Jump to content

Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 2

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

Move to ambiguate

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was undecided: leave the plain name as the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Bill O'Reilly → Bill O'Reilly — statistics show that the commentator is much more important (Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) would be moved to Bill O'Reilly). 32627 view for the commentator vs 1462 views for the cricketer is, in my opinion, sufficient to qualify under WP:D. Some guidelines are printed here.

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning (but are not determining factors by themselves):
Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere cricketer - commentator
Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/ 1462 cricketer - 32627 commentator
Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/ 148,000 for 'bill o'reilly cricketer' - 338,000 for 'bill o'reilly commentator'

Common objections:

But I saw that they already tried this!
That was over a year ago. That falls under the purview of both consensus can change, and the fact that the guidelines at WP:D, especially regarding page view stats, were different then (not condoned).
But cricket is played by x so many people and aren't we being biased towards westerners who have internet?
Yes, but wikipedia caters to those who read it. When the readership starts shifting, it is easy to adjust.
But Bill O'Reilly the commentator won't be as popular in 100 years!
Again, see above. It is easy to change if one becomes more or less popular.

— -Zeus-u|c 04:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey (2)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Can't you do any better than that? A reason? -Zeus-u|c 04:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
He did, as per the other times. A quick read up the page will provide his reasons. I see no reason why he sould be forced to continue to repeat the same arguments time after time every time you attempt to (unsuccessfully) rename this page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of comments I hate. How is it US bias if 20x more people want the us commentator? -Zeus-u|c 05:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Zeus, are you planning on posting a retort to every comment that doesn't take your viewpoint? Also, it seems you're falling victim to argumentum ad populum, especially using a metric that inherently will have preference for recent events in the United States. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a problem with refuting votes I see as misguided? Also, is there something wrong with argumentum ad populum? It seems to be used commonly on wikipedia. -Zeus-u|c 23:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous thoughts on this subject. --Nick Boalch\talk 09:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Permanent oppose In 200 years time, people will still be talking about the cricketer all over the world. Just not in America. Can we please not have to revisit this decision time after time after time? The stats show considerable interest, discussion of and traffic to both individuals, despite one of them finding fame in a period long preceding the internet age, making this a good example of the need of disambiguation. Incidentally, I'd never heard of the TV personality before the first of these move requests. The American commentator (note, the Aussie was also a commentator) seems to have little geographic reach beyond the USA. Finally, I'd just like to point out that the cricketer's article is an example of Wikipedia's finest work. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
So, if we get the commentator to FA, that will make a difference? Not only is that a completely made up criteria, I strongly suspect you are reaching at straws to support your undefensible viewpoint. -Zeus-u|c 18:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You "strongly suspect" me of bad faith? Please don't get carried away by the debate into breaching AGF. I've been civil - I don't see why you should attack me / my perceived motivations. --Dweller (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you have bad faith, in fact I think you are acting in good faith. But I think that you are going out of the normal policy/bounds to support the viewpoint that you believe. A better way to phrase it would have been, "I understand that you think this is the right option, but you seem to be having trouble coming up with policy to back you up". -Zeus-u|c 03:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sigh. The current method of disambiguation is entirely appropriate and if anything the cricketer should be at the plain page, given that he has demonstrated notability over a period of at least 70 years while the commentator is merely notable in the moment; it remains to be seen if his level of notability will endure over time. Nevertheless, to assist our U.S. readers, I am willing to concede that a disambiguation page is appropriate. After all the previous times this exact same discussion has taken place with no consensus to change, WP:DEADHORSE comes to mind. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP is an encyclopedia, not a bit of ephemera. Johnlp (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I believe that I have provided support beyond a reasonable doubt per wikipedia policy that the commentator should be the primary topic. I think that WP:BURDEN is on the dissenting group. -Zeus-u|c 12:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- Zeus, didn't you make this nomination? Are you intending to nominate and to !vote? Seems a little shady, but maybe I'm missing something... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Correct, but I never !voted... I just provided some statistics. From what I have seen, nomination, followed by a vote is normal practice. -Zeus-u|c 23:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Pedantic note - WP:BURDEN is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant, is WP:PRIME which says:

If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".

The fact that this question is periodically raised and dismissed, raised and dismissed is clear and demonstrative proof of "extended discussion" and "there is in fact no primary topic" except perhaps in America. Or, conversely, in Australia, India, Great Britain, Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa, the West Indies, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Denmark, Dubai, the UAE etc etc. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
'Globally obscure' is a ridiculous description for a sportsman regarded as the best in the world for most of his career [1]. --Nick Boalch\talk 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read the statistics collected below? By the criteria at WP:D, you have really no basis whatsoever to keep it as it is. -Zeus-u|c 19:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see what relevance the statistics have TBH and statements like " you have really no basis whatsoever to keep it as it is" are quite clearly wrong seeing as this discussion has been had numerous times before and there was no consensus for change. Dweller above puts the case quite clearly. Hectoring opposers to your plan to move the article is counter-productive and continually stating that others' arguments are "indefensible" does not make it so. To be quite frank, your proposed move reeks of Recentism and systemic bias and wilfully ignores readers outside the US who have little interest in a US television presenter but who may be interested in a one of the greatest cricketers of all time, an ICC Cricket Hall of Fame, an inaugural Australian Cricket Hall of Fame inductee and a man regarded by Don Bradman—the greatest batsman of all time—as the best bowler he played against. Comments like "globally obsure cricketeer" (sic) only serve to advertise one's ignorance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I and others have shown, in accordance with policy, that the pages should be moved. Your own personal sentiment has no place in this discussion. How can you not see the relevance of the statistics? The guidelines advise them. -Zeus-u|c 20:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Mattinbgn, I don't think your comments are quite fair. Specifically, "To be quite frank, your proposed move reeks of Recentism and systemic bias and wilfully ignores readers outside the US who have little interest in a US television presenter...". From reading the Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) article, he didn't achieve his notability recently. He's been extremely notable for a number of years. He's also not just in the US, because it looks like Fox News is broadcast in more than 100 countries and his books are sold throughout the world in many languages. From the stats below, I don't see how this is ignoring any country. As I said already, we can always bring up Google Scholar and Google Book hits, too. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - while I understand the knee-jerk impulse to always link disambiguations to "whatever gets the most google hits", that falls into the trap of recent events always winning that test every time. How many newspaper articles do you think will be written about a professional athlete from nearly a century ago? Should we use that sort of measure to determine disambiguation links? Absolutely not. Also, Wikipedians are generally from the United States, and we often act as if U.S. subjects/issues take precedence over international concerns. Primary link should point to the disambiguation page, just like the last time we had this discussion (and the time before that). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This argument only focuses on the Google test and fails to address the first two points in the discussion below. The second one in particular, shows what people are looking for and what people are viewing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bill O'Reilly isn't just some 'globally obscure cricketer' but one of the greats of a sport which spans the globe. The fact that 18 year old Americans haven't heard of him is neither here nor there. This is a global encyclopedia in English, if we were assessing everything by google hits then Britney Spears would be more important than Alexander the Great, Plato and Queen Victoria combined. Leave it as it is. The heckling of users by certain people here is somewhat counter productive as well. Nick mallory (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The commentator is globally more notable than the cricketeer even in a historical context. Cricket was in its peak among the hoity toity in the British empire a couple hundred of years ago. Although, if the positions were reversed we would probably have demands to make the cricketer the main page while many would come about defending the commentator as at least equally notable. The cricketer is definately being overblown here. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The lack of accuracy in that post is amusing, but your comments about if the cricketer were more notable are [over]blown out of the water by the example I have presented in the next subsection. And comments like "hoity toity" are not helpful or necessary. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Guy is probably a sock but the majority of the cricket following public in the world is in the subcontinent, and 200 years ago they were probably serfs/very impoverished etc and had no time to play cricket. Anyway I think that user is pulling our legs a bit YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would we be having this same discussion if Bill O'Reilly was a baseball player of similar calibre? Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 11:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose I like Aaroncrick's comment. IMO, the only reason there have been these move discussions is because cricket is not very popular in the United States, and therefore American Wikipedians have not fully understood how notable a hall of fame cricketer is. 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 the latter has the same amount of notability as the current political commentator, then there cannot be any primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
    Also, I do not think the primary topic should be based solely on recent web traffic. See this recent case for an example. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Prefer global to US-centric, prefer larger time frame over snapshot. RomaC (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Indifferent It really does not matter how this is handled IMO. This could be argued forever. Both have their claims to notability that justifies them being the first article encountered. The only thing I see for the commentator is that right here and now, most of those who would do a search for "Bill O'Reilly" are most likely looking for the commentator which would seem to make sense that this would be the article you would most likely encounter at first. However, I've never seen any precedence for this or any guideline mentioning this so it really does not matter in the grand scheme of things. MrMurph101 (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support based on the statics, it is clear that more people want to read about the commentator. Happyme22 (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Google hits are not, by themselves, determinative of notability, and when a figure is controversial enough to spark constant edit warring, neither are article-view or edit counts. Furthermore, this discussion wouldn't be happening at all if the cricketer had been a football, baseball or hockey player with greater fame in North America — in a nutshell, this proposal falls quite squarely in the "mine's more notable than yours because mine's the one I've heard of" camp. Notability is not determined by which article gets looked at more — lasting cultural or societal impact goes into the call as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prime example of WP:Recentism. While Google hits and other statistics may provide an indication of a primary topic, discussion and consensus are the final determinant and per WP:PRIME: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)".older ≠ wiser 22:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose if all things are made relative, the cricketer had a bigger impact in his field than the other Bill had in his, and for me that is the key point. However, having a disambiguation page to both is fine. SGGH ping! 11:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notability isn't a popularity contest, which is mainly what google hits and wikipage views measure. For those who don't know cricket - having Don Bradman say that O'Reilly is the best bowler he ever played against is like Babe Ruth describing his toughest opposing pitcher. The Cricket Hall of Fame has only been around for a few years, so it doesn't have the same prestige as the Baseball one, but it only has about 50 players in it, not hundreds like the baseball one. Best solution is to keep the primary page as the disambiguation page as it is. Notability is about equal in this case.The-Pope (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. A few things to dispel first. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTABILITY. Nothing whatsoever. This is cited above numerous times by both opposers and supporters, starting with the "importance" comment in the nomination, and through, well, a majority of posts. Notability is not even a minor factor here. It is immaterial. That utter red herring, that straw man consideration, seems to have colored much of the debate here. The purpose of making a page the primary topic has everything do with having the most people who are searching for a particular title actually reach that topic with the least impediments. It is, in fact, all about the hits; all about the question of how many people are going to have to click more than once; it is a numbers balancing test and is not something loftier. In that regard, unexamined Google results are a poor metric for notability purposes, but are an excellent metric for establishing how many people will be attempting to find a particular topic by a particular title. And everyone searching for the commentator, or the cricketer, will ultimately reach their target, whether we keep this here, or we make the commentator the primary and use hatnotes. The only question is which titling scheme is the most convenient for the most people trying to reach these two articles. The number of people searching for the one over the other is all we should be discussing. Judging the two topics relative importance as against each other has no role here. It has been well established that the political commentator, on every scale examined, is the primary target of searches—on most by an order of magnitude. Even for books, we have a great disparity in favor of the commentator as the primary topic. Incoming links and hits follow the same trend. To address some of the arguments made above:
    • U.S. Bias: Irrelevant. The concern is the most people reaching the target. Moreover, the tabled results posted by Jauerback above pretty thoroughly debunk the underlying notion; that is, even in countries where cricket is popular, the commentator gets far more hits;
    • In x number of year, the fame will have equalized: Irrelevant. Moving articles is a short term process. Whenever that's the case, anything needed can be addressed;
    • This has been proposed before and ended in no consensus: I haven't examined those previous discussions but if they're based on the same flawed logic I see a preponderance of here, they too are irrelevant.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY has nothing to do with disambiguation at all. You're right that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't specifically refer to notability as a factor, but there's no reason editors shouldn't consider it as part of reaching an opinion about whether there is a primary topic here. --Nick Boalch\talk 06:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (2)

I think the above oppose arguments in the survey above are being completely biased and not looking at this objectively. In reality, their arguments don't have a lot of substance. First of all, according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:

So, on one hand, the fact that we're having a discussion might be an indication that there is no primary topic, but on the other, the stats of everything else indicate that there is indeed a primary topic.

1. "Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere":

A. Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) - There are a bit under 350 articles (not user pages) that link to Bill O'Reilly (commentator) (previous name, now a redirect) alone. This doesn't include the two subarticles on him nor does it include the article about his show.
B. Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) - less than 100.

2. "Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/":

A. Let's look at first full month (January 2008) this site was recording stats:
1. There were 56,958 hits to the Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator) page (previous name, now a redirect).
2. There were 1,456 hits to the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page.
B. Another interesting stat, in April of this year (most current full month of stats), there were 14,877 total views to the Bill O'Reilly page.
1. For the same month, there were 32,627 views to the Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) page.
2. Once again, same month, there were 1,462 hits to the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page.
That means of the 14,877 people that went to the Bill O'Reilly disambig page, at most (and this is being generous), 10% of those people went to the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) page over the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) page.

3. "Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/" - Now, for the favorite oppose argument about U.S. bias and having "never heard of him". The stats say otherwise. I went to some of the major countries where cricket is popular (plus the USA) and did two searches for each person, plus the name, "Bill O'Reilly" only:

Search terms Google Source Hits Link
bill o'reilly Australia 66,200 [2]
bill o'reilly India 51,300 [3]
bill o'reilly UK 117,000 [4][1]
bill o'reilly Canada 101,000 [5]
bill o'reilly USA 5,790,000 [6]
Search terms Google Source Hits Link
bill o'reilly cricketer Australia 7,840 [7]
bill o'reilly bowler Australia 1,840 [8]
bill o'reilly cricketer India 2,770 [9]
bill o'reilly bowler India 378 [10]
bill o'reilly cricketer UK 6,790 [11][1]
bill o'reilly bowler UK 1,690 [12][1]
bill o'reilly cricketer Canada 13,200 [13]
bill o'reilly bowler Canada 9,710 [14]
bill o'reilly cricketer USA 148,000 [15]
bill o'reilly bowler USA 38,500 [16]
Search terms Google Source Hits Link
bill o'reilly fox Australia 20,900 [17]
bill o'reilly factor Australia 19,000 [18]
bill o'reilly fox India 23,200 [19]
bill o'reilly factor India 8,940 [20]
bill o'reilly fox UK 40,900 [21][1]
bill o'reilly factor UK 18,100 [22][1]
bill o'reilly fox Canada 35,500 [23]
bill o'reilly factor Canada 21,900 [24]
bill o'reilly fox USA 2,560,000 [25]
bill o'reilly factor USA 1,360,000 [26]
  1. ^ a b c d e The orginal URL from Google UK has a pipelink in it and therefore won't show up right in the table. Make sure to click on the "pages from the UK" option to get accurate numbers from the UK.

I really don't see how one can say it's biased to the USA with after seeing these numbers. It's clear that Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) is the primary topic. Yes, the discussion has been raised previously and dismissed, but the discussion has been to a limited audience. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The stats are not comparing like with like. The American is a living person and the Australian found fame in the pre-Internet era. That's one reason why WP:PRIME is worded as it is - those stats are not helpful tools in assessing whether there's dramatically greater notability in this case. This is simply a case of two very notable people. One may be slightly more notable currently, but there's no overwhelming and obvious case for PRIME here, like there is, for example with John Major. --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to compare Google Scholar and published books written by/about as well? We can see where that goes, if you like. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The only source that is disputed by the claim that he found fame in the pre-internet era is the google search results. The commentator still handily whoops the cricketer in both page views and interwiki linking, and I don't see how those have anything to do with the fact that he was in the pre-internet era. Quoting WP:PRIME:
Tell me how that doesn't hand this to the commentator. -Zeus-u|c 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, as you can see, the commentator wins in every region, even the UK and Australia. -Zeus-u|c 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the pre-internet era is a significant one. Almost any figure alive and current today will generate many more Google hits than a comparable one who died before the advent of 24-hour news and internet coverage. As an example, consider Donald Bradman, universally agreed to be the best cricketer ever to have played the sport by a large distance, and who maintained a glittering career at the highest level of sporting achievement for twenty years. He has a meagre 133,000 Google hits. Compare, as an arbitrary example, Ravi Bopara, a young English cricketer who has played a mere five Test matches for England, yet has 264,000 Google hits. Comparison on Google shows you a very limited amount when you're comparing between two different eras, one pre- and one post- the internet. --Nick Boalch\talk 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I already agreed with you on that point, if you read my response. However, that has no bearing on inter-wiki links or page views. -Zeus-u|c 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to the interwiki and internal incoming links, that is also dependent on recentism. eg, Victor Trumper, called the "crown prince of the golden age" because of his being regarded as the most supreme stylist of all time, and also the best batsman in the world of the era 1890-1920, one of the Six Giants of the Wisden Century, inuaugural inductee into ACHOF has only 105 incoming links and two interwiki. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, the current captain of India, who has only played Test cricket for three years, and is ranked about 30th in the world for batting and is criticised regualrly for making too many unforced errors with ball-catching, has 170-odd incoming links and 8 interwiki links because of recentism and the fact that every modern cricket series/tournament has its own page and the player lists link to him everywhere. If they ranked the players in the last 100 years Dhoni would not even be ranked in the top 200, let alone the top six like Trumper. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I was really responding to Jauerback's Google analysis rather than your commentary. Googlecounting is a flawed metric in most discussions, and particularly in cases of comparison such as this.
I accept, of course, that the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article has many more page views than the Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) article, but page views aren't the only consideration. My opposition arises principally from my belief that the two figures are similarly notable in their respective contexts (actually I would say that the cricketer is more notable within the field of global cricket than the commentator is within the field of global journalism but, regardless, both are clearly very notable in their fields). Therefore, I think a disambiguation page is the 'right' answer here. --Nick Boalch\talk 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Nick, you make a valid point in your views on Googlehits, but it is one of the things to be considered according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it's included in this discussion. Yes, perhaps both are equally notable in their respective fields, but I don't think that's how a primary topic is determined. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Madonna and Anne Hathaway are both disambiguation pages, despite the contemporary bearers of those names being much more prominent in today's popular culture. I daresay if one was to use google as your source of all wisdom, like some others here in this discussion, you would have the pop singer as the main page and relegate the person revered by 1 billion Roman Catholics to a hat note! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. This argument that google searches are in any way relevant astounds me in its naivety and its insularity. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bring up a discussion to have those pages moved and/or renamed and look into changing the policy on primary topics. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No, he's agreeing with the fact that the singer and teh movie actreess are not given precedence over the religious figure and the historical figure based on movie/Cd consumption, and compraing to this debate here. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 23:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a silly discussion. There is obviously very significant reason to maintain the dissambiguation page, and very little reason (an extra click?) to change it. I'm not going to remake all the old arguments (listed above) - I simply think it's time reason prevailed.--Sharky 1971 (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC) sharky_1971

Flip side comparison

See Richard Ellison. I have no doubt that according to metrics alone, the cricketer would fulfill WP:PRIME - mostly because the cricketer is a modern figure and the politician is not. However, the MP seems to be pretty notable too and User:BrownHairedGirl makes a reasonable argument on her talk page that the page should default to disambiguation.

This discussion here is therefore not about some bunch of cricket-lovers who are closed-minded to argument and persuasion. This discussion here is about two different people from different periods and different fields of endeavour, both of whom are very very notable. That is what WP:PRIME seeks to ascertain - and the metrics are not relevant here, because no-one can seriously argue that either of the individuals is not highly notable. The deeds of Tiger (who incidentally was a writer and commentator as well as a player) are immortal and are lovingly discussed all over the cricket world some 70 years after he reached his pomp - even amongst Englishmen. The American is fantastically notable as well. While you could (can) argue there's currently greater traffic to one, there is no PRIME here. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I came here because Dweller was kind enough to leave a note on my talk to say that xe has quoted me here, so I';ll start with a link to the discussion on Richard Ellison.
I agree with Dweller that the same arguments apply here, only more so. Two very notable people in very different fields, with perfectly reasonable arguments for the primacy of either. That seems to me to be an excellent reason to stick with the default situation in such cases, which is to disambiguate them both.
This also has the huge advantage of simplifying maitenance, because if Bill O'Reilly is a dab page, any links directed there show up as in need of correction. OTOH if either the cricketer or the commentator is deemed to be the primary topic, then there is no way of telling whether the links to that page are correct or mistaken without checking every single one. Disambiguation pages are a really simple and neutral device which make it very easy for us to ensure that all links to go the right place, and I think that there should be a really clearcut case before deciding against one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

2013 Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Look at the views--over the past 90 days, there have been 151307 views for the political commentator, compared to 4620 for the athlete and 1905 for the consultant. I'm pretty sure that a 20:1 ratio in pageviews is enough to determine primary topic, but you tell me. Red Slash 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • There is no athlete among those Bill O'Reillys. To describe the cricketer as an athlete (assuming that's the one you meant) displays a parochial ignorance that almost disqualifies you from commenting any further. The cricketer himself would have probably burst out laughing upon seeing that description of him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Athlete disagrees with you. Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how. Please check the non-American meaning of the word, and the way it would have been used in the places and at the time of Bill O'Reilly, the cricketer. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Open up any quality modern English-language dictionary. I personally guarantee you will find an entry for "athlete" that fits for a cricket player--and come on, seriously? I wasn't aware that I was supposed to write a request using terms that someone would have understood 80 years ago. I thought I was writing in 2013. Red Slash 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Even today on Australia nobody calls cricketers athletes. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", Early 2005: Opposed. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", August 2005: Outcome/status disputed after the discussion was forked from Talk:Bill O'Reilly to Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator).
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly (journalist)", December 2005: Opposed. (Discussion archive 1, Discussion archive 2)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", September 2006: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", March 2007: Opposed. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly" → "Bill O'Reilly (disambiguation)", October 2007: Withdrawn per WP:NCDAB. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)", October 2008: Accepted. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", May 2009: No consensus for move. (Discussion archive)
Move: "Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)" → "Bill O'Reilly", January 2011: Not moved. (Discussion archive)
With all due respect, In ictu oculi, nearly all of those move requests came before we had reliable pageview statistics. People merely supposed that the commentator had more page views--now, it's proven. 9,000+ pageviews for the disambiguation page. That is more than the cricketer and the other guy combined. And less than a fifteenth of the commentator's pageviews. Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose current popularity is only one criterion. The other criterion states: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. No-one is going to remember a lowbrow talking head in 100 years. Py0alb (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The long-significance criteria is intended to help a subject that is the focus of academic study become primary topic. In this case, no one is suggesting that the primary topic is something other than the political commentator. 192.186.141.157 (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) SPI
Yes they are, the primary topic should clearly be one of the most accomplished and recognisable cricketers of the 20th century. He is far more significant that some minor talking head that hardly anyone outside the US has heard of and no-one will remember in 20 years time anyway. We've had this discussion 1000 times before, and nothing has changed. If a populist UK tv presenter came along called Ty Cobb, would you argue to shift the baseballer off the main page? Py0alb (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
If the baseball player's article was viewed less than 1/20th as much, then yeah, of course I would. We've got to set up our pages to help our readers. (Ty Cobb's article has been looked at 130000+ times in the last 90 days, just fyi. There are few if any articles with 20+ times the readership. Maybe Wikipedia itself.) Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The proposal is based on recentism by someone who is completely ignorant of the importance within cricket of the Australian O'Reilly. Once this American "TV personality", of whom I have never heard, has disappeared from the scene, how many Google hits will he get then? The proposal is just so typical of a certain mindset on this site. There is probably some inane "rule" somewhere that enables him to raise it with confidence. Absolutely stupid. --86.132.14.107 (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Important? Maybe (again, the man played cricket, he wasn't like a Tesla or a Mandela or a Pope or something). The mindset is that when nine thousand people type in "Bill O'Reilly" every 90 days and 95% of them want a particular Bill, they should get that article directly. Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What evidence do you have to show that 95% of users who access this disambiguation page want the page on the US pundit? The fact that Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) actually receives many times more views than the disambiguation page would suggest that for the great majority of readers seeking the US pundit, the current situation works very well as it is. It might just as likely be the case that the people visiting the disambiguation page have been directed to 'Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)' by Google, but actually want to read about one of the other Bill O'Reilly's. These numbers don't actually support the argument you are trying to make. Celuici (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, isn't it? Get things into context. You seem to think it is this week's popularity chart and if you rely only on statistics then you presumably also condone lies and damned lies. In any case, as others have pointed out, this matter has been debated umpteen times before and yet we still have individuals who will not accept consensus, which is supposed to drive this rulesopedia is it not? --86.132.14.107 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Dude, if the cricketer was so important, there would be more than 4400 views over 90 days. Even pooper-scooper gets more. Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Which planet do you live on? I repeat, this is an encyclopedia. You are a recentist whose sole argument is the current popularity chart, just like one of these idiots who thinks the current Billboard chart is more important in musical terms than Mozart. --86.132.14.107 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
How could you possibly suggest that an obscure Austrian composer is more important than Robin Thicke when the latter is ten times more famous?! Celuici (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The cricketer has already proved his long-term significance (see his article) while this "here today, gone tomorrow" cable TV personality has no long-term significance whatsoever and will be forgotten as soon as he is off air. --86.132.14.107 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
That's cool, George Ho, because the quality of political commentary provided is totally one of our criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Oh, wait, no, sorry, it isn't. (By the way, O dear anonymous contributor, the commentator has been providing political commentary and writing best-selling books for decades. You can criticize him in several ways, but "here today, gone tomorrow" is, lol, definitely not one of them.) Over 9000 readers have visited this disambiguation page over the past 90 days. 95% of them were looking for the political commentator. It is rather silly to say that those readers should not be taken directly to the article they are looking for. Red Slash 04:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Question from the "dear anonymous contributor": is Red Slash your real name? I thought not, dear anonymous one. The point you are missing is that Tiger O'Reilly was involved in cricket "for decades" as player (arguably the best leg spinner ever, certainly one of the best), writer and (dare I say it) commentator. He is remembered long after his death and always will be remembered as long as cricket itself is played. Once a TV personality's career ends, he is forgotten and so I can rightly say "here today, gone tomorrow" (obviously today in career terms can last a very long time; don't you have metaphors in Mercan "English"?). An American I know who lives over here has, not surprisingly, never heard of Tiger O'Reilly but he dismissed the TV personality as an annoying individual who has sensible people reaching for the handset as soon as he appears. In other words, someone who is currently in your face on TV and is instantly forgettable once he is out of your face. A nonentity in comparison with an all-time great sportsman. --86.132.14.107 (talk) 06:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Most non-Americans know a reasonable amount about American politics, and the fact that extremist commentators like the relevant O'Reilly play a significant role in sculpting public opinion. The day the Americans commenting here demonstrate equivalent knowledge of cricket, and Bill O'Reilly's place in its history, all of its history for that matter, will be the day their posts on this matter carry some credibility. Oh, and knowledge of cricket includes knowing how many fans there are world wide. I can assure you it's a lot more than the number of fans the other two O'Reillys have combined. This is a global encyclopaedia, not one just about America. Editors commenting here must take a global view. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, not to put too fine a point on it, but American politics in general are a whole lot more important than cricket. Sorry, but I don't see anyone getting invaded or having cruise missiles (maybe) shot at them or dying without medical care because they don't have health insurance or getting shot by unregulated guns because of a cricket outcome. So yes, seeking more information about U.S. politics is much more reasonable than seeking information about a game where people hit at a ball, be that cricket, baseball, whatever. (I would also certainly say that Australian politics are far more important than baseball, by the way.) But that's irrelevant. Even if cricket were more important than American politics, 19 out of every 20 people who load this page are looking for the commentator. Who are you to scorn them for their choice? Sorry that they don't seem to share your view of this guy's importance. Red Slash 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You're on your own on this one Red Slash, I think we can close this discussion now. No move. Py0alb (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus is as before, several times over, that the disambiguation page stays as is (unless we can achieve consensus in favour of Tiger O'Reilly). Do these Americans really believe that their alleged "TV personalities" are the most important people on the planet? The mind boggles. No wonder they had Bush as president for eight years if they are all that thick. --86.132.14.107 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to serve our readers, American or otherwise. We use page views to measure reader interest. The cricket vs political commentary issue is beside the point. 1.53.161.66 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- strongly disagree with the argument about page views being useful evidence. I note that the page views to the Bill O'Reilly disambiguation page are actually quite low (<100 per day). So clearly very few people are moving from the disambiguation page to the article on Bill O'Reilly the TV news commentator. Which is what they would be doing, in large numbers, if the disambiguation page were strongly associated with this particular person. Anyway, I think this page views approach is worthless anyway, and oppose on the grounds that O'Reilly the cricketer is a highly notable subject, and thus this move proposal looks like a plumb case of recentism, perhaps with a hint of US-centricism too. This has been discussed before, in detail, multiple times, and no move has been made. I really don't know why this has been proposed again. Celuici (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is one of those threads that makes proudly ignorant Americans look completely foolish. They know nothing of cricket, yet feel justified in commenting on the significance of one of its greatest players. Not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anybody has said anything that would affect the cricketer's article or commented on his significance, so accusing people of being ignorant and foolish is probably not smart. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 10:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anyone of being ignorant. I'm stating the obvious. Most of the Americans posting here in support of the red-neck commentator simply ARE completely ignorant of almost everything about cricket, and don't think it matters, whereas cricket fans tend to all know at least a little about US politics and its rat-bag, red-neck element. Being ignorant of something relevant to a discussion, and not thinking it matters, simply IS very foolish. It will never help you convince those with different views that you have anything worthwhile to say. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As there are is over a 2/3rds majority of Opposition, I propose we close this discussion as Consensus: No Move, and put some kind of protection in place to dissuade people from further spurious move requests. Py0alb (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly/Archive_2&oldid=1090474501"