Jump to content

Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Edit request on 5 December 2012

Please remove the statement "(But claims this is only a philosophy, not a religion.)" following "Roman Catholic" next to Religion on the side box that gives brief biographical information on O'Reilly. If you follow the link on the citation, O'Reilly says that Christianity is a philosophy but that Christian denominations are religions. By O'Reilly's statements, Roman Catholicism is a religion and the parenthetical statement is incorrect. 131.204.254.71 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Done Arzel (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is Bill O’Reilly a Democrat or a Republican? 3/7/2013 10:38, D3323 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.1.37.197 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

He states that he is neither, but I think few would ever think that he was a Democrat. Arzel (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From the article: "On December 6, 2000, the Daily News in New York reported, however, that he had been registered with the Republican Party in the state of New York since 1994. When questioned about this, he said that he was not aware of it and says he registered as an independent after the interview."TMCk (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
According to NYS Board of Elections website he is registered with the NYS Independence Party. Look it up here https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/ . Manhassat's zipcode is 11030.Racingstripes (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bill OReilly and John Stossel interview notable quote

On the 3/12/2013 OReilly show, Stossel seriously said to him, "I don't understand how such a big person can have such a tiny brain." Could this be added to the article as it is notable to include what other Fox hosts think of OReilly's intellect? -64.136.27.163 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not say so because they always joke in such a way...75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Historian

Please consider removing or placing more nuance on the label "historian" in the opening paragraph of this article. Bill O'Reilly lacks the academic qualifications of most historians today (usually an MA and/or doctoral degree in history or a very closely related field), and moreover his "historical" works do not meet the stringent standards of academic historians today (objectivity, proper sourcing and citations, the peer editing process, etc), and are closer in spirit to works of polemic. This is not a political indictment, but calling someone who does not meet these standards and has no more qualifications than a BA in the field a historian (with all that that implies) is an a lie and an insult to the historian's discipline. Calling him a historian is like calling a homeopath a physician. If merely having written pseudo-historical polemic qualifies him for the title of historian in popular eyes, at least consider adding nuance to the job title by prefacing it with amateur- (as it is not him main job, and he doesn't meet the accepted standards of the profession) and/or popular- (as works of popular history do not necessarily always meet the stringent standards of academic works, though most good ones do). 'Writer of popular history' might be the most appropriate option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.76.8 (talk • contribs)

I'm inclined to agree with 74's position, though I think that calling it a lie/insult is a bit much. Being a historian, at least in contemporary times, is something generally done by academics, publishing under some sort of peer-review standards. Do others agree we should either remove or alter the phrase? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but I have found in practice here that this is a rule that is not followed. If a reliable source calls him a Historian, than he is, regardless of what the correct academic usage should be. Arzel (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. Bill O'Reilly is not an academic historian, nor is he a cultural historian, nor is he a corporate historian. While a higher degree (MA/PhD) is not the ONLY qualification to being a historian (for instance, you could be a particular organizations historian) it usually helps. The dictionary definition of "historian" is (thanks to dictionary.com): An expert in history; authority on history. O'Reilly is not an expert nor an authority on any particular facets of history, so the title of "historian" does not apply to him. Vyselink (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It was me who included "historian" in the description of him. I thought it was obvious that someone who writes books about history and has an education in history should be a historian. But looking into the sources, I can't really find any reliable sources which describe him as a historian. Actually it is easier to find sources which directly say he is not a historian, like this one from USA Today, which seems to have even Bill O'Reilly himself quoted as saying he is not a historian. So I guess I was wrong. I will remove the label from the lead.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New Salon article

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/

Has a lot of info. It's a liberal POV but not a hit piece or full of cheap shots. 173.55.140.132 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 July 2013

Bill O'Reilly is old enough to have served in Vietnam, how did he miss out on his tour of duty ?

58.6.193.57 (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit request--that's for asking for a change to the article. If you have questions you'd like answered, try the WP:Reference desk. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The following line under Controversy, Joy Behar/Whoopi Goldberg does not appear to have a source.

Former host and progressive commentator Rosie O'Donnel stated on her radio program that the incident was an example of what she viewed as regular hateful statements. O'Reilly responded by citing O'Donnell's earlier statement about claiming the threat from radical Christianity is similar to that of radical Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinbreed (talk • contribs) 06:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

The archiving for this page doesn't seem to be working properly. There are completely empty archives in 7,8 and 9. Could someone who understands these things please take a look? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bill O'Reilly which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2013-10-04

Shouldn't Martin Dugard be listed as a co-author for Killing Kennedy? 2620:0:2820:2212:CC22:7B94:4C33:5D1F (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably so, since he is. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly

I would love to share the great views of Bill O'Reilly considering the differences of other Fox News Team

Cheek.dylan1 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Ludacris isn't controversy

Why is the Ludacris comment listed under Controversy? There's no mention in that section of it being controversial, or anyone being opposed to his comments. He called for a boycott of some products because they associated with someone that didn't align with his political position. Said person was then disassociated with the producer of said products.

There's no mention of concern or controversy at all. 203.97.127.101 (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There doesn't seem any point to having it there, except to beef up a near-empty section. 122.164.8.127 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Parents

So why isn't the background of his parents mentioned in the Early life section? It certainly of interest, and it is almost always mentioned early on in the biographies of other people on Wikipedia. Apparently, Bill likes to portray himself as "lower-middle-class", but his dad was a former naval officer and oil company accountant, earning a respectable wage, while his mother was a physical therapist, according this article on NNDB. The part about him being an accountant is mentioned, but only later on in this article, together with his salary, but it is not adjusted to inflation, which is somewhat strange and also a bit misleading, IMO. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind these choices, if there is any. Gavleson (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hometown

The article states that Bill O'Reilly grew up in Levittown. That is simply untrue, his house was in South Westbury (sometimes called Salisbury). I grew up nearby and there is no doubt where Levittown is and where South Westbury is. O'Reilly's house was in the area covered by the Westbury post office, but not in the village of Westbury.

74.108.20.53 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)RogerJCooper

Early Life

The article states that O'Reilly was a member of the Chaminade H.S. "varsity hockey team," citing Marvin Kittman's biography. There was no varsity hockey team at that time at the school, as evidenced by the absence of any reference to it in the sports section of the 1967 Chaminade yearbook. He was a member of a club team, however, as is correctly noted in his brief senior biography in the yearbook (presumably a venue he was not likely to embellish). This proposed change from "varsity hockey team" to "club team" is topical in view of O'Reilly's recent walk off in a radio interview and Keith Olbermann's commentary yesterday awarding him his "worst person award," in part for overstating his athletic career as a punter on Marist's varsity football team, when it also was only a club team at the time.Pverby (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC) pverby Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). 1967 Chaminade H.S. yearbook

Need mention of Climate change skepticism or delete category

While working on Category:Climate change skeptics, I noticed that this article has been added to that category, yet there is no mention in the prose of this article that this article's subject is considered a climate change skeptic (complete with reliable sources). A quick online check showed that reliable sources do exist showing this to be the case. Please add this to the prose to this article or delete the category from this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Archives and Controversies

I just realized there's an issue with the archives for the talk page. Archives 8 and 9 do not exist. The history for those pages shows that the content was moved to Archive 4? I'm not really sure what that's all about but someone with more understanding should probably fix it.

Also, the controversies section seems odd to me. I haven't even heard of the Ludacris controversy. On the other hand, O'Reilly has had a number of quite notable controversies such as claiming that he won a Peabody Award when he didn't and claiming that US soldiers carried out WWII atrocities that were, instead, carried out by Nazis. Both of those were quite notable when they happened and attracted quite a bit of media attention. The second moreso because he doubled down on the claim despite it being clear he's wrong. Ayzmo (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Media Matters investigation

The following was deleted from the article claiming Media Matters is not a reliable source: "Media Matters collected seven more examples of O'Reilly talking about the Falklands War coverage. Some of the quotes created the impression that he claim he was in the actual Island by using the words "war zone" or "combat situation". But in other quote he stated he was in Buenos Aires covering the story and not in the Falklands: "And then in the Falklands War, I just didn't see you in Buenos Aires or Montevideo. I was there, but I didn't see you."." <ref name="mediamatters-falklands1">{{cite web |url=http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/02/20/bill-oreillys-combat-situation-reporting-in-his/202605 |title=Bill O'Reilly's "Combat Situation" Reporting, In His Own Words. |date=February 20, 2015 | first=Olivia | last=Kittel}}</ref> I think they count as a reliable source. The quotes from the Media Matters investigation can be fact-checked by the video they made, where you listen to the voice of Bill. So per WP:Verifiability, I'm in favor of re-adding it. NPOV is other question. Instead of "Media Matters collected..", we could start the text as "Progressive media watchdog Media Matters collected.."--Neo139 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also be in favor of re-adding it, but I would add that I prefer that Wikipedia not use subjective labels about news organizations. We have no need to insert personal beliefs in articles. It should read "Media Matters collected" and people can make up their own mind. Quote the source, move along. Great work by everyone who contributed to the new Falklands section. It reads well and seems very neutral. Thank you! Lipsquid (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please restore what was removed. Of course Media Matters is a reliable source; it just has a political slant in one direction which editors of a different slant would object to. And yes, of course it should be reported here neutrally. Prhartcom (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Media Matters is not a reliable source at all, especially for that information. The Falklands dispute has been recorded in enough reliable sources that we can use those. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Thargor Orlando. Media Matters is BARELY a WP:RS, and if the info is available from more reputable RS's it should be used. As Thargor stated, this particular topic has been discussed and recorded by plenty of RS's, and they should utilized, not MM. Vyselink (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I just double-checked WP:RS and of course Media Matters is reliable, just as Fox News is reliable. WP:BIASED on that page has the relevant guideline. Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
MMfA is a self-published organization with limited editorial oversight and a history of getting things wrong. Their bias is only part of the problem, and discussions at RS/N have leaned against using MMfA. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, MM is BARELY reliable, same as Fox News (I wouldn't compare anything to Fox News if you're trying to score points for reliability). The more pertinent part of my suggestion was that since other sources that DON"T have the STATED bias of MM are available, those should be used. Understand, I'm not saying the information should not be used, but if possible it is always better to have sources that, while there maybe obvious and inherent biases, do not SPECIFICALLY state what those biases are like MM does. I also don't think we need all 7. A sentence saying something to the effect of "Other statements by O'Reilly where he claimed to have been in a war zone in the Falklands were made in (year) (year) and (year)" with sources. Vyselink (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible, Vyselink. As long as the MM source is not the exclusive source of the information, in which case, we would have to consider using it, just try to state it neutrally. I would hope that all editors in this discussion are putting aside their personal political stance and are approaching this with no agenda, but I know that quite often that may not be the case. (My Fox News mention was an attempt to say that information needed for the article could come from either side.) Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Professor Greg Grandin on El Salvador

Bill O'Reilly May Have Covered-Up a Massacre.   "Earlier this month, Greg Grandin, a columnist for The Nation magazine, found evidence that O'Reilly, who in 1982 was a foreign correspondent for CBS Nightly News, may have deliberately ignored the massacre of hundreds of people by U.S.-backed death squads in El Mozote, El Salvador, thus helping deflect attention from war crimes backed by the United States." --- IjonTichy (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

it needs to be updated to show that O'Reilly assaulted his wife, as per court documents. 107.77.76.124 (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 02:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Here: http://gawker.com/court-transcripts-bill-o-reilly-s-daughter-saw-him-ch-1704717356 193.169.204.11 (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems this story has really taken off. I think it at least should be included now. http://www.businessinsider.com/report-bill-oreilly-accused-of-physically-assaulting-his-ex-wife-2015-5 http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/entertainment/celebrities_gossip/20150519_WENN_Political_pundit_Bill_O_Reilly_slams_domestic_abuse_allegations.html http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bill-o-reilly-assaulted-wife-front-child-report-article-1.2226846 These are just some of the ones that have popped up, there are a lot more as well. Ozzyland 16:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyland (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015

In light of the extent of material on the issue, I think the passage on the domestic abuse allegation needs to be more transparent and comprehensive. How about:

In May 2015, Gawker.com alleged that during the couple’s three-year custody dispute, O’Reilly was accused of physically assaulting his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy in their Manhasset home.[1][2] In light of the allegation, O’Reilly issued a statement through his attorney describing the account as “100% false” and declined to comment further in order “to respect the court-mandated confidentiality put in place to protect [his] children”.[3][4]

  1. ^ J.K. Trotter (2015-05-18). "Bill O'Reilly Accused of Domestic Violence in Custody Battle". Gawker.
  2. ^ Colin Gorenstein (2015-05-18). "New report accuses Bill O'Reilly of domestic violence against ex-wife". Salon.
  3. ^ Dylan Blyers (2015-05-18). "Bill O'Reilly: Domestic abuse allegation '100% false'". Politico.
  4. ^ Marcus Baram (2015-05-21). "Bill O'Reilly accused of choking his ex-wife, dragging her down the stairs". Business Insider UK.

— Base664 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2015

This still stands. The passage on the domestic abuse allegation is too brief and imprecise. I think it should be changed to the following, which explains the episode in more appropriate detail, whilst remaining objective. If you do not think this is acceptable, please enlighten me as to why.

In May 2015, Gawker.com alleged that during the couple’s three-year custody dispute, O’Reilly was accused of physically assaulting his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy in their Manhasset home.[1][2] In light of the allegation, O’Reilly issued a statement through his attorney describing the account as “100% false” and declined to comment further in order “to respect the court-mandated confidentiality put in place to protect [his] children”.[3][4]

  1. ^ J.K. Trotter (2015-05-18). "Bill O'Reilly Accused of Domestic Violence in Custody Battle". Gawker.
  2. ^ Colin Gorenstein (2015-05-18). "New report accuses Bill O'Reilly of domestic violence against ex-wife". Salon.
  3. ^ Dylan Blyers (2015-05-18). "Bill O'Reilly: Domestic abuse allegation '100% false'". Politico.
  4. ^ Marcus Baram (2015-05-21). "Bill O'Reilly accused of choking his ex-wife, dragging her down the stairs". Business Insider UK.

Base664 (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Anachronism in Early Life section

O'Reilly's maternal ancestors are described as being from Northern Ireland, which is a political entity that didn't come into being until 1922, which I assume is long after his ancestors had left. Something to the effect of "elsewhere in Ulster" would be accurate and serve the same purpose unless a more specific source can be found.Otanerlives (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2015

Virtually everything on this page is sourced to his own works, The man lies a lot (there are independent sources cited for that) could someone fact check this page please.. I don't necessary believe anything here is in error, but I have no reason to believe it true eater since the article was basically written by the subject of the article. I have a published article in penthouse forum sating I have a 12 inch penis. (penthouse forum June 1989) That doesn't make any of this true.


68.203.224.248 (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
Looking at Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)#References there seems to be plenty of variety, including Media Matters, Stephen Colbert, and the Pew Research Center, which are certainly not WP:PRIMARY sources. You're free to check the sources yourself and then ask for specific changes if you feel they're warranted. You can also discuss specific issues here, (keeping in mind that Wikipedia has strict guidelines for how it covers living people) but as a proper request this is too vague. Grayfell (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Setting WP:NWFCTM aside, supporters generally agree that the political commentator receives more page views and the opposition points to the cricketer as having greater long-term significance. With both points being valid per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is not a consensus to move. -- Tavix (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

– Almost a quarter of a million views in the last 90 days, whilst the cricketer has less than 4,000, the dab page less than 6,000 and the columnist less than 8,000.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Are you meaning views on Google, please? I am thinking that is irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. In addition, I am seeing that this proposal has been requested many times previously and has never gained approval. I am not seeing any plausible explanation for renewing the proposal at this time. The cricketer remains a famous player and journalist, a historical one of course, but notability does not rest on current American television. You should not be wasting your time, I am thinking. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nazcheema, no the nominator means page views on wikipedia. See the statistics for the commentator here, the cricketer here and the columist here Ebonelm (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm, I am still considering the evidence irrelevant to an encyclopaedia. It is surely to be expected that a contemporary topic will be attracting more "views" than a historical one. I am not doubting that Jeremy Corbyn is currently attracting more views than Napoleon Bonaparte but I am asking which is the more significant and which will people be remembering long after Jeremy is no longer in the news? Here, there is a world-famous sportsman remembered eighty years after he was a top international player and so he must be receiving at least equal recognition with any notable namesake. It is seeming to me that the disambiguation page is ideal in providing a sensible resolution and that is leading me to vote against the proposal (see above). Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 05:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Disambiguation page is general better than a primarytopic grab on an ambiguous name. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, this is not American television Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, so clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as demonstrated by the page views. Ebonelm (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am having voted already but please to remove this if I am not allowed a further comment. I am not familiar yet with rules for discussions seeking consensus. The further comment I must be making is from my reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is seeming to me that the proposal is qualifying as systemic bias, is defying the principle of WP:NWFCTM, and is ignoring the major aspect stating that "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". There can be no doubting the long-term significance in cricket, a massive global sport, of the Australian bowler and commentator Bill O'Reilly. It is trite to be comparing cricket with baseball but I am being told that a famous pitcher from long ago was Walter Johnson and he is long-remembered in the United States, so perhaps he is an equivalent in long-term significance. I am seriously doubting the long-term significance of any TV personality. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nazcheema, but you are only citing the part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which suits your perspective the first section states that: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" which in this particular instance is overwhelmingly the case. Ebonelm (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm, it is true that there are two major aspects and both must be taking account of, but the over-riding importance is WP:NWFCTM in this case. I am thinking that Py0alb below is summing it up well. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nazcheema, given that your a member of WikiProject Cricket you might well be straying into WP:NWFCTM territory yourself. I have to disagree with Py0alb, the cricketer is hardly a 'prominent' figure in history: there aren't many textbooks containing Bill O'Reilly's name, not that many will be written with the commentator's name in either. The cricketer might well be significant in the 'history of cricket' but not in history generally. Ebonelm (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. We've had this discussion a ludicrous number of times before see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly, and the result is always the same: no consensus to move. This is CLEARLY representative of the consensus of the wikipedia community and no new evidence has been brought forth to change that, so why was this ridiculous move even entertained? It should simply be dismissed out of hand and the discussion closed immediately. In the past it has been discussed that we should protect the page from further spurious, evidence free move requests such as this one and bring action against nominators, as at this point it is bordering on disruptive editing. Having the same pointless arguments over and over again is a waste of everyone's time, don't do it. Py0alb (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Please. When there's a blatant primary topic, RMs are justified. Unreal7 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment. I am entirely agreeing with you, Py0alb. It is counter-productive to be repeating the same thing several times and with no fresh evidence or new arguments. Do you know if there is any way in which a "speedy closure" can be achieved in the similar way as a "speedy delete" is being done? I am not familiar with site rules and procedures yet and am not knowing this myself. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Given that this is gaining some supports, that's uncalled-for. Unreal7 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I support because of the long-term educational significance of an acclaimed author (Killing Lincoln, etc.) and journalist (who won an Emmy Award) who has had an extremely important role in shaping political discourse in the world's third-largest country over a period of over twenty years. (Especially when we compare the significance of such an acclaimed author and pundit to that of... a sportsman.) The blind assertions that, somehow, a cricketer has greater long-term educational significance... well, those assertions are absolutely ludicrous and clearly not supported by any evidence whatsoever. As a secondary point, the case for primary topic finds ample support in pageview statistics, which is also one of our primary topic criteria. Red Slash 06:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Bill O'Reilly the commentator is a massive figure. I hadn't heard of the cricketer - reading his article, though, he does appear to be impressive in his field. But it's not enough to sway my vote. MelanieLamont (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This is clearly ludicrous, we're comparing one of the greatest ever exponents of the second most popular sport in the world, with a largely irrelevant populist talking head who is completely unheard of outside of his native country and will be completely forgotten about in 50 years time. There is a clear primary topic, and its the world famous sportsman. I suggest you all refer to WP:recentism. Nothing has changed to suggest that the previous 15 consensus's on this topic should be overturned. Py0alb (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I live in the United Kingdom, and the guy from Fox News is actually is pretty well-known here because many of us watch American TV shows, where Fox News anchors are often mentioned. The cricketer, on the other-hand, is a Z-lister to anyone who doesn't know their cricket. 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am seeing some poor arguments here with people saying that one O'Reilly is a "massive figure" and that the other O'Reilly is a "Z-lister", which, pardon me, is not a credible label to be applying to anyone. We are not here talking about so-called "celebrity status", we are discussing whether three notable people with same name should have a disambiguation page and the consensus in several discussions going back to 2005 is that there should be a disambiguation page. If the TV personality is a "massive figure" he is only that in the United States because in the rest of the world he is what you, not I, would call a "Z-lister". The cricketer is what you would call a "massive figure" in Australia and in several other countries he is very well-known and he is widely admired. I am thinking that the argument in support of the proposal here is one I am reading in earlier discussions that if someone is well-known in America, he is well-known, and if he is not well-known in America, he is not well-known. That is not a basis on which to conduct a sensible discussion and neither is it necessary to use words like "jerk", "idiot", and "Z-lister" which are impressing nobody at all and are used in the strategy of "he who shouts loudest". I am not understanding at all why this proposal has been raised again after consensus has been reached so many times previously that a disambiguation page is the best option. May I please be asking that the American people here use a little dignity and discuss the matter sensibly without resorting to so-called buzzwords and derogatory expressions. I am in the position of opposing the TV commentator but I am not calling him a jerk or an idiot, nor am I using frankly idiotic terms like "Z-lister", so why are you? Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I know a few cricketers, such as Andrew Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen, Ian Botham and Andrew Strauss, but I'd never heard of Bill O'Reilly until I saw his Wiki page. Unreal7 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM is an invalid reason to be giving in the hope of supporting your proposal. Cricket is being played professionally now for well over 200 years and there have been many, many greater players than the four you "know", including Bill O'Reilly. The four you are naming are in my opinion very over-rated and the reason that you know of them is that they are attracting publicity, often for their off the field antics. If you are looking for great players of recent times, you should be trying Adam Gilchrist, Sachin Tendulkar, Muttiah Muralitharan and Brian Lara to be naming just the first four (of many) that are springing to mind. None of those are English, if you are wanting to know four top class English players of recent times, then be trying Michael Vaughan, Alistair Cook, Jimmy Anderson and Graeme Swann who are all of them much greater players than your four. As for Bill O'Reilly, he was arguably a better player than all eight of the great players I am naming here, and he followed his playing career by becoming a famous broadcaster and writer too. It is occurring to me therefore that both of these Bill O'Reillys were notable for broadcasting and writing so they are being even on that score while the Australian was also a famous sportsman and the American was not and so it is the Australian who is far and away the more notable. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't propose this move because I'd never heard of the cricketer - my point was that despite not being a cricket fan at all, I still knew a number of famous names. Primary topics can change over time you know. Also, for someone who told us not to be so opinionated, you're certainly ignoring your own advice by calling them "very overrated" and known for "their off the field antics". Unreal7 (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I am merely pointing out to you that Bill O'Reilly was a greater player than was Botham and the other three, as you clearly are not knowing that. Pardon me, but it is you have said you had never heard of him and you have implyed that he therefore is not in same league as Botham, which is ridiculous (well, of course he is not, he is in much higher league!). May I ask if you have heard of W. G. Grace or Don Bradman, the two greatest players of all time? Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 16:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I know several cricketers, but I never would've heard of this one. The name "Bill O'Reilly" is ubiquitous - with the political commentator. Really, just pretend I said what Red Slash said. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
"Well I've never heard of him" is not a valid argument, nor a particularly worthwhile contribution to this debate. This isn't a popularity contest, it is a question of long term historic significance. The fact that you haven't heard of a player who was voted into the greatest Australian XI of all time http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/414510.html, and the man considered by Bradman to be the best bowler he ever faced, simply reveals your ignorance on this topic. Ignorance is not an argument. Bill O'Reilly is one of the top 50 most significant sportsmen ever to have lived, and by rights he should be the primary topic for this page, but given the brief, temporary popularity of the low-brow talking head amongst an American audience, a disambig page is a sensible compromise for the time being. Py0alb (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Please be civil, Py0alb. You might as well be trying to convince us that Brad Pitt (boxer) is more notable than Brad Pitt. Unreal7 (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I am being perfectly civil. To be perfectly frank, I am not attempting to convince you of anything, because your opinion carries no weight and as such, I don't really care what you think, you can believe whatever ignorant notion you like. This discussion will be closed as no consensus just like the 15 previous discussions were, because you have not brought forth any new evidence or compelling arguments Py0alb (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You're clearly more emotionally invested in this debate than anyone else, and the fact that you keep saying the political commentator has "brief populator" when he's been a massive figure and has hosted shows for 20 years now reveals you shouldn't be so quick to leap for the ignorance button. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any emotional investment in the debate at all, other than I don't like to see people riding roughshod over wikipedia notability policy, and I get extremely tired and bored of having the same stupid discussions over and over again. If you see that a previous consensus has been reached, at least have the humility to read the discussions first and ask yourself whether you are really bringing new information to the table before reaching for the Request to Move button. Its just a matter of showing respect for your fellow editors and not wasting their time. Py0alb (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And so the only sensible way to be resolving the matter is in the same way that, as Py0alb says, the previous 15 discussions have been resolved. No consensus on a primary option and therefore retaining a disambiguation page. The very pertinent statement by Dicklyon on Sunday is saying this same thing loud and clear for all to be taking note. May I also be asking why two people now are using this phrase "massive figure"? Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 19:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It took four discussions for James Arthur and Shut Up and Drive to become primary topics, and many more for Doctor (Doctor Who) to become The Doctor (Doctor Who). Unreal7 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hmm, this seems to be degenerating fast. I'm in the oppose camp and have a cricket "background", but there are a few points here on both sides, and I think we need to be talking more about policy than we are. Firstly, just because the previous discussions had the same outcome does not mean that we cannot discuss it again; consensus can change. Secondly, I suspect (as I have said before) that many people outside the US have not heard of the commentator O'Reilly, and I have only heard of him through these interminable discussions. But that does not mean that the rest of the world thinks of O'Reilly the cricketer when they think of "Bill O'Reilly". In Australia, probably. In the UK maybe (but I doubt it). In the rest of the world? Doubtful. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says a topic is the primary one "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". In my view neither of the two O'Reilly chaps meet this criteria outside of their respective countries. We also have "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". But just because I haven't heard of the political commentator, or others haven't heard of the cricketer does not affect their long-term significance. The commentator seems to have had a long career now, so can't really be discounted on those grounds (which I recall was an argument made previously). But the cricketer was also of some significance. In my view, page views are not really relevant here but would perhaps point to the commentator. To be honest, I think neither of these men should be the primary topic, which suggests that we should keep things as they are. We aren't really hurting anyone by leaving things, and that seems the best POLICY based decision to me. TLDR version: neither fully meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so we should keep the disambiguation page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
American broadcasters, I believe, tend to be more noteworthy in the UK than early 20th century Australian cricketers. I know many people who are familiar with the broadcaster, and many other U.S. TV hosts. Outside the cricketing world (and to non-cricket fans), I don't believe the cricketer is famous at all. His page has only been viewed 100+ times on five occasions this year and Google only gives him 46,800 results.[2] Unreal7 (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
well, you believe incorrectly. Your personal opinions are as well informed as they are relevant. Py0alb (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you a relative of the cricketer or something? You're getting really personal with your insults here. Unreal7 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I have made no such insults. It is entirely accurate to say that your opinions are neither relevant nor well-informed. This is not an insult (you might want to google that word), but an objective to the paucity of your argument. However, your resorting to personal insults about my family is a rather revealing insight into your approach to Wikipedia. Do you only come on here to pursue personal agendas? You clearly have no interest in following proper protocol or improving the encyclopaedia. Py0alb (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I did no such thing. I've done nothing wrong, but you've done nothing more than spew vile insults at those who supported this move. You'd better watch your attitude on here or else you may end up getting reported. Unreal7 (talk)
Unreal, please calm down. No-one is attacking you, all we are attacking are your extremely misinformed arguments. If you are unable to recognise the difference, then you should not get involved in editing discussions. Let me remind you that comments about another editor's family, as you have made to me, are a contradiction of WP:civility. I have made no comments about your person or your family or insulted you personally at any point in this discussion. Please refrain from disruptive or antagonistic editing or further aggressive comments and false accusations. Saying "you'd better watch your attitude" and threatening other editors is not acceptable behaviour on wikipedia. Please remain civil. If other editors attack your arguments, then use logic and evidence-based reasoning to defend those arguments. Do not resort to slurs about their family background. Thanks. Py0alb (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is clearly not going to reach a consensus, no new information has been brought forward to suggest we should reach any other conclusion than in the 15 previous discussions, the arguments in favour of moving have been poor to say the least ("Well I haven't heard of him" is not a valid argument) and I propose it is closed immediately with a reprimand for the initiating editor for disruptive editing and wasting everyone's time with a clearly spurious and unsubstantiated Request for Move. Py0alb (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary: We now have 5 editors opposed and 4 editors in support. Arguments in opposition are made on the grounds of Wikipedia policy on long-term notability criteria, and are supported by the outcomes of multiple previous move requests, arguments in support are based on short term page hit statistics and personal anecdote. No new evidence has been brought to the table, and no consensus has been reached, nor looks likely to be reached Py0alb (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'm probably biased in that I'm an Australian cricket fan, but in my opinion this is the perfect case of needing a dab page at the base location. We have the political commentator meeting the usage criterion of primary topic and the cricketer meeting the long-term significance criterion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
    A perfect summary. The rest of this endless debate is simply bluster and "I like my Bill more than your Bill". Time to close this, yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2016 (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.

Mr O'Reilly's Military Service or Draft Status

Could a reference to Mr O'Reilly's military Draft status or service after his college completion be added? I think it is significant in light of the timing, 1971 height of the Vietnam War and his "traditional" political views. John McGarrigle, johnmac62@yahoo.com

Biased

"According to several published reports, as part of the settlement O'Reilly likely paid Mackris millions of dollars, but the terms of the agreement are confidential.[95]" Not a reliable source and biased.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I'd suggest submitting this for WP:GA when ready. I did not review for NPOV, Prose, Fair-Use and such. I just looked at the overall content, structure, references, etc. Morphh 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Still a lot of work to do, I think… not nearly ready for GA status.Formerly Codename Colorado | The Earwig (User | Talk | Contributions) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 20:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Legitimate picture

Was the best picture that could be found of this man one with a dour, glum, scowling expression on his face?

How about a neutral, non-biased picture, instead of one posted by a liberal stooge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.53.26 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Calidum ¤ 03:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) → Bill O'Reilly (journalist) – "Political commentator" is far too long. He presents TV and works for news publications, so we should follow examples like Jon Snow (journalist) and Matt Cooper (Irish journalist). Unreal7 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Weak support. I see where the nominator is coming with this, given it's a more standard disambiguator. I'm "weak" though just because this article has had almost 10 move requests in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title proposed by the nominator is superior in that the current disambiguation of "political commentator" is meant to be a POV dimunition of "journalist". However, the article should instead be located at Bill O'Reilly without disambiguation; no offense meant to Australian editors, but the cricketer is not nearly as well known globally. (Yes, I am aware of the previous requests above).64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2016 (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.

Re: Early Life

O'Reilly also worked at WCVB in Boston from 1985-1986 (possibly 1987)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCVB-TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqkK68t7pXQ

Jaco66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Could somebody change the "in" to "on" in the fourth sentence so that it says, "The couple separated on April 2, 2010, and were divorced on September 1, 2011."? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC) 

173.73.227.128 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Done JTP (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

Where the entry now says:

"In February 2016, O'Reilly lost a bid for custody of both of his children.[124]"

It should say:

"In February 2016, O'Reilly lost a bid for custody of both his children.[124] However, by then his daughter had already become emancipated from having turned 18." 66.62.180.228 (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This would contradict the Independent article cited as a source, and the Gawker article cited by The Independent. Court documents linked by those sources give the daughter's date of birth as March 21, 1999, which means she does not turn 18 until March 21, 2017. If there is a reliable source stating the daughter was 18 in February 2016, please feel free to reopen this request. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Race baiting and racism

Can someone add in a section on all the previous example of race baiting comments and racism.

Will be good for future historic reference, to compare and contrast the various comnments from Bill O'Reilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Historical context of racism

Can someone add in a long section - comparing historical racists, through time in the media, and then see how Bill O'Reilly matches up.

NPR - Tom Ashbrook had program talking about long history of alleged racist comments by Bill O'Reilly.

Good to understand this context, when looking at some of the history books written by O'Reilly. How do views on race fit in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"yet another"

Non neutral sentence: "Shortly after Ailes was fired, Fox News settled yet another sexual harassment claim...". Please remove the "yet" to make the sentence neutral.104.163.140.228 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Legends & Lies

O'Reilly is executive producer, as well as an on-camera commentator for the above series. This needs to be included in the article. Thx, 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4869:17E3:7C7B:7451 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

O'Reilly's Insult to Representative Maxine Waters

On March 28, 2017, O'Reilly issued a public apology to Representative Maxine Waters. Earlier the same day, in an appearance on "Fox&Friends", O'Reilly made disparaging remarks about the lawmaker who has represented her Los Angeles, California district since 1991. While tape rolled of Rep. Waters speaking on the House floor, O'Reilly mouthed remarks and later claimed not to have heard the content of Waters' speech because he was distracted by her, "James Brown wig."[1] There was immediate public outcry prompting the Fox host's statement on the matter. In an email sent to the Washington Post, O'Reilly called his comments, "dumb." Representative Waters later in the evening appeared on the MSNBC show, "All In" telling host Chris Hayes that she was a strong Black woman and would not be intimidated. She encouraged women not to be intimidated and to keep fighting. Sojournal (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have tried adding this but another editor keeps vandalizing the page, deleting wholesale w/o talk contributions. I agree that it is noteworthy and should be added. NotHoratio (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC))
First of all, I don't see a question or request by the OP – but, no, I don't think this is noteworthy for inclusion in the article. There is nothing "racial" about making fun of someone's hair/wig. Maybe he's been hanging around Dennis Miller too much, but he did apologize for it. And the sources given are from the New York Times, known for being one of the most left-leaning publications there is, so that in itself is non-neutral. They're not going to give a balanced report; it's going to be slanted against O'Reilly. NotHoratio, you say that The Kingfisher deleted without talk contributions, but you added without talk contribution (at first) – which is fine – but you made the bold edit, Kingfisher reverted with valid reasons, then you reverted back without finding consensus, which goes against WP:BRD. (You also went against WP:AGF.) So, per WP:STATUSQUO (especially for WP:Biographies of living persons), I'm removing the paragraph until/unless consensus is found for it. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't really be included. It's WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
(reflist-talk added for clarity:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4869:17E3:7C7B:7451 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/28/bill-oreilly-compared-a-black-congresswomans-hair-to-a-james-brown-wig/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news

Fox host/contributors were enablers, did nothing to stop this

On Anderson Cooper's CNN show tonight, former FoxNews contributor Christine Powers that it was well known how O'Reilly mistreated/abused women for years. Yet all these powerful Fox host's, like Greta, Megan, Shawn, and contributors, like Heraldo, who once said anyone who disrespects women is a "punk", did little or nothing to put a stop to this abuse. Shouldn't that be included here so readers can understand this behaviour did not happen in a vacuum of ignorance at Fox News and they all share some responsibility for looking the other way when this kept happening time and time again? 172.191.14.155 (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that would be a case of original research that is not allowed in articles. Rather, if there is a significant commentator or news source that makes this observation, that might be something that could be cited in the article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Political commentator followed by political commentary

NO need to have political commentator

followed by

political commentary

in first sentence and then again in 2nd sentence.

This is redundant.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead?

Roughly 1/3 of the lead describes the recent sexual allegations. Per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE, I believe this should be adjusted to better reflect the article's contents as well as O'Reilly's life and career. I hope we can make the lead a bit more "fair and balanched." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Fox let him go today, tho' HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mr Ernie. It needs to change. The Kingfisher (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User:HammerFilmFan that's fine, but it is important to note the lead should be an accurate reflection of the article, and not overly focus on recent events (see also WP:LEAD and WP:NOTNEWS). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

In the Other work subsection please add:
O'Reilly is executive producer, as well as an on-camera commentator for the Legends & Lies docudrama series.
(Feel free to change wording at editor's discretion) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Source? Sagecandor (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Take your pick of any of the nine sources referenced in the article or either external link. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Which ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Nevermind; evidently, neither sapience nor sentience is required for editing Wikipedia. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Modified:21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

In the 'Early life' section, following "O'Reilly has a sister, Janet", please replace "citation needed" tag with the following reference:

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

--His mother claimed in Washington Post interview published 12/13/2000 that the family never lived in Levittown. He grew up in Westbury, Long Island, a few miles from there. He liked to claim Levittown because it gave him humble roots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Coauthors

At least two of the coauthors in the 'Books' section have articles that should be linked (ie: |autherlink2=...). See: Martin Dugard (author) & James Patterson. Source for Patterson: "Books". www.jamespatterson.com. Hachette Book Group.. —Also, O'Reilly is last/first format and coauthors are first/last format; shouldn't they be consistent? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:4D89:B08:717F:6935 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Media Matters campaign to get O'Reilly fired

There's no mention of Media Matters' "advertiser education campaign," led by Angelo Carusone, in this article.

Someone with more interest in this article should probably add this information. Adraeus (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be the point of view of the individual fired, and his lawyer. Sagecandor (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Sagecandor: It is their point of view, based on actual evidence. The e-mail is not transcribed in the first link, but the second link is to an interview with Angelo Carusone, president at Media Matters, who admits to running the campaign. Carusone issued a statement on the Media Matters website: Statement Of Angelo Carusone As Bill O'Reilly Exits Fox News
In that post, Media Matters refers to him as a "recognized advertiser pressure campaign expert who also ran the @StopOReilly Twitter account." The Politico article refers to him similarly.
The e-mail referenced in links 1 and 3 was shared by Glenn Beck on Twitter here, which is also linked from link 3 and partly transcribed there.
The phrase "advertiser education campaign" is credited to Mary Pat Bonner, president of the Bonner Group, who wrote the e-mail.
Regardless of how anyone personally feels about O'Reilly (or Beck), there's more than enough here to include in the article.
Adraeus (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Personal life or career?

Should sexual harassment be addressed under his career instead of personal life? He has been accused of harassment in the workplace and it is what caused his departure from Fox. There is also the ongoing investigation into whether Fox improperly paid for settlements for O'Reilly and Ailes. To me, it seems more appropriate to deal with the topic near the O'Reilly Factor portion of the article than it does to leave it under personal life. Thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I consider it a personal life issue. There is a mention of his departure and related sexual harassment issues in the section on O'Reilly Factor. I think that's enough for that section. Sundayclose (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a mistaken way of looking at it. It was his professional behavior in the workplace that was at issue, not what he did at home. And it was part of a corporate culture at FNC that tolerated/promulgated such things. This belongs in the professional sections as much as anything else. 2600:1002:B112:A076:6538:E236:18B4:7286 (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Directly tied to career and workplace and former company and former employer. Sagecandor (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree and have boldly moved. If anyone wants to challenge it, we can of course discuss it further, but this belongs under "Career" for three reasons: (1) the incidents seem to be all workplace-related (i.e., the women concerned were guests on the show plus coworkers); (2) Fox and 21st Century Fox paid some of the settlements, and (3) most importantly, it was the sexual harassment claims that resulted in O'Reilly's ouster from the network. Neutralitytalk 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything on his (lack of) military service? It seems he just blew right past the draft ... DOR (HK) (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Why Was the Public Disputes Section Erased?

I've noticed that since my last edit (4/17/2017) that the entirety of the public disputes section has been erased from O'Reilly's article. This contained information on the dispute with the Anti-Defamation league, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, and Ludacris. I can't seem to understand why this section was erased, along with its sources (where no source or text was merged into another paragraph) . Is there a reason why this section was removed? TheTrashMan (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Another editor removed criticisms from the Anti-Defamation League so I removed his spat with the women from The View and merged what was left in "Public disputes" with "The O'Reilly Factor" section.LM2000 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox & Lead: Political Party

I don't think it's correct to say that his political party is the Independence Party of New York in either the infobox or the Lead.

Yes, it's correct to say that he's a member (assuming he hasn't fixed it yet), and it should certainly be discussed in the Body. However the cite in the Lead[3] makes it pretty clear that it's a mistake: "But when he did so, it appears that O’Reilly checked the wrong box. Again. This time it looks like an honest mistake . . .". Surely his membership of the IPoNY, apparently by accident, is not material enough for inclusion in the Lead?

Likewise, there's no requirement to put Political Party in the infobox. The rubric on the template says "if relevant", and it's not really relevant for (ex?)news anchors who claim no affiliation. If it's determined to be relevant, then it probably should read "Independent", because that what he consistently claims, and he's a better source than Board of Elections’s database when an explanation has been given for the discrepancy. That said, I wouldn't support that, as he's clearly not a swing voter, hence my suggestion that we skip the field. Just as we skip the religion field, unless it's relevant. Or perhaps it should read "Conservative", as that's what he really is, is how RS describe him, and is more useful to a casual reader trying to quickly access information on his likely bias. Mind you, c.f. Rachel Maddow, who isn't infoboxed despite being, and claiming to be, Liberal.

One could argue, and I would, that his historic membership of the Republican Party isn't really relevant, from an infobox POV (certainly it should be in the Body). Perhaps if in the period 1994-2001 he is on record as saying he was a Republican, but even then I'd avoid it. Bromley86 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Split lawsuits into separate article?

There is quite a bit of content here detailing the various lawsuits. Perhaps it would be better to move the content to a separate article and include a multi-paragraph summary in this article. Any thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that this post was written nearly two years before mine, but I will answer anyway. I would argue no because that violates WP:CONTENTFORK. Those allegations, whether true or not, definitely ruined O'Reilly's career at Fox News. However, I do not see many very many noteworthy lawsuits surrounding the political figure to the best of my knowledge, especially since his departure. Such an article would definitely need POV checks, but more specifically, I think to create such an article would be to repeat the same information as in this article. If we were discussing Bill Cosby sexual assault cases, that would be different. The allegations are so everywhere that it is impossible to not associate the comedian with them. If that article were not already started, I would agree 110% to create it. Gamingforfun365 00:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

Bill O'Reilly has a new book out titled The United States of Trump that came out in 2019 and is not listed under his bibliography. 2601:1C0:5A00:B90:F5C5:78C7:2C20:A5B7 (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2019

Add Bill O'Reilly's new 2019 book "The United States of Trump: How the President Really Sees America" to this page's bibliography. [1] Safarkea95 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC) Safarkea95 (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://billoreillyhistorybooks.com/books/also-by-bill-oreilly/the-united-states-of-trump/

Howard Stern

Removed this sentence from bio: "During his time at BU, he also was a classmate of future radio talk show host Howard Stern whom O'Reilly noticed because Stern was the only student on campus taller than he was." Stern was an undergrad when O'Reilly was in grad school. To hear O'Reilly talk on air, he and Stern were friends and classmates. Stern is adamant that they never crossed paths, much less were classmates or friends. scooteristi (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

change "near the 9//1 memorial site" to "near the 9/11 memorial site" Vadalover (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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)
  • 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. --RockstoneSend 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? --RockstoneSend 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. -- RockstoneSend 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. --RockstoneSend 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. -- RockstoneSend 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_O%27Reilly_(political_commentator)/Archive_7&oldid=1224658833"