| Revision as of 15:56, 4 October 2007 editBlaxthos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,596 edits →Bill O’Reilly Celebrates Black History Month: slight clarifications← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:25, 20 October 2024 edit undoBusterD (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators44,906 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 93.109.98.78 (talk) to last revision by CewbotTags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|long}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}} |
|
{{WPBiography|class=B|priority=mid|a&e-work-group=yes|politician-work-group=yes|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject intelligent design|class=B|importance=Low|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProject Radio|class=B|importance=Mid|nested=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Oreilly, Bill|1= |
|
{{JournProjectArticles|nested=yes|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=mid|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Radio|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|auto=Inherit|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Television|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|American=yes |American-importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive index |
|
{{archivebox| |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive <#> |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 202K |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{BillOReillyRMArchive}} |
|
|
{{Merged-from|Public image of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 16 2017 (10th)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==RM Post close== |
|
==What is wrong with the You-Tube videos?== |
|
|
|
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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. -- ]] 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. -- ] (]) 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. -- ]] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::But cricket is hardly Rubik’s Cubes. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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''.) ] (]) 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. -- ]] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse close''' Unsurprising I suppose as I was an editor who asked that conversation to be closed. ] (]) 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse''' reopening would have no benefit. ] (]) 02:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Reasonable close, but @], 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. ] (]) 10:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
The You-Tube videos of himself are somewhat sped-up to about two percent try to make O'Reilly sound more like a puppy dog in those videos, which confuses some of their viewers. |
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' - Was hoping for a different result. Oh well. ] (]) 16:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Talk archive cleanup == |
|
--] 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propose ] be renamed ]. The same with ]. 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). -- ]] 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. ] (]) 03:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
Which ones? I watch him on Youtube all the time and have never noticed. ] 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Newsmax == |
|
:Please see ]. This page is to discuss changes and improvements to the article. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please see ] and confirm that any videos are not in violation of external link protocol, including linking to copyrighted material. ] 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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". ] (]) 01:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Archive== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Newsmax started airing it in 2020, then the First did as well. Updated. ] (]) 17:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
I think it is time for this page to be archived. If there is some current ongoing discussion, please advise. Otherwise I will archive the page. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Shocking Omission == |
|
|
|
|
|
The word Peabody doesn't show up on the page. O'Reilly has repeatedly claimed to have won "two Peabody awards - the most prestigious award in journalism" for his work on Inside Edition. He's repeated this claim for several years on every venue he spoke in front of. This glaring omission causes me to doubt everything I read on Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you guys choose which facts to ignore? Do you practice censorship, do certain people "own" pages and publish whatever they feel like under the guise of a public encyclopedia, or what? |
|
|
|
|
|
:You may want to check his controversies article. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
------------ |
|
|
I made some edits that don't really chnange the meaning per se but changes the tone a bit? But to be fair, why call one person's claim "a lawsuit" but call O'Rielly's claim as a "preemptive lawsuit?" -- the tone of the 1st para of that section suggests the harassment was true, and it wasn't extortion, it was just O'Reilly saying it was ... one is depicted as the truth teller and the other is the liar ... and we don't know any of that. In addition, some of the ocmments are illogical. I removed where it said the disputes were settled "in her favor" -- because it was not a court settlement, there is no "favor" one way or another. Also it's confidential. Both of them say it was settled in "their favor." |
|
|
Oh, also at one point, one of them "contends" something, and the other "claims" something. Adjusted that so they are the same. ] 01:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For what is O'Reilly best known? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is he best known as a (political) "commentator" or as a "TV presenter" or something else? If you asked 1000 Americans what he BO'R does, what would most say (apart from "I don't know"!)? It would be convenient if it were something other than "commentator", as it would mean we could rename the article and therefore remove the disambiguation "hat" at the top of the page (the ''other'' Bill O'Reilly was a ''sports'' commentator, after he retired from playing). NB "(political commentator)" would also do the trick nicely. --] 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:He is best known as the host of the O'Reilly Factor, and that is stated in the first sentence in the article. He is a political commentator so I don't think we need to change anything in the article lead. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting any amendment to the Lead - I'm referring to the article title. --] 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I see no point in removing the disambiguation hat. It's interesting to know that there's another famous Bill O'Reilly. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Interesting opinion, thanks. Logically extending that, we'd make all pages for similarly named people into disambig pages. --] 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Maybe I'm missing your point, but don't we already do that in most cases? ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Not where there's a prime usage. --] 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Gotcha. There are four issues: (1) The hat dab—AFAIK, that's almost universal. (2) the ]. Also almost universal. (3) What ] redirects to: the dab page or this page. This is not at all universal. The question is whether this BOR is sufficiently more famous than the other for ] to redirect here. (4) Given that ] would be synonymous with the dab page, whether the dab page should redirect to it, or vice-versa. It seems that having ] redirect to the dab page makes a lot more sense. I plan on suggesting this on ]. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bill O’Reilly Celebrates Black History Month == |
|
|
|
|
|
Reports now surfacing the web from employees of Fox News say to celebrate black history month last year Mr. O’Reilly bought his entire staff Kentucky Fried Chicken, grape soda, and pork grinds for lunch. ] 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Keeping in mind ], that had ''better'' be backed up by a ] prior to inclusion. ] <sup><small>(]|])</small></sup> 17:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Inclusion? Why should this be included? --] 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If it becomes ], ], and ] (I haven't heard anything else about it) then the burden is on someone to show why it must be excluded. Remember that ]. Either way, it does not appear that this story "has legs" or has hopes of being reliably sourced (at least in the short term), so it's probably a moot point. /] 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
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)
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)
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)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
