a "prehistoric" group and he has no respect for them. He added: "we cannot intervene in the [[Muslim]] world ever again. What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (...) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain't going to work."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200406180005|title=O'Reilly: Iraqi people are "primitive," "prehistoric group"|date=2006-06-18|accessdate=2006-10-10|publisher=Media Matters for America}}</ref>

===Terrorism===
O'Reilly supports coercive measures to extract information from detainees at [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp|Guantanamo Bay]], which he visited on two occasions. He has said that, in comparison to torture procedures used under the regimes of [[dictator]]s such as [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Pol Pot]], the U.S.'s tactics are not [[torture]] and are beneficial even when involving physical techniques.<ref name="geneva_convention">{{cite web |url=http://www.newshounds.us/2005/06/17/will_wonders_never_cease_nprs_juan_williams_finds_his_voice_argues_with_oreilly.php|title=Will Wonders Never Cease? NPR's Juan Williams Finds His Voice, Argues with O'Reilly|publisher=News Hounds|author=Therese, Marie|date=[[June 17]], [[2005]]}}</ref>

He also thinks that detainees should be judged under [[military tribunal]]s, but not protected under the [[Geneva Convention]] because the convention requires combatants to wear a uniform, although this is not the only reason given.<ref name="geneva_convention" />

He has been critical of politicians such as Democratic [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[Nancy Pelosi]] and private citizens such as financier [[George Soros]] for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.billoreilly.com/show;jsessionid=626E48D065C900F8987785811154E911?action=viewTVShow&showID=1007|title=The O'Reilly Factor Flash, Talking Points Memo & Top Story|date=2006-09-28|accessdate=2006-10-10}}</ref>

===Politics===

O'Reilly said of the [[Bill Clinton]] [[impeachment of Bill Clinton|impeachment]] that it "was not about sex. This is about honesty and cruelty. For Mr. Clinton, it was about undermining the justice system."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,29294,00.html | title=talking Points: Condit Should Resign}}</ref> In the same article he points out that [[Gary Condit]], a [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] [[congressman]] who had an affair with [[Chandra Levy]] prior to her disappearance and death, should be held to the same standard when it comes to inappropriate behavior.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}

According to the NEWSMAX publication, O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed throughout the years that Clinton had the [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]] audit him.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/22/200136.shtml "IRS Official to Judicial Watch: Clinton Enemies Were Audited"], Carl Limbacher, ''NewsMax.com'', April 23, 2002</ref>

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 presidential election]] he implied his support for [[George W. Bush]], but also complimented [[John Kerry]]. During an interview on ''[[The Daily Show]]'', O'Reilly told host [[Jon Stewart]] that he had yet to make up his mind on who he was going to vote for. He called the "[[Swift Vets and POWs for Truth]]" campaign criticizing Kerry's military record "terrible."<ref name="CBS_1" /> He is also cited as saying that most of those who voted for Kerry did so as a vote against Bush, stating that the Democratic party has been "hijacked by the left" and that they suffer losses because of this.<ref name="mediamatters_1">{{cite web|url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200411100002|title=O'Reilly and Romerstein inaccurately cited exit poll data to...|publisher=Media Matters For America|accessdate=2006-10-10}}</ref> Immediately following the election O'Reilly ridiculed John Kerry, calling him a "sissy"[http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010004].

O'Reilly does not endorse candidates directly, but he will generally advise viewers and listeners not to vote for a candidate that he opposes (which, in any race between two major-party candidates, becomes a de facto endorsement by O'Reilly of the other candidate).<ref>{{cite web| year=2004| publisher=Media Matters| author=G.W.| url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230007| title=Self-proclaimed non-partisan Bill O'Reilly urged listeners to vote against Daschle in South Dakota; O'Reilly's Dem Convention preview: Daschle's "no good"; [[Nancy Pelosi|Pelosi]]'s a "nut"; [[Max Cleland]]'s "strange"}}</ref> In 2004 he urged his viewers to vote against Democratic senate candidate [[Betty Castor]] in [[Florida]] because of her attack of the show for their investigation of [[Sami Al-Arian]], an instructor at the [[University of South Florida]] where Castor was president. Al-Arian was later arrested by the [[FBI]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137346,00.html| publisher=FOX News| author=O'Reilly, Bill| title=Notes from the Campaign Trail...}}</ref>

O'Reilly has been critical of former [[attorney general]] [[Janet Reno]], calling her "perhaps the worst attorney general in history" for allowing the [[FBI]] to become a "disorganized mess" and not prosecuting corporate criminals. However, he later praised former Attorney General [[John Ashcroft]] for going after the [[Arthur Andersen]] accounting firm, as well as [[Enron]], [[WorldCom]], [[Sam Waksal]] of [[Imclone]] and [[Martha Stewart]].<ref name="FOX_1">{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113782,00.html|publisher=FOX News| author=O'Reilly, Bill|title=Right Man for the Job?}}</ref>

O'Reilly has criticized Democratic Senator [[Hillary Clinton]] and her running for [[United States Presidential Election, 2008|president]] in [[2008]]. In an interview with [[Jay Leno]] he said, "I just feel that Hillary is a [[socialist]], and I'm paying enough tax. Hillary wants to take my money [and] your money ... and give it to strangers. There's something about that that offends me." He pointed out that she had voted for every single spending bill that year. In the same interview, he accused her of running as a political [[carpetbagger]], and said that she intends to abolish the [[Electoral College]] in favor of popular vote, claiming that it would be done only to give her an advantage in the presidential race.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27695|title=O'Reilly scorches Hillary
on 'Tonight Show'|publisher=World Net Daily| author=Kovacs, Joe}}</ref>

=== Secularism and the "elite media"===
In 2003, O'Reilly criticized the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' for endorsing then-governor [[Gray Davis]], who was running against [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] in a [[recall election]]. He said that he "has never seen a newspaper try to destroy someone as aggressively as the ''Times'' is doing." He made the claim that Californians have canceled their subscriptions due to the "extreme left-wing [[media bias|bias]]" of the newspaper. At the same time, he felt that Davis and the "Democratic machine" were equally corrupt and had to be removed.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99326,00.html|title=Would You Vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger?| publisher=FOX News| author=O'Reilly, Bill| }}</ref> In the same segment, O'Reilly applauded that voters in Nassau County, New York, where O'Reilly resides, threw the "corrupt [[GOP]]" out of county government and that the new County Executive, Democrat [[Tom Suozzi]], was doing a good job.

He has criticized the funding of left-wing interests by [[George Soros]] and [[Peter Lewis]].

O'Reilly supported California Proposition 73 because it required [[parental notification]] for underage girls seeking an [[abortion]]. "[T]he left-wing media has been able to convince millions of Americans that the government knows what's best for families, not the parents," he said.<ref>{{cite web| year=2005| publisher=FOX News| author=O'Reilly, Bill| url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175031,00.html| title=Election Day, 2005}}</ref>

He has commented extensively on the [[gay marriage]] issue that erupted in [[San Francisco]], and has criticized Schwarzenegger and Bush for not speaking out against the issue.<ref name=Moyers>{{cite web | url=http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/genericpage.jsp?pageID=62|title=Bill's Talking Points Memo (Friday, [[February 20]], [[2004]])|accessdate=2006-10-10}}</ref>

He has supported the mention of [[intelligent design]] in schools and considers the [[National Academy of Sciences]] and the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] opposition to be [[fascist]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164581,00.html|title= God versus science: that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".|date=2005-08-03|accessdate=2006-10-10|publisher=FOX News}}</ref>

O'Reilly has been critical of the [[ACLU]], calling it "the most dangerous organization in the United States of America." He has called them a fascist organization in response to their threatened lawsuit against [[Los Angeles County]] for failing to remove a cross from its official seal.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200406080005|title=O'Reilly: ACLU is America's "most dangerous organization ... second to Al Qaeda"|date=2004-06-08|accessdate=2006-10-10|publisher=Media Matters for America}}</ref>

He regularly criticizes jurists in controversial cases as "[[activist judges]]." He uses the issue of gay marriage to support his point. "The folks decide that by voting and, in the case of gay marriage, the folks have decided. And that decision should be respected."<ref>{{cite web | title=Gay Marriage and the Culture War|publisher=FOX News|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198343,00.html}}</ref>

O'Reilly has taken to using the abbreviation "S-P", for "[[Secularism|Secular]] [[Progressivism|Progressive]]", as a shorthand way of referring to that general political category. However, neither [[Webster's Dictionary]] nor dictionary.com recognize the existence of such a category.<ref>Billoreilly.com, [http://www.billoreilly.com/quiz?action=viewQuiz&quizID=134&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/community/cwtest.jsp ''Culture Warrior Test'']. Accessed January 8, 2007.</ref>

O'Reilly has recently criticized NBC News several times, claiming they have a left-wing bias towards the War in Iraq.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}

===Crime and punishment===
====The prison system====
O'Reilly has called the current U.S. prison system too lenient, and has said that criminals have too many privileges like television and cigarettes, as well as access to drugs and sex. He has commented on support for military style [[labor camps]] for the nation's worst criminals as an alternative to the current prison system. He proposes a [[gulag]] style prison located in [[Alaska]] where such criminals would be forced to work eight hours a day, six days a week. Visitation would be limited to a few visitors a year. Punishment would be enforced through [[food rationing]] and [[solitary confinement]]. In his view, this could also replace the [[death penalty]], to which he is opposed.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23246|title=Work or die|date=2001-06-14|accessdate=2006-10-10}}</ref>

====The Mexican border====
He has supported stricter border controls, including placement of the [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] troops on the [[US-Mexican border]] and has criticized Bush for not allocating enough resources to make border security effective. He also criticized [[Ronald Reagan]]'s act of [[amnesty]], claiming that it made the illegal [[immigration]] problem worse.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly052206.asp | title=Guarding the border|author=Bill O'Reilly|publisher=''Jewish World Review''|date=2005-06-22|accessdate=2006-10-10}}</ref>

====Gun control====
O'Reilly supports limited [[gun control]].<ref name="CBS_1" /> However, he also voiced support for private gun ownership after [[Hurricane Katrina]].<ref>[http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=530 BillO'Reilly.com: The O'Reilly Factor Flash], [[November 7]], [[2005]]: "Once I saw what happened in Hurricane Katrina, I said every American household should have a firearm. If there's a tremendous earthquake in [[San Francisco]] and looting, you don't want your family protected? You don't want a firearm in your house? You're living in the world of [[The Wizard of Oz|Oz]]. And the military is a noble enterprise. Why should the rest of the country protect your butt if San Francisco is going to thumb your nose at the military by passing this resolution?"</ref>

====Jessica's Law====
O'Reilly is a strong proponent of stricter penalties for [[child sexual abuse|child molesters]]. He has vehemently supported [[Jessica's Law]] and criticizes what he believes to be lenient treatment of those convicted of child molestation.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.billoreilly.com/outragefunnels|title=Jessica's Law Report Card|publisher=BillOReilly.com}}</ref> He has also criticized the law's detractors.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182307,00.html |title=Protecting the Kids - Liberal Versus Conservative|date=2006-01-20|accessdate=2006-10-10|publisher=FOX News}}</ref> He has endorsed politicians like Republican [[Doug Forrester]] in the [[2005]] [[New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2005|New Jersey gubernatorial election]], suggesting that [[Jon Corzine]], a Democrat, would be less likely to support a national version of the law.<ref>{{cite web| year=2005| publisher=FOX News| author=O'Reilly, Bill| url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174551,00.html| title=Protecting the Kids in New Jersey...}}</ref>

O'Reilly has been particularly critical of the [[Debra LaFave]] case, in which she was convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old boy but was only sentenced to house arrest and seven years' probation.<ref name="Fox_LaFave">{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213778,00.html|title=What Is Convicted Child Sex Offender Debra LaFave Doing on TV?}}</ref>

He criticizes many politicians who oppose mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters. Specifically, he points out [[Massachusetts]] House Speaker [[Salvatore DiMasi]], [[Wyoming]] Governor [[Dave Freudenthal]], Senator [[Brian Frosh]] of [[Maryland]], [[Tennessee]] Governor [[Phil Bredesen]], former [[Idaho]] Governor [[Dirk Kempthorne]]. He has also called [[Vermont]], [[Hawaii]], [[Montana]], [[Maine]] and [[Utah]] "child predator-friendly states".<ref name="Fox_LaFave" />

===Fiscal issues===
O'Reilly is a frequent critic of government [[welfare]] and [[poverty]] programs. He is also critical of the [[Estate tax (United States)|estate tax]] which taxes up to 46 percent of estates which, under current federal law, are valued over $2 million. However, he does not differentiate between the marginal tax rate (46%) and the ''effective'' tax rate (roughly 9%).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?printerFriendly=true&pid=20104|title=A Taxing Proposition|author=O'Reilly, Bill|Publisher=BillOReilly.com|date=June 8, 2006}}</ref>According to the IRS, the estate tax
in its "current form only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans" (a section of the population that O'Reilly is a member of), or approximately 52,000 estates. [http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html]

O'Reilly has said [[France|French]] [[unemployment]] and subsequent [[riots]] are the "common effects of socialist thinking". He says the French unemployment rate is high because of entitlements sanctioned by the French government, and that these entitlements make employers hesitant to hire young employees for fear that they will be stuck with an underperforming worker while being required to give them benefits and extensive vacation time.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly040306.asp|title=French whine|author=O'Reilly, Bill|date=April 3, 2006|Publisher=Jewish World Review}}</ref>

He says he supports income-based [[affirmative action]] as opposed to race-related affirmative action.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly063003.asp|title=Affirmative action, negative reaction|author=O'Reilly, Bill|Publisher=Jewish World Review|date=[[June 30]], [[2003]]}}</ref>

He said that much of the chaos following [[Hurricane Katrina]] occurred because roughly 10 percent of the population cannot sustain itself. He has said that much of the funds doled out under entitlement programs is wasted on [[alcohol]] and [[drugs]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://mediamatters.org/items/200509150001|title=O'Reilly: "Many, many, many" hurricane victims who failed to evacuate New Orleans are "drug-addicted ... thugs"|publisher=Media Matters for America|Date=[[September 15]], [[2005]]|Author=J.S.}}</ref>

===Environmental issues===
O'Reilly generally supports the science behind [[global warming]], although he has said that it is not entirely certain that [[fossil fuel]]s are the cause. Nonetheless, he has expressed support for a long-term strategy to curb fossil fuel use. He has said he would not support the [[Kyoto Treaty]] for economic reasons, but supports the use of fewer polluting agents, more [[conservation]], and "tons more innovation" such as tax credits for [[alternative energy|alternative fuels]].<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54413,00.html|title=Global Warming & the Bush Administration|author=O'Reilly, Bill|publisher=Fox News|date=[[June 4]], [[2002]]}}</ref>

O'Reilly has also stated his belief that the United States is not doing enough to make it independent of foreign oil. "If [[Brazil]] can develop an [[ethanol]] industry that makes it completely independent of foreign oil, then the USA can."<ref>{{cite web | url=http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/oreilly050806.asp|title=Oil and immigrants|author=O'Reilly, Bill|Publisher=Jewish World Review|date=[[May 8]], [[2006]]}}</ref>

==Controversy and criticism==
{{Main|Criticism of Bill O'Reilly}}
Over the years, there have been several controversial issues highlighted in O'Reilly's print and broadcast work. He is involved in many disputes with figures and sources (both liberal and conservative) including [[Al Franken]], [[Michael Savage (commentator)|Michael Savage]], [[George Clooney]], [[Joe Scarborough]], [[Jon Stewart]], [[Keith Olbermann]], [[Tucker Carlson]], [[David Letterman]], [[Neal Boortz]], [[Michael Kinsley]], [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ludacris]].

On his prompting, Fox News sued Al Franken over his book, ''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right]]'', claiming that the book's satirical mockery of the network and of O'Reilly himself was a [[copyright]] violation. The title was critical of O'Reilly, among many others, and an unflattering image of O'Reilly from the show was included on the cover, along with [[Ann Coulter]], [[Dick Cheney]], and George W. Bush. The counter-argument in the suit was the book was a [[parody]] and could not be mistaken for a Fox News publication. On [[August 22]], [[2003]], U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied Fox's request for an injunction to block the publication of Franken's book, characterizing the network's claim as "wholly without merit, both factually and legally." Three days later, Fox filed to drop its lawsuit.

O'Reilly is frequently challenged by his critics, who question his accuracy on issues such as the [[Malmedy massacre]] (O'Reilly incorrectly blamed American soldiers for a henious war crime of which they were in fact victims), and his claim that ''Inside Edition'' won two [[Peabody Award]]s. In the March 1, 2001 Washington Post Reliable Source column, Al Franken corrected O'Reilly's claim - it was actually a single [[George Polk award|Polk]] award (won for reporting that was done after O'Reilly left the show);<ref>[http://www.brooklyn.liu.edu/polk/prev/prev90.html ''George Polk Award for Journalism''], Accessed January 8, 2007.</ref> - In the same column, O'Reilly admitted to confusing the two awards, and stated, "Al Franken is on a jihad against me." A few days later, O'Reilly changed the story, and stated that he had never made the Peabody claim (O'Reilly Factor, 3/13/01): "Guy says about me, couple of weeks ago, 'O'Reilly said he won a Peabody Award.' Never said it. You can't find a transcript where I said it."

However, on the May 19, 2000 broadcast of the O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly repeatedly told a guest who brought up his "tabloid" past: "We won Peabody Awards. . . . We won Peabody awards. . . . A program that wins a Peabody Award, the highest award in journalism, and you're going to denigrate it?" O'Reilly had made the same claim on the May 8, 2000 broadcast of the O'Reilly Factor, as well as the claim of a single Peabody on the August 30, 1999 broadcast of the O'Reilly Factor. <Ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6352-2001Mar1 "The Washington Post Reliable Source"] </ref>

He has also discussed controversial topics such as his annual reports on the [[Secularization of Christmas]], which he calls the "War on Christmas".<Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.google.com.ph/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=war+on+christmas&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=billoreilly.com&as_rights=&safe=images
| title = Occurrences of the phrase "War on Christmas" on billoreilly.com
| accessdate = 2006-10-24
}}</Ref>

While some have claimed that O'Reilly is really only "entertainment", and not "news", and therefore should not be held to a high standard for factual content, O'Reilly has been quoted as saying that [[Rush Limbaugh]] is an entertainer and should not be cited for hard facts, whereas O'Reilly is a [[journalist]].<ref name="CBS_1" />


The media watch group, [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]], has published a book entitled ''The "Oh Really?" Factor'', by author Peter Hart (ISBN 158322601X). The book catalogues what are argued to be distortions and inaccuracies on the part of O'Reilly.

In January 2007, O'Reilly on ''The O'Reilly Factor'' stated that [[Missouri]] pre-teen [[Shawn Hornbeck]], who was abducted at gunpoint by [[Michael J. Devlin]] and held captive by him for four years, had "liked ... his circumstances" and "had a lot more fun" with Devlin than with "his old parents". While some commentators wondered why the young boy had not tried to escape from his captor, O'Reilly went further, flatly stating that "Shawn had the freedom to get away if he wanted to." <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://mediamatters.org/items/200702060010
| title = "O'Reilly, unapologetic for remarks about the "fun" had by kidnapping victim..."
| accessdate = 2007-2-22
}}</Ref> Following his remarks, [[Lowe's]] canceled its advertising on the O'Reilly Factor. The following month, Devlin was charged with multiple counts of forcible sodomy and producing child pornography. <Ref>
{{cite web
| url = http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/05/boys.found/
| title = "Boys' kidnapping suspect faces sodomy charges"
| accessdate = 2007-2-22
}}</Ref>


The [[Comedy Central]] program ''[[The Colbert Report]]'', hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]], parodies, among others, ''The O'Reilly Factor.'' Colbert has called [[Stephen Colbert (character)|his character]] a "well-intentioned, poorly informed, high-status idiot." [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1553506.shtml] Colbert has continued his in-character satirization/criticism of O'Reilly in venues other than "The Colbert Report", most notably at the [[Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner|2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner]].

On the January 24, 2007 edition of ''The O'Reilly Factor'' O'Reilly said that he was personally responsible for effecting the dismissal of the Roman Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of [[Boston]]. "I claim credit for getting [[Bernard Law|Cardinal Law]] booted out of this country," O'Reilly said, and then stated that his relentless reporting on Cardinal Law's immoral and criminal behavior is why Law was dismissed.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}

=== Publicity of biography ===

[[Marvin Kitman]], author of [[The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly]], claims that O'Reilly, who was interviewed by Kitman 29 times, had promised to give a huge publicity send off. He claims that O'Reilly has intimidated FOX News reporters from interviewing Kitman. Kitman also claims (probably jokingly) that he has written the only book that says anything positive about O'Reilly. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17419934/]

==Published works==
O'Reilly writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column that appears in hundreds of newspapers, including the ''[[New York Post]]'' and the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]''.<ref>BillOReilly.com, [http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/newspapercolumn.jsp ''Newspaper Column List''], Accessed January 8, 2007.</ref>

He has written five non-fiction books and a novel, entitled ''[[Those Who Trespass]]''. The latter, a [[Thriller (genre)|detective thriller]], achieved a great deal of notoriety for its graphic scenes of sex, including adults having sex with teens, and violence. The ending of the book depicts a shower scene very similar to the one described in Andrea Mackris' sexual harassment suit against O'Reilly.

==Books==
*''[[Those Who Trespass]]''. Novel. Bancroft Press, April 1998; reprint, Broadway Books, February 2004. 288 pages. ISBN 0-9631246-8-4.
*''[[The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life]]''. Non-fiction. Broadway Books, September 2000; reprint, Broadway Books, March 2002. 224 pages. ISBN 0-7679-0528-8. Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.<ref name="hawes">[http://www.hawes.com/no1_nf_d.htm New York Times Best Seller; Number Ones Listing; Non Fiction By Date], Hawes.com</ref>
*''[[The No Spin Zone]]''. Non-fiction. Broadway Books, October 2001; reprint, Broadway Books, March 2003. 208 pages. ISBN 0-7679-0848-1. Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.<ref name="hawes" />
*''[[Who's Looking Out For You?]]''. Non-fiction. Broadway Books, September 2003; reprint, Broadway Books, September 2004. 224 pages. ISBN 0-7679-1379-5. Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.<ref name="hawes" />
*''[[The O'Reilly Factor For Kids: A Survival Guide for America's Families]]''. Non-fiction. HarperEntertainment, September 2004; reprint, Harper Paperbacks, September 2005. 208 pages. ISBN 0-06-054424-4. Co-authored with [[Charles Flowers]]. Best-selling non-fiction children's book of 2005.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/billbio.jsp|title=Bill's Bio|publisher=BillOReilly.com}}</ref>
*''[[Culture Warrior]]''. Non-fiction. Broadway Books, September 2006. 240 pages. ISBN 0-7679-2092-9. Reached #1 on the New York Times' Non-Fiction Best Seller list.<ref name="hawes" /> Achieved more than one million copies in print in its first three months.

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
*[http://www.billoreilly.com/ Bill O'Reilly's personal website]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/ ''The O'Reilly Factor'' website]
*[http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=bor O'Reilly's syndicated newspaper column]
*[http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-show.php?show=564 List of radio stations streaming the O'Reilly Factor]
*[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1070 Seth Ackerman and Peter Hart, "Bill O'Reilly's Sheer O'Reillyness: Don't call him conservative-- but he is" FAIR (July/Aug 2001)]
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html ''Mackris v. O'Reilly'' Court Documents]
*[http://www.mackrisvoreilly.com/home.html ''Mackris v. O'Reilly,'' An oratorio based upon the lawsuit, composed by Igor Keller]

**********************
{{DEFAULTSORT:Oreilly, Bill}}

[[Category:American journalists]]
[[Category:American political writers]]
[[Category:American radio personalities]]
[[Category:American political pundits]]
[[Category:American television personalities]]
[[Category:American broadcast news analysts]]
[[Category:American columnists]]
[[Category:New York television anchors]]
[[Category:Intelligent design advocates]]
[[Category:American schoolteachers]]
[[Category:Sex scandals]]
[[Category:Boston University alumni]]
[[Category:Harvard University alumni]]
[[Category:Alumni of Queen Mary, University of London]]
[[Category:Chaminade High School alumni]]
[[Category:People from Long Island]]
[[Category:People from Nassau County, New York]]
[[Category:People from New York City]]
[[Category:People from the Scranton--Wilkes-Barre metropolitan area]]
[[Category:Irish-American journalists]]
[[Category:Irish-American writers]]
[[Category:Roman Catholic journalists]]
[[Category:American Roman Catholics]]
[[Category:1949 births]]
[[Category:Living people]]

[[de:Bill O’Reilly]]
[[fr:Bill O'Reilly]]
[[nl:Bill O'Reilly]]
[[ja:ビル・オライリー]]
[[no:Bill O'Reilly]]
[[fi:Bill O'Reilly]]
[[sv:Bill O'Reilly]]