Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply
→‎Requested move 3 July 2023: An invitation, not an insult
Line 80: Line 80:
* '''Oppose''' The request is pure [[WP:RECENT|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.] [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 00:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The request is pure [[WP:RECENT|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.] [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:JeffSpaceman|JeffSpaceman]] ([[User talk:JeffSpaceman|talk]]) 01:47, 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. [[User:JeffSpaceman|JeffSpaceman]] ([[User talk:JeffSpaceman|talk]]) 01:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
*::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. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 01:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This issue has been [[Template:BillOReillyRMArchive|beaten to death numerous times]] since [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 1#Move|2005]]. What has changed since the [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 7#Requested move 26 June 2016|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 [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 2#Move to ambiguate|2009 RM]]: {{tq|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}}. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 01:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. This issue has been [[Template:BillOReillyRMArchive|beaten to death numerous times]] since [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 1#Move|2005]]. What has changed since the [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive 7#Requested move 26 June 2016|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 [[Talk:Bill O'Reilly/Archive 2#Move to ambiguate|2009 RM]]: {{tq|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}}. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 01:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:56, 4 July 2023

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category Fired from Fox News

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

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)[reply]
OK, I thought this was just added? If RS say he was "fired" then its ok. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say that they "agreed" that he would leave? Is that being "fired"?--Malerooster (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, fair enough.--Malerooster (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And thanks for trimming the duplicative "covered above" stuff. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]