Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

RM Post close
For the record I think this close was premature and also did a poor job characterizing the support for the move which had far stronger policy arguments. In this case WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was simply ignored by arguments of perception and speculation which were made primarily by fans of a particular sport. In cases like this when the outcome is determined simply by votes I wonder why we even have policies at all. Nemov (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't ignored. The proponents of the move, however, chose to cite only one part of it and ignore the other. Pageviews are not the only thing that counts for primary topic status. And plenty of those opposing were not cricket fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * BOTH have long term significance. 1 for 1 on PT2. However only 1 has page views. 1 for 0 on PT1. That means only one of them has both PT1 and PT2. It is the strongest argument, they are not equal. -- Green  C  14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But we don't know whether the political commentator has long-term significance. With some exceptions, it's very difficult to judge that for living people who are still active in their careers. And political commentators like him are the sort of people who tend to fade from history after their careers end. Anyway, the RM has been closed. If you object to the close then take it to MRV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He's nearly 80 years old now, his career is mostly done after he left Fox in 2017, I think it's safe to judge him by what he has done and not what he will do. In the context of the culture war period 1996-2017, there was probably no one with more weight and importance on the right-wing of US political commentary.The O'Reilly Factor had been the highest-rated cable news show for 16 years, and he was described by media analyst Howard Kurtz as "the biggest star in the 20-year history at Fox News" at the time of his ousting (and Fox News was the most watched news channel in the USA). His influence on US politics and culture is hard to overestimate. -- Green  C  20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but Bill O’Reilly 2’s influence on cricket is hard to overestimate. That’s the issue— they’re both influential in their respective fields. Dronebogus (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @@ To me that's irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what people are actually looking for... someone could be the Babe Ruth of Rubik's Cubes and it wouldn't matter if the other person is getting searched for five times to one. Nemov (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But cricket is hardly Rubik’s Cubes. Dronebogus (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This was a perfectly reasonable close. It might have been wise to wait for an admin for a better trusted conclusion and explanation. Clear consensus was NOT demonstrated, neither by headcount nor by strength of argument, by my reading. Since I didn't contribute to the conversation, I'll opine that while both subjects are public figures in different arenas of popular culture, it's clear to me the cricketeer is regarded as a far more significant figure in their field (based on the cited significance assertion in the article as of the close) than the political commentator is in theirs (no reliable sources in the existing article make the argument that the pundit is one of the greatest figures in American political commentary). BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if you agree with the result of the close, this absolutely should have been closed by an admin, because it's a very contentious RM.  Or by a very esteemed non-admin involved in RMs for a long time.  A weak close by a passer-by just makes it more likely that a similarly futile RM will happen in the near future because this close isn't seen as very strong.  (To be clear, I would urge this close to be withdrawn / overturned for either an admin or a respected closer to do this even if the result had supported my !vote.) SnowFire (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. It takes someone with experience and confidence to close in a way that is maybe not popular but correct in terms of rules. In any case, if this comes up again, I hope the framer will force voters to address all the facts, summarize the core arguments and rules and request they be addressed, so it doesn't turn into yet another "idontlikeit" bias free for all that closes NC again. The framing of the RM is everything, it takes some time and effort. -- Green  C  20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse close - as someone who supported moving, I understand that this close was correct. There was no other reasonable conclusion that could have been made.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 20:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW my comment wasn't to overturn the close. I would have formally gone through that process if I thought that was possible. It was just on observation on the poorly written close and relatively mob rule nature of the entire discussion. We do the average user a huge disservice when we make information more difficult to find. Anyway, I don't really care about either one of these people and the political commentator is rather annoying. Thanks to the weak nature of the close this will likely come up again since the majority of end users will be perplexed at the status quo. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse close. It's clear that there was no consensus here. Speaking as the editor who proposed the move, even if I understand why some editors may feel that an uninvolved admin should have made the choice to either close it or keep it open, I personally don't believe we needed to wait for more responses to prove just how divisive this move was. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse close Unsurprising I suppose as I was an editor who asked that conversation to be closed. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse reopening would have no benefit. Dronebogus (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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