Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

The article states that Bill O'Reilly is a journalist, however, this is not true. He's a political pundit. I would like to change "journalist" to "political pundit" to reflect the true nature of his career. Cbellur (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

In the Books by O'Reilly section, please link the 1st instance of Martin Dugard to Martin Dugard (author). — 2606:A000:1126:28D:ACA9:E77B:5BDD:7ACA (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[Talk] 21:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Category Fired from Fox News

I reverted this per BRD. Malerooster (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your justification for removing it? The last paragraph of the Fox News section in this article plainly says "On April 19, 2017, Fox News announced that O'Reilly would not return to their primetime lineup" and "After O'Reilly was fired..." And the lead says "...various sexual misconduct lawsuits, which led to the network terminating O'Reilly's employment."-- MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I thought this was just added? If RS say he was "fired" then its ok. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources say that they "agreed" that he would leave? Is that being "fired"?--Malerooster (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the lead has six sources. (Way too many and I think I will delete a few.) The headlines of the first two are "Bill O’Reilly Is Forced Out at Fox News" (NYT) and "Fox News drops Bill O’Reilly in wake of harassment allegations" (Fox News). "Forced out" and "drops" sound pretty definitive. The public statement Fox issued (after they told him he was out) is that he "agreed" that he will not be returning to the Fox News Channel. The articles make it clear that the decision had been made and that he was "agreeing" as a face saving gesture. Bottom line, "People fired from Fox News" is an appropriate category for him IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough.--Malerooster (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And thanks for trimming the duplicative "covered above" stuff. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This was removed because it was a shit category that classified a person by the means they left or were removed from a job at a specific company. It is now at CfD where the discussion thus far is unanimous. So if you don't delete it now, someone will just be doing it again in around 6 days. Zaathras (talk)

Requested move 3 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The arguments for the move were that the political commentator was the primary topic, based on pageviews and Wikinav. However, opponents argued that the cricketer had more long term significance due to their impact on the sport and pointed towards the fact that the views could be attributed to the commentator being alive. As such, there is no consensus regarding the primary topic here, and therefore this is closed as not moved. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) → Bill O'Reilly – When I saw that this article was distinguished with "(political commentator)," I was surprised -- "who else has a page called 'Bill O'Reilly'?," I thought to myself. I looked up Bill O'Reilly, which redirected to the disambiguation page William O'Reilly, which features only one other article titled Bill O'Reilly, about an Australian cricketer. Between the fact that the article about the political commentator has thousands of page views in the last month alone while the cricketer's page just barely cracks one thousand in that span of time, Google searching "Bill O'Reilly" nearly exclusively showed results about the political commentator. To me, this is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, without question. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose again per all previous attempts see "From the Archives, 1992: O’Reilly a giant from cricket’s golden age dies". This commentator fails long term historical claim to encyclopaedic default status. He is a political commentator not a cricketer and there's no shame in having his article titled so it is not ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's only one source, though. As noted above, page views and Google searching seem to tell a very different story about the significance of this cricketer compared to the political commentator, the latter appearing to be a far more culturally significant figure than the (relatively) obscure cricketer (I should also point this out, with regards to Google searching -- it took well over a hundred results, at least on my end, until I found something related to the cricketer, while the political commentator was immediately very visible upon hitting the search button). If you can find more than one source asserting that this cricketer with only a few dozen sources on his page holds more significance than a widely controversial political commentator whose page features hundreds of sources, then maybe I'd be able to see your point. As it stands, though, I don't believe that this one source you've provided automatically constitutes more (or equal) notability with O'Reilly the political commentator. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Using Google searches as a reasoning is fairly useless considering how personalised the results are. The cricketer was the second result for me, there were multiple results for the cricketer on the first page, and the first news result was the cricketer even though he died quite some time ago. Google just correctly inferred that you aren't very interested in cricket. StuartH (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The page view differential is so massive here it cannot be ignored: nearly a 40x advantage for the political commentator. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The request is pure recentism, combined with standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history. This has been done to death on several occasions in the past. I will continue to mock any comment here that shows an ignorance of cricket, its place in world sport, and its history. [HINT: Cricket is bigger than American football, baseball, and ice hockey combined.] HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  "I will continue to mock any comment here that shows an ignorance of cricket, its place in world sport, and its history." It's OK if you disagree with my comments, but please be civil when you explain why you feel that way. Snide comments about me and people who agree with me having a "standard American lack of respect for history" et al are unwarranted and unhelpful. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Petty squabbling having nothing to do with the Rfc question.

That too is a standard response from parochial Americans. It's NOT an insult. It's an invitation to you to learn more about the world outside your borders, and what has been going on there for at least 400 years in a sport with probably over a billion fans. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Over a billion fans that don't frequent Wikipedia, it would seem, from the page views... –CWenger (^ • @) 02:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Given what has already been said here, that's a really silly comment. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC) HiLo48, your conduct, which at times is flat out condescending ("That too is a standard response from parochial Americans"), is not OK. Most of your behavior here seems to be focused on belittling American users for their lack of knowledge about someone whose importance, while substantial in the Australian sports world, does not appear to hold as much relevance in contemporary society as a political commentator whose page views and Google results tell a very different story to this being recentism, as you allege. Oppose this proposed move all you want, but do it in a constructive fashion. Don't talk about how American users should "learn more about the world outside of [their] borders," comment on why the move itself wouldn't be a good idea. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC) You really should stop now. Or learn a lot more about the cricketer. This isn't about the Australian sports world. It's about the international sports world, again something unfamiliar to a lot of Americans, who tend to follow sports played largely within their own borders. Have you even read beyond the first sentence of the cricketer's article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Collapsed per WP:Talk#Discuss content and WP:ASPERSIONS. Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This issue has been beaten to death numerous times since 2005. What has changed since the last RM in 2016 is that the political commentator departed Fox News and now appears on podcasts and other media that seems to be less widely distributed. Therefore I am even more inclined to support the status quo. And to repeat what I stated in the 2009 RM: If there is consensus that an inductee to both Australian Cricket Hall of Fame and the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame has the same amount of notability as an inductee to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, and [such a baseball Hall of Famer also] has the same amount of notability as the current political commentator, then there cannot be any primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a clearly ambiguous name and little has changed since all of the previous failed attempts to move except the commentator having a slightly lower profile now. It's the cricketer who first comes to mind for many even though he died 20 years ago, and we wouldn't be having this discussion if it was a baseball player or another US sportsperson. Wikipedia is stronger when it doesn't have a strong recency bias. StuartH (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) is by far the more renowned throughout much of the world. 1.136.105.164 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC).
• Oppose The argument to move is "my unawareness only allowed me the knowledge of one Bill O'Reilly" and "um, lots of pageviews". Earth-shattering as it may be to some, an American conservative known for sexually harassing women and yelling about things he doesn't like is not terribly important to the entire English-speaking world. Should Nirvana (band) usurp Nirvana, per pageviews? Zaathras (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. American political commentators are big in America, but the rest of the world couldn't care less. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The American newsreader is certainly not more notable than the Cricketer. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I am an American and readily admit that I personally knew more about the political commentator than the cricketer, until I read the excellent biography of the cricketer just now, clicked on a bunch of links and learned more about cricket as a result. The status quo is just fine. I would like to say that nationalist sniping among editors is poor behavior, and encourage all involved to avoid pot shots against other nationalities. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as I've never heard about a cricket player named Bill O'Reilly. But, I've certainly heard about & seen, Bill 'Do it live' O'Reilly. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose largely because this has been discussed so many times and O'Reilly is far more irrelevant now than he was when the previous discussions took place. There's no clear primary topic.LM2000 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Um, the way you've formulated your first sentence suggests that your second sentence is untrue; there is a clear primary topic and it's the asshat from Fox. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. If WP:RECENTISM wasn't a factor, I can see why people would have argued for this move during the Bush-era. Recentism was always a factor though, and the Factor isn't even a thing nowadays.LM2000 (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, yes, really. Or reilly. You say and O'Reilly is far more irrelevant now without specifying which one you mean, which implies that you're thinking of the former Fox demagogue to be the One True O'Reilly. I don't see how recentism arguments relate to your equating "O'Reilly" to one specific but unspecfied O'Reilly. You've simply expressed a (non-conscious?) choice about which man is more "primary". — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that the only reason to oppose this is either procedural or WP:RECENT. After reviewing the pageviews it seems those two arguments are pretty weak in comparison to the huge pageview discrepancy. The political commentator has been around for decades so I'm not sure how WP:RECENT is relevant. The political commentator receives 30 to 50 times more pageviews per month. It's extremely difficult to review the data and argue that the political commentator isn't the primary topic. One reason this might keep coming up is that it's been wrongly decided in the past. In light of there not being a compelling argument to oppose and the overwhelming pageview difference I support the move. Nemov (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are two important men with this name. Continue to disambiguate.
  P.S. please stop sniping at the Americans. It's not just America - most of the world doesn't play cricket (China, Russia, EU, Brazil, Indonesia, Canada, etc.) Also, a majority of Americans would love to trade their live Bill O'Reilly for Australia's dead one.
  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Plenty of Canadians play Cricket, especially in Ontario. I used to go and watch folks on the local pitch back when I lived in Toronto. Never learned how to play but it looks like a fun game. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Take it from an Englishman, it really isn't. ;) -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  The most important reason to support disambiguation: collegiality

  We're having a divisive discussion that's just not worth it in terms of the price we're paying as a community.

  -- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't this quite the opposite though? This keeps coming up because so many editors are perplexed at how this hasn't been changed. The process doesn't seem to be encouraging collegiality. Nemov (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ridiculous suggestion. Bill O'Reilly was one of the greatest cricketers of all time, who would be clear PTOPIC if Wikipedia only extended to countries in which that game is played. I've barely heard of the political commentator. No PTOPIC, continue to disambiguate. Narky Blert (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Note. I've moved the cricketeer and the American commentator to the first two entries at the disamb. page. They were both several down, making it a bit harder for readers to find, so presenting them as the first names may address some of the concern. Some editors here, myself included, have learned a little more about cricket because of this nomination, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PT1 "more likely than all the other topics combined" ie. page view counts are dramatically in favor of the American. The argument for WP:PT2 "enduring significance" for the cricket player is not false, but, the politician also has enduring significance, they are are a wash. That leaves WP:PT1 as the main difference, and the American easily takes it. -- GreenC 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. According to WikiNav, 93% of visitors to the disambiguation page are looking for the political pundit. I believe that GreenC's reading of WP:PT1 is correct. It seems that most editors are !voting based on their personal knowledge rather than providing meaningful evidence or citing P&G (and I assume that such !votes, both for and against, will be given little to no weight when closing). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Pageviews aren't relevant to notability. Wikipedia isn't organized as a popularity contest.
    Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

    WikiNav is completely relevant here because it's mentioned when determining a primary topic. The first thing that comes time mind varies per person and WikiNav can be extremely helpful to help make an objective decision. Nemov (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Agree with GreenC that the political commentator is clearly primary with respect to usage according to WP:PT1, and it's not at all clear that in the grand scheme of history the cricketer is primary according to historical signficance. (Anecdotally, I'm from a cricketing nation but am not old enough to remember the cricketer's playing career; I had never heard of the cricketer but am well aware of the political commentator) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I entered this thread expecting to support the proposal, but after reviewing the cricketer's article, it's clear that he was a pivotal figure in the history of the sport. While the commentator undoubtedly has a dramatic lead in pageviews, I believe the cricketer has a sufficient level of significance to make this a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  We may be loosing sight of why PRIMARYTOPIC exists. If 93% of readers typing "Bill O'Reilly" want the American, we can help them by sending them directly to the American. Per WP:DAB "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily". Furthermore, being an important person on Cricket is relevant, but this simply favors WP:PT2 over WP:PT1. Fair enough that's an opinion, but the American is also a PT2. So we have NOPRIMARY situation on PT2. But a clear PRIMARY on PT1. Keeping score, it's 2 to 1 in favor of the American, in terms of how many WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines they have. The guidelines weight in favor of the American. -- GreenC 20:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep disambiguated per NOPRIMARY. Yeah TV Bill handily captures PT1, but PT2 seems at best unclear, and the disambiguation hurts nothing. Type Bill O' into the search bar and TV Bill pops right to the top. Not sure how we're hindering anyone's navigation with the status quo. Folly Mox (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has an example of apple being the primary topic due to long-term significance (PT2) even though Apple Inc. has the higher usage (PT1). Continuing with GreenC's logic, if a primary topic can be assigned when an article wins per PT2 but loses per PT1, surely a primary topic can be assigned when an article wins handily per PT1 and draws per PT2, no? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know. That supposition seems to assume two things though: that sports Bill and TV Bill "draw" PT2 rather than sports Bill "winning" it; and that in case of different subjects claiming PT1 and PT2, both PT are on equal footing. I imagine the outcome of this discussion will clarify one of those assumptions, and this can be added as an example to the guidance. Folly Mox (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  You yourself said "PT2 seems at best unclear". Even if we were to say sports Bill wins PT2 narrowly, we still have a major win for TV Bill on PT1, and using the same scoring as the apple example that would enable us to declare a primary topic. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - it seems clear to me that the primary topic is the political commentator. Same reason Americans redirects to the article about United States citizens. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems clear to me that the primary topic is the sport. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't learn anything from the complaints at ANI, did you? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  What? HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  How on earth is Americans relevant? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have a set of people who insist that there is no primary topic for Americans, because all people from the Americas are American. They are wrong. Same with the people (in my opinion) who insist that there is no primary topic for Bill O'Reilly here. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they are wrong. That's blatantly obvious. How is this relevant to the subject at hand? Most people in the world have probably never heard of either of these people. Of those that have, most Americans would probably identify the political commentator and most people from the Commonwealth (where cricket is huge) would probably identify the cricketer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. This is obvious WP:OSE territory.Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, the American commentator and the world-class Hall of Fame cricketeer seem to be equally important to their chosen career paths. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly the primary topic. Never heard of the cricketer. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Although I agree this is the primary topic, I don't think "never heard of X" is a good argument. Also, I don't think this is worth keeping open. It's pretty obvious there won't be consensus to move this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  I completely agree that "never heard of X" is not a good argument. Even without it being said, that was obviously an factor behind quite a lot of comments in this thread. I say that as a cricket fan from the city that gave Rupert Murdoch to the world, and who has followed his influence on politics in multiple countries, including using people such as Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) as major contributors. Perhaps editors need to be reminded of those words you just wrote in the section at the top of this page showing the history of previous move requests. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I know this is not going to be successful because this is one of those things that Wikipedia is going to be stubborn about, but whatever. This Bill O'Reilly is WP:PRIMARY. The nominator is correct, if you search up Bill O'Reilly, there isn't going to be a single index of the cricketer or any other other ones. The vast majority of reliable sources concerning Bill O'Reilly are going to be about this one. And the fact that this has been nominated for a move a million times should be telling that there is a primary topic. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  A question drawing from the mini-thread just above - How much do you know about the sport of cricket? HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I know he was a good cricket player and is notable as such. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 04:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's not enough. Note that my question wasn't about O'Reilly. It was about the sport. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's relevant. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking that is part of the problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  You believe cricket is important. Ok that is fine. The primary topic is not decided by whether cricket is really popular or not. It's not decided by page view statistics, Wikinav, and relevance in English sourcing. Every single one of these indicators point to moving this page, with the former two being massively in favor of a move. It's hard to quantify the latter one but all search queries nearly exclusively point to moving the page. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't just believe cricket is important. I KNOW it is important to maybe a billion people in maybe 25 countries. I think I'm one of the very few people commenting here who has a good understanding of the importance of BOTH these people. They are both very important in their fields, and believe it or not, cricket is an important field. It's a sport where history is more important than for most sports. And it has 400 years of such history. I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans, so they need to defer to people who do know about it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Whether or not cricket is important is not particularly relevant, what is relevant are the elements listed at WP:DPT Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 07:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you mean this bit - "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors..." Wikilawyering is never going to build a great encyclopaedia. (I hope you don't mind the way I spelt that.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's determined by page views and long-term significance, as is clearly enumerated at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The former clearly favour the political commentator, the latter almost certainly favours the cricketer, who is considered to be one of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game. The political commentator will probably be forgotten on his death (or retirement or whatever), because such people tend to fade into obscurity once they're gone and have been replaced by others. The cricketer died over thirty years ago and is still a giant in the annals of the game. So no primary topic. I should point out that, although I'm English, I have zero interest in cricket and had never heard of either of these people before this RM, so I have no angle here. Just stating the facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Necrothesp To be fair you're speculating about the future when it comes to the former. That's not factual since the future is uncertain. Nemov (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, of course. But the cricketer's long-term significance has been proved. And I was also refuting the suggestion that all that mattered was page views. That's not how primary topic status works, although some editors seem to believe it does (it's about a living, active American person with lots of pageviews and Google hits so it must be primary is not a valid primary topic argument). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as WP:RECENTISM. Both look to have long standing notability, and more pageviews for the political commentator at the moment is simply because he's active and alive. But the cricketer is one of the most important figures in the game, and so this is a case of no primary topic. We shouldn't just resort to making the current person the primary topic, when both have longevity of careers and both have long standing notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don’t actually know the cricketer (in fact the only cricketer I know is the legendary Don Bradman) but the current system is fine. Imo they’re both well known enough to qualify for a main title, but that obviously isn’t possible, so it should stay “Bill OR x” vs. “Bill OR y” Dronebogus (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just for a little context, our article on the cricketer says "When O'Reilly died, Sir Donald Bradman said that he was the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched". HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Dronebogus (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The political commentator is the primary topic, and he is not recent. His article was created in 2003. 2003!! Most comments are not based or supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and from personal knowledge. Lots of condescension from cricketers here, generally, but these stand out: standard American lack of knowledge of cricket and lack of respect for history, "my unawareness only allowed me the knowledge of one Bill O'Reilly", and I know this is a foreign concept to most Americans. SWinxy (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  There's recent, and then there's recent. The political commentator is still active, The cricketer is dead. That makes the American's story a more recent (and still current) one. Are any American political commentators who died 30 years ago still regarded as important? HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  HiLo48, Charles Coughlin and Drew Pearson and Edward R. Murrow and H.L. Mencken and Walter Winchell and Walter Lippmann come to mind. All are long dead but still widely remembered. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Widely remembered by people under 40? HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  HiLo48, widely remembered by students of U.S. politics and culture of all ages. We could discuss 19th century U.S. political commentators, most of whom died decades before my father was born, or 18th century U.S. political commentators, most of whom have been dead for over 200 years. Cullen328 (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Really? That surprises me. But it's still going to be a lot fewer people than the number of cricket fans around the world. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  • So, the cricketer's long-term significance isn't supported by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? But nobody is saying he is the primary topic. They're saying there is no primary topic. Primary topic grabs have to be supported by considerable evidence, more than just page views, and this just isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Alright, here's a fresh perspective. While I am American, I have little knowledge on American politics or cricket, although I do know a few important people from each. I came into this having never heard of either. While the political commentator wins in Google results and pageviews, these are not everything. I highly doubt the commentator has as much lasting significance as this cricketer. I therefore oppose this RM. A few final words: HiLo, please stop treating Americans as if they are all ignorant. It is not a good look. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am not treating Americans as if they are ALL ignorant. But the comments from people seemingly proudly declaring they have never heard of the cricketer, so the political reporter must be more important, seem to all come from Americans. As a non-American cricket fan who has been well aware of the political reporter for many decades, it's a bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @QuicoleJR I'm kind of curious since you casually dismiss the pageview statistics, how you determine who is going to have lasting significance? Regardless of what one thinks of the page view statistics, one can acknowledge there's at least a logical policy based argument to use them. No one can predict the future so it seems like arguments attempting to do so should carry less weight than those based on how people are accessing data over the last two decades. Nemov (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Consider for a moment that a person who is one of the world's best cricket players may have more lasting significance than some American political commentator. I'm saying this as an American. Pure Google and pageviews have been discarded as the sole move reason many times in the past. It does not matter anyway, as this is obviously ending up as no consensus soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @QuicoleJR you inched to the conclusion that I was observing. The policy discussion doesn't really matter as people are simply ignoring it. Nemov (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  If we break down the pageviews by country, will locations outside of the U.S. have the political commentator as the primary topic? I think not. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Wikinav. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Regardless of the outcome of the request being made here, WP:TITLEDAB states "...when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary." While some editors have a fondness for creating overly-long parenthetical disambiguators and seeking to preserve them through local consensus (often to ghettoize a particular subject), the above-quoted falls under policy, not a guideline or essay. As such, it should be given appropriate weight. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support on very firm disambiguation principles. Ignore the nationalist "I've never heard of (wrong Bill O'Reilly)" comments for a moment. Simonm223, an oppose voter, said something very interesting: "Wikipedia isn't organized as a popularity contest." That's a valid opinion to have, but that is not Wikipedia policy on disambiguation, where we do have a concept of a primary topic that most (if not all) readers want to find. We could have had a system that always disambiguation whenever there was any contention for titles, after all, but that didn't have consensus behind it. The process of helping real-world readers inherently involves, well, seeing where they're going. So yes, determining a primary topic really is a "popularity contest" to put it dismissively; the article on George Washington the president is read more often than George Washington (inventor) so he gets the primary article title. Now, there are certain situations where we throw page views out the window, but they generally involve "linked topics" where very popular child articles are budded off a parent - books where the film adaptations were more popular and the like. The other exception, recentism, is more applicable here, but still wrong - recentism is most compelling for very temporary bursts of popularity, like the one month after the release of a film / album / book. No such short-term event is happening here, just long, sustained, year-over-year reader interest. Okay, all of this was just restating the obvious: it's okay to use pageviews and WikiNav to guide primary topic analysis. If you removed the labels and knew nothing about the topic, just that one article has 40x the views and 93% WikiNav hits from a disambiguation page, this would be a slam-dunk primary topic. So... let's do that, then, and recognize the obvious, and recognize the article with such a crushing, sustained, yearly win in pageviews as the primary topic. Maybe the readers are "wrong" for being interested in the wrong figure named O'Reilly, but that's their choice. SnowFire (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  That ignores WP:COMMONSENSE. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  It also clearly ignores WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and its long-term significance clause, which would still say George Washington the president was the primary topic even if the inventor happened to get more page views! The argument here is that a cricketer who has been dead for decades but who is still regarded as one of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game clearly currently has more long-term significance than the political commentator who may be loud but who is just one more political commentator (a breed that the United States seems to mass-produce). It is true that the latter's long-term significance cannot yet be assessed, but then, nobody is actually saying that the cricketer is primary topic, but that neither is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• This RM is predictably a mess of opinions that will satisfy no one. First, the RM should acknowledge there are 3 rules-based possibilities: 1. No primary topic 2. WP:PT1 for the American and 3. WP:PT2 for the Cricketer. Then, each voter should explain why those chose one of these three, and why the other two should not be chosen. This will give the closer a better sense of which are the stronger arguments, by forcing voters to examine all the facts. -- GreenC 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Waste of time. Why do you expect something better to come out of this than the mess above? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think I have confidence in the closer being able to filter out all the "Well I've never heard of him" and "we've lost so many times it means we really should win" !votes. StuartH (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hasn't everything sensible already been said? HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  This needs a close. For the record my opposition to setting the newsreader as the primary topic should be construed to being opposition to there being a primary topic here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  This RM is a breeding ground for bizarre nationalist posturing— “ignorant Americans” vs. “nobody outside the Commonwealth cares”. Never mind some guy in Brazil or Japan would have no clue about either. The status quo is a perfectly acceptable compromise. Dronebogus (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The solution is to ignore voters who ignore all the evidence as being likely biased, and focus on those arguments that are policy based and fairly weigh all the evidence. -- GreenC 13:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RM Post close

For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't ignored. The proponents of the move, however, chose to cite only one part of it and ignore the other. Pageviews are not the only thing that counts for primary topic status. And plenty of those opposing were not cricket fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

BOTH have long term significance. 1 for 1 on PT2. However only 1 has page views. 1 for 0 on PT1. That means only one of them has both PT1 and PT2. It is the strongest argument, they are not equal. -- GreenC 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

But we don't know whether the political commentator has long-term significance. With some exceptions, it's very difficult to judge that for living people who are still active in their careers. And political commentators like him are the sort of people who tend to fade from history after their careers end. Anyway, the RM has been closed. If you object to the close then take it to MRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

He's nearly 80 years old now, his career is mostly done after he left Fox in 2017, I think it's safe to judge him by what he has done and not what he will do. In the context of the culture war period 1996-2017, there was probably no one with more weight and importance on the right-wing of US political commentary.The O'Reilly Factor had been the highest-rated cable news show for 16 years, and he was described by media analyst Howard Kurtz as "the biggest star in the 20-year history at Fox News" at the time of his ousting (and Fox News was the most watched news channel in the USA). His influence on US politics and culture is hard to overestimate. -- GreenC 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but Bill O’Reilly 2’s influence on cricket is hard to overestimate. That’s the issue— they’re both influential in their respective fields. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@@ To me that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what people are actually looking for... someone could be the Babe Ruth of Rubik's Cubes and it wouldn't matter if the other person is getting searched for five times to one. Nemov (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

But cricket is hardly Rubik’s Cubes. Dronebogus (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Even if you agree with the result of the close, this absolutely should have been closed by an admin, because it's a very contentious RM. Or by a very esteemed non-admin involved in RMs for a long time. A weak close by a passer-by just makes it more likely that a similarly futile RM will happen in the near future because this close isn't seen as very strong. (To be clear, I would urge this close to be withdrawn / overturned for either an admin or a respected closer to do this even if the result had supported my !vote.) SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. It takes someone with experience and confidence to close in a way that is maybe not popular but correct in terms of rules. In any case, if this comes up again, I hope the framer will force voters to address all the facts, summarize the core arguments and rules and request they be addressed, so it doesn't turn into yet another "idontlikeit" bias free for all that closes NC again. The framing of the RM is everything, it takes some time and effort. -- GreenC 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse close - as someone who supported moving, I understand that this close was correct. There was no other reasonable conclusion that could have been made. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• FWIW my comment wasn't to overturn the close. I would have formally gone through that process if I thought that was possible. It was just on observation on the poorly written close and relatively mob rule nature of the entire discussion. We do the average user a huge disservice when we make information more difficult to find. Anyway, I don't really care about either one of these people and the political commentator is rather annoying. Thanks to the weak nature of the close this will likely come up again since the majority of end users will be perplexed at the status quo. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It's clear that there was no consensus here. Speaking as the editor who proposed the move, even if I understand why some editors may feel that an uninvolved admin should have made the choice to either close it or keep it open, I personally don't believe we needed to wait for more responses to prove just how divisive this move was. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse close Unsurprising I suppose as I was an editor who asked that conversation to be closed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse reopening would have no benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Reasonable close, but @CapnJackSp, unless a discussion is very clear to basically every reasonable editor in it, it's better to wait for a very experienced closer. I think many experienced non-admins would have waited. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Was hoping for a different result. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk archive cleanup

Propose Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)/Archive_8 be renamed Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)/Archive_8_blank. The same with Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)/Archive_9. These pages are blank/useless except for their edit history content. At some point the content was moved out of the page into Archive_4 and now they are interfering with auto archiving (I think). -- GreenC 16:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was never done. No need o retain a blank copy, I'll just ask they be speedily deleted. Zaathras (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Newsmax

Since 2020, states he works at Newsmax. This is not true. His current show, " Bill O'Reilly No Spin News" The Channel is called, " The First" not "Newsmax". 104.202.135.219 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Newsmax started airing it in 2020, then the First did as well. Updated. Zaathras (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)