" 

 == Obvious == 
 I removed the word 'obvious' from the explanation of the San Francisco thing, because whether or not the satire was obvious is definitely a POV.  Minor edit, but since this is a controversial page...   

 ==I agree== 

 Unfortunately the liberal extremists do indeed pollute this and many other sites. If you look at the revision history there are so many acts of vandalism that take place, this is simply due to the militant mindset of the liberals extremists who instead of engaging in intelligent debate and making useful contributions express themselves through moronic vandalism. 

 Edit:It appears the article is getting better, and the tags could be removed soon. Although vandalism watch is still in effect. 

 == Absurd article == 

 This article needs to be cleaned up. Citing bush hating sites does not fit the standers Wikipedia. The part where it is alledged that Oreilly braged about serving in the military, when after 4 years of watching his show, constantly stated that he never served, is highly unlikely. That site he cited is titled ""bush is an idiot""; what the hell is this? His source either made it up, or took a comment out of context; a liberal trait. 

 It is odd how almost every conservative/traditiobnalist personality listed in wikipedia must be cleaned up, yet liberal personalities remain untouched. 

 Rebuttal to above: 
 First I am a McCain Republican, who voted for Bush in  2000 and Kerry in 2004.  The Republican party has been hi-jacked by extreme right wing zealots.  I am sure George Sr would agree.  Keep in mind W's reckless fiscal policy tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts are creating massive budget deficits.  This seems to get lost in the W spin machine. Many economist have suggested that this fact along with massive war debt will bankrupt Social Security.  Keep in mind that the general fund borrows money from the Social Security.  This fact is lost on O'Really as I call him.  So the criticism of Bush and O'Reilly is not only from liberals but also from highly educated successful mainstream Republicans.   O'Reilly's radio program is much better because at least Bush critics get to voice an occasionally rebuttal to the W Spin.  So W supporters tell us how the reckless fiscal policy isn't bad for the country.  Tell us how the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.  O'Reilly in his simplistic tabloid manner lumped Sadam and Bin Laden together.  His shows are Jerry Springer like in their simplicity. 

 == HOLY MOTHER OF ...  This is an encyclopedia! == 

 This is just plain stupid.  I am mostly liberal, I find O'Reilly's show to be garbage ... but at the same time, I like Wikipedia, and I hate to see it becoming a pointless liberal watchdog site.  Every day, people who obsessively hate O'Reilly come here and bog the article down with POV nonsense.  If you think you are going to change somebody's mind about the man by flooding his article w/ unflattering entries - even those based in truth - you're seriously deluded.  Remember, he constantly warns his faithful audience not to trust anything negative written about him on the internet.   

 If you really want to unseat old Bill, go to broadcasting school and then beat him at his own game.  In the meantime, try and keep this article encyclopedic.  There are plenty of blogs out there for you to vent your frustrations.   12:26, 3 December 2005 

 (p.s. - this message repeated below, because it's important.) 

 :I couldn't agree anymore with you.  Wikipedia has gone to shit and has become a message board with a bunch of nerds trying to impose their views on others.  The idea that wikipedia is somehow ""neutral"" is a far-fetched illusion.  Almost every article is locked, or has a npov sign posted now.   

 :It's not POV if it's objectively true. Leaving out facts that are unfavorable to O'Reilly is itself a POV.   

 == The National Academy of Arts and Sciences == 

 ""After the September 11, 2001 attacks, O'Reilly was honored by The National Academy of Arts and Sciences for his coverage and analysis of the events."" What exactly is the National Academy of Arts and Sciences? Did the author mean the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences? I sure hope it wasn't the National Academy of Sciences. ;-) 

 Some of the information here seems wrong. 
 :uh, like what?  if you're going to put a disputed tag on a page, explain exactly why.  putting a disputed tag and not actually explaining why gets noone anywhere.  i'll remove it until you detail your objections.  [[User:Jamie