Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 3
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
"Accusation of bias" section - MRC report piece very messy.
I've tried to clean up the paragraph in "Accusations of Bias" where Olbermann uses a MRC report to show that only 174 out of 600 of his worst persons were conservative, removing the POV/original research statements concerning what the editor opines to be "curious choices" etc. In the end, the paragraph itself is a problem because highlighting Olbermann's failure to disclose the 174-27 conservative/liberal ratio in the MRC report is itself a POV statement on the part of the editor. On the other hand, simply leaving Olbermann's claim concerning the report without any criticism at all (which, correctly me if I'm wrong is itself unsourced) is wrong since the report that Olbermann cites is in itself an attack on the alleged bias of his worst-person-in-the world segment. Since the report itself came first, in my opinon this paragraph should begin by listing the MRC report as an accusation of bias against Olbermann (including the 174-27 ratio), and only then giving Olbermann's arguement that the report somehow exonerates him (so long as you source it). In the end, using this format does weigh heavily against Olbermann since it seems to represent him as a liar without any counter-criticism, yet I don't see any fairer or more professional way to do it. Thoughts? Edders 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazi salute feud - wording POV
This part is clearly POV:
"Olbermann joked that he had been waving to a friend, and added that "Bill O‘Reilly has defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions," a reference in part to O'Reilly's repeated, incorrect assertion that Allied forces had massacred German troops at Malmedy for the purpose of justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq."
Where is it said that O'Reilley's incorrect assertions concerning Malmedy are meant to justify the abuse and (alleged) torture in Abu Ghraib? If Oblermann himself is saying that this is O'Reilley's aim that should be made clear. As it is the line appears POV and I'm removing everything from "for the purpose" onwards. Edders 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a link at the moment, but it is Olbermann saying O'Reilley was using Malmedy to 'excuse/explain' the recently reported violations by US troops. Might be awhile before I find a link though.;) Have to dig through the transcripts of his show. --Bobblehead 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Not nearly as long as I thought. Here's the link from [Media Matters]. It has the direct quote from Olbermann's June 1 show regarding O'Reilly referencing a US atrocity at Malmedy in response to a ruling in October that allowed more Abu Ghraib pictures, then another O'Reilly reference to the atrocity in response to news of the Haditha massacre. -Bobblehead 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay then. So long as it's clear who's saying what, I don't see any problem with putting it back in. Edders 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he was just waving his hand he was doing a salute, he was planely doing it, so i have included a picture to prove my point.--Crt101 05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[User:rcox1963] (Robert Cox, editor of Olbermann Watch). This entire section is wrong and misleading and written, generally, from Keith Olbermann's POV (and that of his fans). If you want to know the truth about this matter you can read my detailed exposition on the Nazi salute including that the stunt was pre-planned and that the allegations made by Olbermann with regard to O'Reilly's referencing Malmedy are false:
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/olbermann_defen.html
As you will see, O'Reilly was WRONG in what he said but that in the context of the two segments on The O'Reilly Factor (months apart but both with Wes Clark) it is clear that he MISSPOKE. There was no malicious intent by O'Reilly. The same cannot be said for Olbermann who not only took O'Reilly words out of context but then used his inaccurate claims to mock O'Reilly in a manner which trivialized the holocaust (at least as far as the ADL was concerned) not once but repeatedly including on national television with Jay Leno.
Not that I expect the truth to matter much at Wikipedia when it comes to Keith Olbermann but there you have it.
- Find a reliable source that counters the tone and wording of that section and the opposing view can be included. Unfortunately OlbermannWatch is not a reliable source. --Bobblehead 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what confusing Malmedy for Chegnogne for another does to change what O'Reilly was saying, anyway. He was using past atrocities to excuse or, at best, explain present or future ones. Whether or not one finds that line of reasoning biased, or even logically wrong, Olbermann made an issue of it and Bill O'Reilly giving one city name in place of the other doesn't modify the structure of his arugment. --Falsified
Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism
This section simply notes Olbermann's comments. Where is the controversy? If notable conservatives were really outraged by his reaction to Rumsfeld, there needs to be a link to one or two reliable sources indicating the controversy that allegedly ensued.Hal Raglan 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) conservatives
- Yup. Gotta agree with you here. While there might be a place for Olbermann's reaction on Rumsfeld's page, I'm not entirely sure it has a place here. I haven't heard of anyone saying Olbermann was out of bounds with his response.. --Bobblehead 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The source of the criticism used by the original editor was Newsbusters/media Research Center, which is the basically the right-wing version of media matters. Criticisms from Media Matters, FAIR etc. are regularly inserted into wikipedia articles simply based on the fact that they came from these organizations. Like Media Matters, the MRC/Newsbusters have occassionally been given air time on prime time news channels, more so than, say; little green footballs or daily kos. Furthermore, Newsbusters are part of MRC, and it was an MRC study Olbermann cited to defend himself against accusations of bias. If these two facts (Newsbusters/MRC's relative fame and previous involvement with Olbermann) don't constitute adding this criticism to his article then you'd have to apply the same standard to the God-knows-how-many articles on wikipedia quoting Media Matters criticisms. Oh, another possibility would be shortening it and merging it with the Nazi-salute controversy, due to the close proximity (within a month, I think) of the events, and changing the title of the Nazi-salute controversy to something reflecting the fact that the controversy was less who he attacked and more the fact that he was allegedly being fast-and-loose with accusations of fascism/nazism. This was why he was criticized by the ADL the first time, only to return to calling his opponents nazis and fascists and be criticized for virtually the same reason by the MRC/Newsbusters.Edders 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- But what, exactly, is the CONTROVERSY? Please note the section this comes under is called "Controversies". If the only source of complaint is Newsbusters, then I don't see how it can possibly be described as a controvery. And what is Newsbuster's complaint? That anyone would dare question what a member of the Bush administration says? Rumsfeld's remarks generated a real controversy (Olbermann is far from the only person to react negatively to Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings). The actual nature of Newsbuster's complaint should be noted in the article. Also, I'm not sure how many of Media Matters reports are designated on wikipedia as controversies, so your argument in that regard seems pretty weak to me.Hal Raglan 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to admit I don't spend a lot of time at Media Matters or the articles for their targets, but from what I've seen, Media Matters is generally used as a source only if there is a controversy. The link isn't to MM to create a controversy, but because they have documentation of the event. However, if you have some evidence of a non-controversy being inserted into an article with a link to MM, that'd be great.--Bobblehead 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hal Raglan: First, although this is the discussion page there's no reason to go on an unrelated tangent with ragards to what you call "Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings" - we're all just trying to make a better article article here, not debate whether this or that commentator's opinions are valid. The only reason I mention this is because there are so many discussion pages that have been filled by meaningless flaming just because of someone inadvertantly making their opinion known on a subject that provokes strong feelings (i.e. politics). Let's keep everything civil and to the point, okay? :)
Hal Raglan and Bobblehead: You're right, actually; with regards the issue of whether it's a controversy or not. The salute thing is definately a controversy, whilst criticism of Olbermann over what some commentators/groups believe to be a rather liberal use of the term "fascist" comes under criticisms. This is where Media Matters is used in the manner I indicated. Ironically, for an example of this you need only go to the Media Research Center wiki article, where Media Matters is listed as a critic of the MRC even though there is no widespread controversy. The problem we have here is that there is no Keith Olbermann "criticisms" section in the article. Normally this would be simple matter of creating a seperate one and putting my (and whoever originally inserted the "Comments about Donald...") contribution in there. Yet the two issues - the ADL criticism/controversy and the "comments about" criticism - essentially revolve around a similar issue: Keith Olbermann's use or alleged overuse/insinuation of "fascist" or "nazi" when criticizing others. Therefore I think the "Comments about" bit should come directly after the Nazi Salute controversy since the two are closely linked. How about Changing "controversies" to "Criticisms and Controversies"? It may as well be done now rather than later, since at some point in the future other contributors are going to wonder where to put sourced criticisms. Edders 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Criticism sections are inherently POV and by and large violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. It's unfortunate that many Wikipedia articles resort to these sections as they always degrade into a bitch session about the article's topic. If the criticism can not be mixed into the rest of the article, then it shouldn't be included. Basically, Cricism sections are the POV equivalent of a Trivia section (which is far too large in this article, BTW). --Bobblehead 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You've made a good point. One only has to glance at the Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly articles to see how criticism sections can go out of control, with endless lists of complaints mostly lacking notability of any kind. Edit wars naturally ensue, to the detriment of the articles. But in this case I think the suggestion made by Edders is the only way to incorporate certain material into the article. I think we should have a "Controversies" section, which would include the Nazi Salute and probably the email insult thing, and a "Criticisms" section, which is where everything else so far would fit. It will be up to us to monitor these sections and make sure they don't become filled with nonsense. Do others agree?Hal Raglan 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain how a criticism section would not violate WP:NPOV. By its very definition the section would concentrate all of the negative POV about the subject in a single part of the article and exclude the positive POV. --Bobblehead 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- You've made a good point. One only has to glance at the Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly articles to see how criticism sections can go out of control, with endless lists of complaints mostly lacking notability of any kind. Edit wars naturally ensue, to the detriment of the articles. But in this case I think the suggestion made by Edders is the only way to incorporate certain material into the article. I think we should have a "Controversies" section, which would include the Nazi Salute and probably the email insult thing, and a "Criticisms" section, which is where everything else so far would fit. It will be up to us to monitor these sections and make sure they don't become filled with nonsense. Do others agree?Hal Raglan 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm very confused. I admit I only started got back into wikipedia recently so I'm no expert even after trailing through the tutorials and guidelines. It was always my impression that there was some sort of unofficial agreement that any criticisms of organizations or people were given their very own section, since they can often grow pretty fast and are usually the most disputed. This seems to be the case for a variety of wiki articles, from the Media Research Center article, to some featured articles such as Galileo (listed as "Modern claims of scientific errors and misconduct", but identical in all other respects to a criticism section). Still, as you both note; criticism sections can get completely out of hand on the most controversial figures e.g. Bill O'Reilly. That said, I think we can agree that there should be a criticism section for notable criticisms that did not materialize into public controversies - a scientist criticizing another scientist's methods would undoubtedly be a worthy addition to an article. Still, who then would make a useful source of criticism for a public figure or a politician? Since such people are themselves public personalitities it stands to reason that they are making themselves open to criticism from less 'distinguished' sources. Edders 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, no, we can't agree that a criticism section is necessary for issues that do not rise to a 'controversy'. We can agree that criticisms have a place in the article, but they should be worked into the prose of the article as necessary, not in their own section. Criticisms of a scientists methods by another scientist is notable and warrants inclusion because the other scientists criticisms have probably been included in a reliable source and should be worked into the portion of the article where their methods are described. Please review WP:BLP. Criticism sections appear to violate the Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors as it gives disproportinate amount of space to critics. There's also a higher threshhold for inclusion of criticisms in articles for living persons and just because someone posts on a blog that Olbermann has a liberal bias or throws out the facist card too often and then criticizes others for doing it, doesn't mean it can be included. Unfortunately Olbermann Watch is not a Reliable source. There isn't anyone standing between the authors and what they put up on the blog and none of the authors are "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist". If the criticism is notable enough to make it on a reliable source, then it is of a level to make it into the controversy section. All in all, like trivia sections, criticism sections are signs of a poorly written article. --Bobblehead 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fully agree that the Olbermann Watch nonsense should be removed. Its simply a blog run by one individual with an obvious and disturbing hatred of Keith Olbermann. And I also see what you mean when you say that these sections, in and of themselves, can be considered to be in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, since all they tend to be is bulleted lists of negative details (often poorly sourced). A "Controversies" section, on the other hand, would be okay because it would contain important, fully cited, details regarding actual and undeniable controversies involving the subject. If thats your general view, Bobblehead, there are alot of articles on wikipedia that required extensive editing, not just this one.Hal Raglan 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay you make very good points, so let's break this down:
1: What does Olbermann Watch have to do with anything? I never mentioned them/it/whatever, nor did I cite them as a source in either the page itself or this discussion. Anyway, I agree Olbermann Watch is not a reliable source in case it comes up in the future. I assume you mixed up Olbermann Watch with Newsbusters.
2: So, the source we're referring to is the Newsbusters blog. The newsbusters blog is distinct from, say; Little Green Footballs, Daily Kos and other blogs written by private individuals or small groups because it operates under the auspices of a much larger organization: Media Research Center. For all intents and purposes I'm treating the Newsbusters blog as if it were the MRC itself that was the source. As to whether the MRC is a reliable source: It is a relatively small and not especially well known organization, however its' press releases and criticisms have occassionally been featured on mainstream media news. I would say it is not a reliable source on its own. However, (and this is the important part) Olbermann himself cited an MRC study on bias in the media as evidence of his neutrality. In other words, Olbermann has inadvertantly made MRC relevant to this article.
3: We are not just randomly inserting every criticism a right-wing blogger tosses at Olbermann. We are adding this particular information concerning use of the term fascist because A: The Criticism is from MRC, who thanks to Olbermann's own words are somewhat relevant to this article, and B: The criticism is particularly relevent to the existing Nazi Salute controversy, and took place within a month of the controversy. If Olbermann had said this several months later (even if he did it twenty times a night) and MRC criticized every one, I would not have argued to retain the criticism. However, with A + B combined, I still think the MRC/Newsbusters criticism is a worthwhile addition to the article.
4: In case we're agreed up to this point, now comes the issue of whether inserting/retaining the criticisms section unbalances the article. I do not believe that it does. The guidelines you cite advice that: we should "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Whilst there is a lot of stuff in this article concerning controversy, a significant amount of it is either benign or focusing on Olbermann's own criticims of others. For example; the feud with Bill O'Reilly section includes nearly as much criticism of O'Reilly as it does Olbermann, even though it is an Olbermann article (NB: I have no problem with this section, I'm just using it as an example). Thus I think the "Fascism..." section should be shrunk, but still retained. Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol, I took so long replying that the page was edited again! Let me read Hal's remarks now...and I'm not even going to TRY and edit the spelling mistakes I made Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, perhaps I should better phrase what I'm saying. I'm not disagreeing that properly sourced criticism of Keith Olbermann should not be included in this article, but I was misunderstanding the source.;) If you have a reliable source go crazy and mix it into the article. --Bobblehead 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'll take that as agreement for retaining the "comments about Donald..." section. I'm still going to try and shrink it a bit though. Thanks for a civil and reasoned debate where nobody got called a Nazi :). Edders 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've shortened it a bit and cleaned up the mischaracterization of Rumsfeld's comments. Should all adhere to NPOV now. Edders 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I updated this section a bit in an attempt to describe what Olbermann's comment was about. Previously, it listed a few of the more incendiary quotes with little to link them together or provide context. I think it's less important to try to find the most shocking quotes from the comment, and more important to find the quotes that are most representative of what he said (unless, of course, one of the quotes caused notable controversy, but I'm not aware that any did). But with that said, I agree with others that I have no clue why this is in the "controversies" section. I think that overall he was praised for his comment, although obviously many folks on the other side of the debate probably disagreed with it. But does that constitute controvery? I think it may be notable because the comment has recieved a lot of attention, there are countless copies on youtube, it's big in the blogosphere, I read somewhere that he got a lot of email about it (if I had sources for those I'd put them in), and in the following days there were a number of guests on his show that were also making waves by condemning Rumsfeld for the speech. Then again, it might be something that falls off the notability radar in a month or two, time shall tell. But I think it should be moved out of "controversies". As for the very existence of a controversies section, I support it, but it should contain notable controversies (with sources), it's not a message board for opponents of Olbermann to come write what they don't like about him. -Eisnel 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I liked hiim on ESPN/Fox/Lewinsky but is he trying to get fired? If he is fired we lose his homour too! :( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 September, 2006 (UTC).
- Don't think his comments about Rumsfeld and Bush are exactly Olbermann controversies, so just moved them to their own section. Which brings me to wonder why these are in this article and not in the Countdown article. The other issues have spilled outside Countdown, but I haven't heard/seen anything of this latest round of criticism of the Bush Administration spilling outside of the show (except maybe MRC and OW). --Bobblehead 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would support moving it to the Countdown article, since it's more relevant to that than his bio. Of course, I'm sure the line between the Countdown and Olbermann articles are blurred in many places. And this might fizzle in terms of notability in the future, but for the moment it seems to be creating just enough buzz to get above the radar, even if temporarily. -Eisnel 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
"One night stand"?
From "Comments about Rita Cosby": "Olbermann wrote to a former fan, turned one-night stand [1]"
Is this true? Jossip.com is a gossip site.
- Jossip doesn't seem to meet WP:RS requirements and is thus deletable from the article. At least, in my opinion. --Bobblehead 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...this is an odd one. Most of the sources for this claim are unreliable (various blogs, gossip sites et al) although there a few exceptions - apparantly it appeared in the New York Daily News, a New York Times article features an official Fox News spokesman making the same claim. Unfortunately I have to register to get in so this'll take a bit. If I havn't found anything by the end of the day just delete it, as it is a pretty serious (well, amusing but very damaging) allegation. Edders 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I found the NYTimes article [2] and it seems to back up everything here (although it doesn't mention anything about how the emails were published in the first place - for whatever reason, there's no mention of the 'one night stand' fan). Edders 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I went ahead and rewrote the sentence without mentioning the one night stand. If you're able to find a reliable source, feel free to add it. --Bobblehead 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds alright to me. Edders 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Olbermann Watch
Should we keep the Olbermann Watch paragraph? It doesn't appear to meet the WP:RS guideline and is more an advertisement for the website. A rewrite of the MRC paragraph should cover the same area covered by the Olbermann Watch paragraph (namely that the report was conducted, what it found, and an anecdote about Olbermann using it to show he isn't biased).--Bobblehead 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, go wild. The allegations about Olbermann's percieved bias are just repeated in later sections anyway, so we're not losing anything. Edders 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Completely agree. Olbermann Watch is simply an obscure blog and doesn't come close to meeting the noted guidelines.Hal Raglan 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol, the dreaded 'Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism' section has been rewritten and extended again...Edders 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uh oh, sorry... I posted my reasoning for that rewrite above. I chose to be bold, but if the community of editors disagrees with what I changed, I expect them to revise it. -Eisnel 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no, don't worry about it. It was just funny because we'd just reached a consensus on it. I don't have a particular problem with the wording of it, it's just the length. if you could find a way to shorten it a bit that would be great. Edders 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
HELP!!! too wiiiiddde
The appearance of this TALKPAGE is tooooo wiiideee on my browers. Can someone fix it? 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) .
- Archived the old stuff. There was a rather lengthy block quote that was messing up the formatting. --Bobblehead 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, it fits now :)
Harry Reid quotes Olbermann
I noticed it a but late, but does anyone else think Reid repeating Olbermann's opnion is worthy of adding to the Comments on Donald Rumsfeld/fascism section? It's a pretty big deal that a Senator would go so far as to quote a mere comedian (or satirist/whatever).
As a side note, I've removed the extra criticism section. The reason we kept the Rumsfeld/facism bit was because it was related to the genuine Nazi salute controversy. If we list EVERY single time Olbermann attacks someone as some unsavoury figure from history; this article would simply explode. Plus it's written in a slightly POV manner; be careful when stating your own interpretation of quotations. Edders 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- A sentence, with cite, referring to the Reid quote wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't go overboard though. It's notable, but not that notable.--Bobblehead 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Notable for Olbermann, anyway :). Edders 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's worth mentioning that Reid quoted it on the Senate floor. Even if it's a minor thing, it helps us establish whether this comment has any sort of lasting notability or not (blast my inability to see the future!). -Eisnel 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"We have not forgotten, Mr. President."
Where is Olbermann's impactful commentary on the Bush administration given on September 11th, 2006? The Nation said he "without a doubt the best news anchor on television today" after that, comparing him to Edward R. Murrow. It has been making its way around the Internet over the past few days and it certainly belongs on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.96.31 (talk • contribs) .
- Just added a sentence, don't think it needs much more. Does that fit your needs? Also, don't forget to sign your additions to the talk page by putting ~~~~ at the end. --Bobblehead 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is disturbing that one would support his filth-ridden commentary politicizing the deaths of 3,000 people. Someone must remind Keith two things, one he is not Edward R. Murrow, no matter how much he tries to be. Secondly, believe it or not, President Bush is not to blame for EVERYTHING under the sun. Olbermann went as far as to suggest that republicans and presumably the President had something to do w/the 9/11 miniseries because it apparently suggested Clinton didn't do enough. Nobody did enough...face it Keith. Among other things, this fraud suggested "the terrorists are still winning" and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of "irrevelent wars" He gets more sickining by the day--Bairdso66 22:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's amusing to think that it's only "politicizing" and "sickening" when a liberal makes reference to 9/11 (as the Bush administration has done ever since.) Also, please try to keep conversation on the discussion board relevent to the editing of the article, anything more is nonconducive to Wikipedia's mission. Find a conservative discussion board, perhaps. 130.49.17.71 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have just seen this comment on the internat and I am rather confused right now. It would be nice if there was some information on the article page about what he said, contradictions to other statements (for example I have seen in another 9/11 documentary an assistant of Clinton saying Clinton did not react to the warnings he gave him about Bin Laden etc.) and factual correctness on the whole. I am German which is why my language may not be proper. Greetings 85.212.22.34 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Criticism
It sounds like you guys know what you are doing, but I can't help but notice that there isn't a specific "criticism" heading. I have seen this heading in articles about much less controversial individuals than Mr. Olbermann. Just an outsider thought.
Zach [email protected]
- A criticism section has purposefully been left out. If you take a look at the criticism sections in other articles you'll notice that they generally turn into one big bitch section and generally violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. However, having said that, criticisms of Olbermann are perfectly acceptable as long as they are properly sourced, just include them in with the rest of the article as appropriate. --Bobblehead 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
End of 'Return to Reporting' Section
I think the whole beginning of the last paragraph makes no sense at all. It seems as if someone cut something out after the citation but didn't fix the change. I would change it myself but I don't know much about the incident to put anything there. I think someone that knows more about it than I do should go in and fix that whole last paragraph, it's ugly. SkepticMuhs 9:34 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Probably my horrible writing style at work.;) Rewriting is always good.--Bobblehead 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
KO Trivia -- Raised UU
Hi Bobblehead, Well, a lot of fans were very interested to learn this during PopeWatch. The fact might be good to leave in the article considering that there are anti-KO anti-Semites calling him a "dum" Jew on the Internet.[3] It doesn't take up much room. I can also dig up a transcript for a reference if you give me a little while. Would you consider putting it back in? CuteGargoyle 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to it being added back in once the source is found. If you do find the source, mixing it into the Early life and career portion would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Chris Wallace Criticism: Notable or Not?
Discuss. I'm leaning towards yes, and I suppose time will tell since we haven't yet seen the full extent of the fallout. But I think it's safe to say that referring to the guy as a "monkey" pretending to be a journalist is going to make notability. Hiddekel 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's notable in the context of his increasing Anti-Bush stridency on the air recently, via his new so-called "Special Comments" segment. That probably deserves a paragraph or two in the "Controversies" section. --Aaron 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, his nightly tirades are amusing in how false they are untill he starts in w/the personal attacks. He also stated in his clinton/wallace interview comments that the current admin's policies can do more harm than al Qaida. There seems to be a movement to stop any honest documentation on his clear anger-filled bias--Bairdso66 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think the question falls under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, particularly: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I did a Google News search for olbermann wallace and got ten hits (a search including monkey only gets six hits), including commentaries from not terribly reliable sources (mostly blogs) - perhaps the most reliable of which is an MTV News article about the Wallace/Clinton interview that mentions Olbermann's rant just once. I'd say that the Wallace/monkey rant isn't (yet) very significant. Schi 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as a general comment, there seems to be a lot of concern on this page (and about the actual wiki) that Olbermann's biases aren't being properly documented and pointed out. I don't see the usefulness or necessity of this - it's pretty clear that he does have a bias, he does take sides, and he is truly anti-Bush. Big whoop. Not notable. It would be notable, and the duty of media watchers and chroniclers, if he insisted that he was a middle-of-the-road, fair-and-balanced type of journalist, while mimicking partisan points of view. But that isn't the case and never has been. Falsified
Just as an update, a Google News search for "Wallace Olbermann monkey" now gives 12 hits, some of which comes from notable, if not unbiased, news sources. Given the (low) level of notability of most of the other topics in the Controversies section, I think this now rates noteworthiness without creating undue weight, but that's just IMHO. I'll leave it to others to jump the tank and include this topic if they so choose. Hiddekel 16:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC) It is notable, given the fact that Chris Wallace is of Jewish ancestry and the word 'monkey' is the slur that arabs use to describe Jews and Zionists.
NY Post page six
The blog addition was pretty clear cut as not being acceptable to include, but I'm not sure on the NY Post page six link. I'm not overly familiar with page six other than that it's a gossip column and that the previous editor/reporter for it got canned for getting paid to include/not include articles about people. Does anyone have thoughts on it being reliable? --Bobblehead 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, gossip columns blurbs aren't reliable at all. However, in this case, it appears to only be serving as a secondary source about that other woman's blog, which quite obviously does exist, so I'd say it's all right. I think the real question is, do we want to subject the average reader to thoughts of Olbermann's sex life? Blech... ---Aaron 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Accusation of bias section
Just a note about me deleting the section on accusation of bias. Since the bias accusation is based solely on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and not necessarily about Keith Olbermann himself (except in his role as host of the show) I moved the entire section to a nearly identical section on Countdown's article quite awhile ago. The other subsections in Criticism detail actions that took place outside of the show, or have elements that are outside of the show. --Bobblehead 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" in the "Political positions" section?
Well? The feud is clearly not based entirely on differing political positions of the two men. Warren -talk- 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was originally its own section and was merged into the "Political positions" section for lack of a better place. Maybe including it as a subsection of "Return to MSNBC" would be more appropriate? Switzpaw (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- To respond in a timely fashion (rather than waiting until an edit that was recommended on a talk page three days earlier is actually put in place, and then deleting it), I agree with Warren on this one. The feud with O'Reilly section was separate at one time and still should be, even though there is a political dimension to it. Their feud isn't really a "political position". It is clearly a big enough part of Olbermann's life to warrant its own section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've moved it under the "Return to MSNBC" section, since the feud is pretty much entirely confined to his television career. Warren -talk- 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Request For Comment: Introduction
As with any article of this nature, a dispute has arisen regarding the phrasing of the introduction. The original introduction:
After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and rightward leaning politics in general.
. Two editors have insisted on the following change:
After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and for his pointed criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and of rightward leaning politics in general.
The proposed change (second example) violates several Wikipedia policies. The biggest problem is that it is synthesis of thought, in that it specifically states that "Olbermann gained notoriety for his feud with Bill O'Reilly". This is most certainly opinion at best -- said editors have insisted that this is appropriate due to a sampling of google hits, however it is still original research, as there is no definitive claim made in the source material (nor can there be). Likewise, the proposed change violates the neutral point of view by giving those few examples undue weight as "the" reason Olbermann has established a niche. Though they may be contributing factors, we must be very careful not to establish or imply a causal relationship. Thus, the original wording (which lists examples, but does not make definitive claims) is appropriate. At first glance it may feel like splitting hairs, but the subtle change has a serious impact on the meaning of the phrase (especially in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I came here in response to the RfC. It seems to me that the differences between the versions are not matters to become too upset about, but I do think that Blaxthos has a point. Now I have to say that, on first reading, I thought the second version was better, in that it is more concise, but on closer reading, I think that the logic of attributing notoriety more broadly is, in a strictly logical sense, correct. As for the discussion above about sources, let's just say, for discussion's sake, that in fact the notoriety does just come from the feud etc. -- if that's the case, then that understanding is still not in any way diminished by using the first version. I don't see how anything (other than a very small amount of conciseness) is lost by using the first version, whereas there is a (small) loss of logic using the second. That said, I want to add that where the second version uses the phrase "and of rightward leaning politics" near the end, that is better than "and rightward leaning politics." Also, although it's not part of the question, what really sticks out to me in the lead is "cloud of controversy" in the second paragraph. I think it would be much better to just say "controversy." My suggestions, I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a fairly limited amount of time to contribute to this discussion due to both the range of other things I want to work on in the encyclopedia, as well as off-Wiki activities ... but I'd just like to make a short statement of support for the wording that Blaxthos feels is the best answer. Not all of Olbermann's increased fame and notoriety comes from attacking right-leaning politicians. In addition to having gained attention for his camapaign against Wal-mart last year, as well as criticism of Hillary Clinton, he has also been criticized for how he conducts himself on football broadcasts. I believe that if we keep the language free of observations as to political leanings, and simply present a few examples of targets of his criticism, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. WP:NPOV encourages us to do that exactly that: "Let the facts speak for themselves ... Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think//". Warren -talk- 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell with a nicely worded argument. I'd have given it an A minus were I still teaching. Not an A plus however.
- If it is "synthesis of thought", "original research", and a "non-neutral point of view" to assume that Olbermann's now not-so-recent "notoreity" ("fame" would actually be a more neutral word) has come from his attacks on the political right then it is also "original research" et. al. to assume that this fame has been gained by attacking "prominent politicians and public figures" in general. Maybe it is the result of a belated public recognition of his sportscasting prowess, or of his impressive baseball card collection, or of his staunch defense of Fred "Bonehead" Merkle. Maybe he actually hasn't become more famous over the last five or so years. Even using Google, fame isn't that easy to quantify.
- The sources, however, from the most to the least reliable, assume that Olbermann has become more famous, and that this rise in fame has come from his attacks on folks such as O'Reilly, the Bush administration, John McCain, and other rightward leaning people and institutions. As the formidable Switzpaw has invited Blaxthos to do: Find reliable sources that link Olby's rising fame to his criticism of prominent politicians and public figures in general rather than just rightward leaning ones. By the way, Blaxthos is correct in saying that this tempest in a teapot has a larger significance and I will eventually explain what that is on Blax's talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- After coming here in response to the RfC, I'm a little disappointed to see that. I think that attributing notoriety to criticisms of prominent people in general is not nearly as much a synthesis as is attributing it to criticisms of specific people, and I said above that, regardless of sources, the slightly longer version in no way negates the conclusions that might be drawn from those sources. I don't want to get in the middle of personal arguments among other editors, but an RfC should not be used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- (A quick clarification, in case I was unclear. I meant my comment immediately above to be a response to the comment directly before it, not to the RfC as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
- Badmintonhist, I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting and the snarky comments -- I went out of my way to present the case neutrally and avoided calling out other editors by name at all. Snark doesn't move us forward, and certainly doesn't advance your viewpoint. It's well to note that other editors have disagreed with the proposal as well, both in this RFC and above. I also note some contributions that could be characterized as votestacking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Both versions of the lead would be "original research", "synthesis of thought", and even "non-neutral point of view" if they were merely the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. However, they are not the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. They are based on reliable sources which clearly say that Olbermann has gained notoreity (beyond what he had before) because of his attacks on folks such as Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush and his administration, John McCain, and others to his political right. Though pretty much any fair-minded Wiki editor would concur with this, one could claim that the sources themselves were making non-objective assumptions. I therefore propose a construction something like this:
- According to the Washington Post and Salon.com among other sources, Olbermann has carved out a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoreity for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and for his criticisms of the George W. Bush presidency and John McCain in particular, and of rightward leaning politics in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Badmintonhist, do you have specific links to citations that back up your verbage above? Sorry if I missed them. This might help with reliably sourced portion vs original research aurgument --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Elevating any sources for outright mention in the lead section gives them undue weight, and you still fail to recognize your synthesis of thought created by saying "gaining notoreity[sic] for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly" (the whole point of this RFC). You may believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so, and stating it as concrete fact is contrary to Wikipedia's core policies. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the careless misspelling of notoriety. As for more substantive matters, there is nothing in WP:LEADCITE or WP:UNDUE that says that specific sources should not be cited by name in the lead. On the contrary, LEADCITE suggests that this should be done when appropriate. One might consult Warren for an opinion on this point. As for the objection about the assumed causal relationship between Olbermann's "pointed criticisms" of Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc. (why dwell just on O'Reilly?) and his rising fame, the same objection would also obtain in assuming a causal relationship between his "pointed criticisms" of politicians and public figures in general and his rising fame (as I have previously pointed out). My proposed modification above, however, does not present this causal relationship as an absolute fact. Rather, it presents as a fact that highly respectable sources (The New York Times could also be added) have assumed it to be true. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The content of the lead needs to reflect the content of the article. That's the main thing a lead section sets out to do. (Well, that, and making the rest of the article sound like it could be an interesting read!) Statements surely need to be sourced, no matter where they appear, but there should never be things in the lead that aren't properly described elsewhere.
- A good rule of thumb, I think, is to be extremely specific when stating where critical and potentially controversial assertions come from. For example, instead of saying, "(Subject) has become notorious for engaging in (Activity)", we would write something like, "(SubjectExpert) has described the show as being notorious for engaging in (Activity)". In this fashion, we identify the source of the idea that the show has gained notoriety. When I was dealing with this on Top Gear (2002 TV series) for example, I found a TV critic and an environmental activist group (both of which have Wikipedia articles of their own) to provide a balance of positive and negative commentary about that show. I think it reads very nicely, if I may say so. Maybe that's the sort of formulation we need to follow here as well... Warren -talk- 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- One, that assumes that "(Subject)" did become famous for "(Activity)" -- a tenuous assertion at best, in this case. Two, I stand by my assertion that cherry picking sources to use in the lead absolutely gives them undue weight. Statements in the lead must be supported by the article content & references, but don't have to be sourced in the lead itself; selecting particular viewpoints to include in the lead (especially on matters of opinion) elevates them beyond due weight. I fail to see how any of the proposals thus far are more compliant with policies and guidelines than the one originally in place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- But see, this is why my proposed approach tends to work -- instead of trying to decide whether what some random person's opinion is, you have to find high-quality, credible, reliable sources. With this article, we want to find professional television critics, especially those that cover the field of American news and commentary shows. This is precisely the same as looking to Roger Ebert when in need of an expert film critic; someone like Sydney Pokorny for GLBT media criticism; William Grimes (of the NY Times) for book reviews; and so forth. The Countdown with Keith Olbermann article has a paragraph with criticism of the show from Howard Rosenberg, who is a veteran TV critic. That's the sort of thing that builds a good encyclopedia. You don't have to (nor would you be expected to) agree with what the critics say; the fact that they're reputable career critics is good enough to meet all of Wikipedia's content policies.
- As for sourcing in the lead, it absolutely is required if any of the statements made are contentious. Warren -talk- 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Why the push to make contentious statements in the lead at all? There is no requirement to speculate on why he's famous, and the original wording avoids these problems entirely. Not to mention the (forgotten?) problem with due weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, Blax, at this point I think you're trying to be difficult. The proposed construction is about as contentious as saying that some historians believe that Charles Lindbergh became more famous as a result of crossing the Atlantic in a plane. There isn't a question of undue weight because all the sources (except the Wikipedia editor Blaxthos) say the same thing. The "original wording" (if its the one I think you mean) also makes an assumption about the cause of Olbermann's rising notoriety. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Warren's suggestion is fine with me so long as the increase in fame (notoriety and notorious were once often used pejoratively) is linked to what the reliable sources say it is linked to: biting criticisms of targets to Olbermann's political right. If one editor thinks that the sources are being cherry picked the I gotta tell him that the cherry picking has never been easier because all of the sources, left, right, and center, reliable and dubious, basically say the same thing: Olbermann became better known and his show more widely viewed as he attacked the targets mentioned in my edit. Just where are this editor's non-cherry picked sources? This editor also seems oblivious to a reality that I have pointed out on multiple occasions now, that his objection to the subjectivity of the assumptions made by those sources also applies to his own preferred construction. Strike that, actually. His objection now applies more strongly to his own construction. That's because Warren's construction and my construction openly state that our sources are making the assumption, not some Wikipedia editor on his (her) own. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let me step back in here, very cautiously, with two points. First, my understanding of Warren's suggestion is that it would attribute the statement to credible authorities (a la Roger Ebert). Therefore, rather than referring to the Post and Salon (particularly as links to their pages here), might it be better to leave them out of the sentence, and instead, put inline, numbered references to specific articles from such sources at the end of the sentence, citing them as sources of the statement about the cause of notoriety/fame? My second point is to suggest another way of constructing it, that might, perhaps, be a useful way to reconcile the views here: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety (fame?) for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.ref/ref He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain." That treats O'Reilly et al. as important examples, while attributing notoriety in a way that acknowledges Badmintonhist's views about the specific role of criticisms of the right, while also acknowledging Blaxthos' view that it might not entirely be due to that. Just some suggestions, just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- That seems pretty reasonable to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Let me step back in here, very cautiously, with two points. First, my understanding of Warren's suggestion is that it would attribute the statement to credible authorities (a la Roger Ebert). Therefore, rather than referring to the Post and Salon (particularly as links to their pages here), might it be better to leave them out of the sentence, and instead, put inline, numbered references to specific articles from such sources at the end of the sentence, citing them as sources of the statement about the cause of notoriety/fame? My second point is to suggest another way of constructing it, that might, perhaps, be a useful way to reconcile the views here: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety (fame?) for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.ref/ref He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain." That treats O'Reilly et al. as important examples, while attributing notoriety in a way that acknowledges Badmintonhist's views about the specific role of criticisms of the right, while also acknowledging Blaxthos' view that it might not entirely be due to that. Just some suggestions, just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Warren's suggestion is fine with me so long as the increase in fame (notoriety and notorious were once often used pejoratively) is linked to what the reliable sources say it is linked to: biting criticisms of targets to Olbermann's political right. If one editor thinks that the sources are being cherry picked the I gotta tell him that the cherry picking has never been easier because all of the sources, left, right, and center, reliable and dubious, basically say the same thing: Olbermann became better known and his show more widely viewed as he attacked the targets mentioned in my edit. Just where are this editor's non-cherry picked sources? This editor also seems oblivious to a reality that I have pointed out on multiple occasions now, that his objection to the subjectivity of the assumptions made by those sources also applies to his own preferred construction. Strike that, actually. His objection now applies more strongly to his own construction. That's because Warren's construction and my construction openly state that our sources are making the assumption, not some Wikipedia editor on his (her) own. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I generally prefer that we identify the reliable sources by name, right in the main article text. That way the article doesn'r read like we're trying to present "our" point of view -- this is still a concern even if we provide sources that back up the assertions. The main downside to this approach is that it weighs down the point being made with a bunch of extra words. Some people disagree with this approach, too -- the Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words essay explains the counter-argument pretty nicely, IMO. Warren -talk- 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposals
Per Typtofish's proposed wording, and Warren's reference concerns, I propose the following:
Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.[REFERENCE 1]. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,[REFERENCE 2] and criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain.[REFERENCE 3]"
There are no weasel words, no synthesis of thought or conclusions, and still references specific examples. Of course, the [REFERENCE]s will need to be supplied where noted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think that Blaxthos' version here is an improvement over mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds good. NcSchu(Talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- This construction isn't exactly my cup of cocoa (rather timid and stilted sounding) but in the interest of compromise and comity I'll accept it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent -- progress is a wonderful thing. :) On to citations... does anyone have suggestions of secondary sources to be used for the [REFERENCE]s above? I added numbers to make discussion easier. We could add another reference after the word administration if [REFERENCE 3] doesn't cover both Bush and McCain criticisms. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The new proposal doesn't address a single thing I said. Whatever... Warren -talk- 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
True, it certainly doesn't address Warren's main point which is that the reliable source(es) should be directly credited for whatever assumptions are being made. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a proposed construction:
- Observers such as [SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO TWO] have credited Olbermannn with carving a niche in cable news commentary by directing his fire principally on rightward leaning politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and pointedly criticized the George W. Bush Presidency, and the 2008 Presidential Candidacy of Senator John McCain.
One could stick in "gained notoriety" somewhere but I don't think it's necessary. Establishing a "niche in cable news commentary" suggests that one's fame is probably growing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to take another tentative stab at trying to reconcile the ideas raised here. First, I want to say -- to all! -- that it looks to me like the various possible versions are getting closer and closer together, and that the remaining differences really, truly, are, to an outside visitor, quite small, and all involved editors ought to feel pleased with how this discussion is progressing. As to the most recent points brought up by Warren and Badmintonhist, it strikes me that it may be putting the mention of observers in the wrong place, to attribute the carving of a niche to them. In other words, it is really self-evident that Olbermann has a niche, and no one would argue that he does not have any niche, and therefore it may make better sense to locate the observers closer to where the political right is mentioned. Also, I do appreciate Warren's concern that his suggestions may have been given too little weight, but I also note that he said that there are what he considers to be valid arguments for using the other construction. It seems to me that, while it is strictly true that the use of numbered references does not say, literally, that it is observers rather than WP that have made this interpretation, it is also true that readers generally understand a cited reference at the end of the sentence to mean that the interpretations in that sentence arise from the cited reference, and therefore are not OR or synthesis by editors. (In my opinion, and this is incredibly subjective, it's better to name the observers mainly when they are actually being quoted verbatim.) That said, let me suggest this hybrid version, and let's see where we can go from there:
Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining prominence for his pointed criticism of major politicians and public figures, directed particularly at the political right.[REFERENCE 1, maybe more] He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,[REFERENCE 2] and strongly criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain's 2008 Presidential candidacy.[REFERENCE 3; refs 2 and 3 might not be needed if 2 or more are cited at position 1]
- I'm okay with either of the versions Tryptofish has now proposed, as they avoid problems with undue weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this doesn't address what I said. While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections. Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to [blank], blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that [blank] actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. My reading of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, where it uses the example of the baseball player and advocates a version that states facts, such as the years when the baseball player had certain statistics, is that it actually is in agreement with what we have here: it says that Olbermann has criticized certain kinds of people, then gives specific factual examples that substantiate that statement. I also continue to believe that the presence of citations at the end of the sentence is understood by readers to mean that the sentence is derived from information in those references, not simply created by editors, and therefore is not an assertion of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- OR, how about changing the first sentence to something in the format of: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary; according to (name of commentator) at (name of source, such as the Washington Post), "quotation."(ref)"? The quotation would have to be interesting enough to be in the lead, not be so idiosyncratic as to go against undue weight concerns, and capture all of what was in the previous version of the sentence: his criticisms, his particular criticism of the right, and the causal relationship between these criticisms and his niche. But, really, absent a good quote like that, I think that numbered references would be just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to [blank], blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that [blank] actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this doesn't address what I said. While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections. Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact [Keith Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979] it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one [ex: The Republican party is clearly morally superior to the Democratic party] the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Wikipedia is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu(Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu. Let's get the citations in place and call this one done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's been quiet here for a few days, which I hope is a good sign. As an editor who was not originally a party to the debates preceding the RfC, I'm going to be bold and make edits to the lead in accordance with what I understand of this talk. I'm going to leave it to others to provide the references. Please understand that I'm attempting to reflect the talk here and there is nothing etched-in-stone about my edit, so please no one feel unhappy if you would prefer to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu. Let's get the citations in place and call this one done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Wikipedia is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu(Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact [Keith Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979] it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one [ex: The Republican party is clearly morally superior to the Democratic party] the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Salary
NYTimes say's its 4 mil. a year
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- After the 2008 Election, NBC Uni and Keith Olbermann has been agreed to have a new-contract which his salary is 30,000,000 US$ in over 4 years (that makes 7.5 million per year). Thus, the info which mentioned at the box is correct. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
Saving the trivia section as historical. Though it was (properly) removed at least some of it should be integrated into the article (prose please).
//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's why I, the very-first creator of Mr.Olbermann's Korean language wikipage, cited these figures under the name of 'Other major broadcasting appearances'(그 외 주요 방송출연 경력, in Korean), not as 'trivia'. You may find the solution from it(I hope, personally). Cheers. Thanks. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Cornell
The academic organisation of Cornell and the way it issues degrees is outside the scope of this article |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Bachelor of Arts?The article erroneously states that he received a Bachelor of Arts at Cornell in Communications. Cornell offers only a Bachelor of Science in Communications through the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as the Ag School. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the second largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third largest college of its kind in the United States. This is where Mr. Olbermann recieved his degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilly77c (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have already changed this according to the refs. Thank you. --Ali'i 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
CornellSince it's widely accepted that Olbermann went to Cornell, we'll need a reliable source saying he went somewhere else. It seems like there must have been a column or meme somewhere spurring IPs and SPAs into action, so this should serve as a reminder wikipedia is based on verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Check out the article for Statutory college. This school's web address ends in "cornell.edu" and in order to apply, you apply to Cornell. It looks like this is a component college of Cornell, just as any other University is composed of colleges. Does this statutory college issue degrees on its own or do the degrees come from Cornell? Henrymrx (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
We have 2 reliable sources pertaining to Olbermann's education. 1) http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/6.4.98/convocation.html wherein Cornell University newspaper regards him as "Cornell alumnus". And 2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/ which is a bio listed on the website of a major news network. We don't really have any more specific information from reliabe WP:RS and verifiable WP:V sources (blogosphere is not widely regarded as reliable). We should probably just list it as "Cornell University" and not attempt to be any more specific than that unless we find a valid, reliable source. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC) I just read Ann's story. It would appear she's set herself up for a hefty lawsuit if what she has written is not true. I think it is misleading to not state the actual college he received his degree from. CALS' acceptance criteria is less stringent than the Cornell University that everyone thinks about when you say, "Cornell University." To allow the two to be confused is, well, misleading.Traumatic (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The correct name of the college he attended is New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University.http://www.cornell.edu/trustees/cornell_charter.pdf It may be run by Cornell University, but it is part of SUNY not Cornell. At least someone from the school of hotel administration could claim that it is owned by the same organization, but the Ag school is owned by the state. Yes, it is a very good Ag school, but so is Iowa State and neither is Cornell University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeanOnSunday (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC) InconsistencyIn the bio box it says that Olbermann has a B.S. degree, but in the body it says he has a Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.149 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Education: B.S. Communication Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Education section is incorrect.Keith Olbermann received a B.S. in Communications from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The article mentions the Ivy League Cornell University. Mr. Olbermann did not attend that university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Windy City, you are in violation of the three revert rule. Please hash this out on the discussion page and avoid an edit war. Are you disputing that the Communication Department is in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? If not, this accurate distinction is certainly notable given today's dust up. What justification do you have for withholding accurate information from the reader?Tommylotto (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Bobblehead and WindyCity, please try to build consensus on the discussion page and stop reflexively reverting accurate properly sourced material provided by numerous editors. Thank you. If you believe that the fact that the subject of the article attended and received his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication should not be included, please explain on the discussion page why the asserted fact is inaccurate, not properly source or otherwise should not be included in the article. Thank you.Tommylotto (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann's Cornell DegreeDegree picture Keith Olbermann held up his framed degree on tonight's Countdown and it clearly says Cornell University at the top and that is clearly his name. Now unless someone is going to seriously dispute that the degree is fake I think we can consider discussion of whether or not Olbermann really went to Cornell University over. You can see the full video here. Looks like User:Blaxthos beat me to the punch -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, we could always just add a new section called "Keith Olbermann degree controversy" and have it all out in the open. --Russcote (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So wait, because you, Gudeldar, find some subjective fault with or ascribe a personally contrived motive, (one many people, myself included, would vehemently dispute) to one commentator's reasons for making a wholly accurate and truthful statement regarding another commentator's education, somehow that makes it bothersome to the point that the information should be excluded from an online encyclopedia? Wow.--Russcote (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If you read Ms. Coulter's article, the whole point was to show the demonstrable hypocrisy and insecurity exhibited by a commentator who has made disparaging remarks about other people's educations while simultaneously falsely aggrandizing his own. On the 'missing the point' note, I apologize for not being more direct in explaining that my suggestion above was made tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the point that there is simply no justifiable reason for excluding truthful and accurate information from this or any other page. This discussion shouldn't be a "controversy", any more than Olbermann's education and Ann Coulter's accurate description thereof is a "controversy". These types of blatant political attempts to withhold accurate and truthful information from the site are precisely what gives Wikipedia a bad name. --Russcote (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Or, some anonymous editor can protect the page because he feels Keith Olbermann is worthy of full protection from legitimate disputes regarding his education. Stay objective Wikipedia! --Russcote (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
There is clearly interest in the specific college at Cornell that he attended, as is evidenced by Coulter's story and all the activity on this article and discussion page. Given this interest, I simply do not see any justification for excluding a mere six words of accurate properly sourced material. This does not mean that someone need buy into Coulter's attempt to malign the students of that college. Others will read the same information and admire the democratic nature of a Land Grant school education. It is all in the eye of the beholder. This accurate information is unbiased and neutral and allows the reader to reach his own conclusions. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to be reasonable, I would propose that the short version Cornell University be used in the Bio Box and the full designation Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences be used in the actual text of the article. Both references are accurate and together provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. What say you? Tommylotto (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is from the Cornell Website. http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm "Cornell University is both a private endowed university and the federal land-grant institution of New York State. Each of the fourteen colleges and schools listed below defines its own academic programs; admits its own students; provides a faculty, and advising and support for its students; and confers degrees on its own students, although all degrees are attributed to Cornell University. Special transcollege faculty units (see "The Faculty of Computing and Information Science" below) draw on faculty members from throughout the university to serve designated needs and accomplish specific missions." Olbermann's degree is from the federal land-grant institution of New York State but is "attributed to Cornell University". Perhaps a solution to this is to just say that somewhere later in the article? Or say Cornell University and the reference links to federal land-grant institution of New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
|
College Degree
Already discussed and debunked. Closing. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As Ann Coulter recently pointed out, isn't it worth mentioning that Keith Olbermann received a BS in Communications from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, not the School of Art and Sciences that he would lead everybody to believe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.221.234 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
Why does it say Cornell when it should say CORNELL AG SCHOOL
Closed / debunked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Can we get this fixed? He has been caught. Lets get this changed to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnram6662 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Inaccurate Info about CollegeOlberman did not attend Cornell University, he attended the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences a separate contract/salutatory school with far different admission and graduation requirements. He readily admitted this in yet another of his infamous feuds. This time with Ann Coulter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleEastman (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
|
WIKI IN OLBERMANN TANK-CORNELL AG
Trolling collapsed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
wikipedia proves itself to be no better than any other rag of propaganda when it refuses to correct inaccurate "facts" on the pages of people it favors like keith olbermann... kim jung il needs one of the worlds largest standing armies to get such favorable "press", but if you are liberal, stupid and still hate george w. bush, the wiki-ganda is free and easy... olbermann did not attend and graduate from Cornell University...he attended and graduated from The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University NO NEED TO WONDER ABOUT SOURCES... furher olbermann admits it on air... see official msnbc transcript of march 5, 2009 episode here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29549123/ ...he says: "... Yes, close Ann. Our alma mater supplied these interesting statistics this afternoon. The arts college acceptance rate is now one in five applicants. The Ag college acceptance rate is now one in five applicants. Anne also missed the fact that Ag students could, as I did, and as my successors can still, take just as many classes as she did in that arts college. I took nearly half of mine there. Except, in our time, I paid about 800 bucks a semester for that privilege, while she would have paid closer to 10,000. " so he did attend and graduate from The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (abbreviated to CALS or Ag School) NOT the private Ivy League Cornell University... he went to a Public school AT Cornell University and took some classes AT cornell University...apparently to SAVE MONEY... STATUS: VERIFIED BY ADMISSION...olbermann went to The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (abbreviated to CALS or Ag School) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOOBOBTOO (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
|
- I suggest at this point we should adopt a policy aimed at reducing circular discussion:
- Remove talk page comments with the singular goal of furthering Coulter's statement.
- Reply to the poster directly on his talk page, referencing:
- the Cornell University system;
- Wikipedia practice of referencing the University (not the individual college);
- the extensive previous discussion and consensus on this topic (contained above).
- //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest at this point we should adopt a policy aimed at reducing circular discussion:
- Support treating further attempts to reopen this absurdity as talk page disruption deletable on sight. In my view WP:NOTE is the controlling policy in this attempt to include trivia in this article.
Enough. This is beyond resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We don't need to go down that road at all. The basic policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability. The question here is "where did Olbermann get his degree?" The only answer which can be supported by reliable sources is "Cornell". Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to provide reliable sources to support their claim. Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
|
RfC: Cornell University wikilink
Article is correct and consistent with other Wikipedia articles in its present form. Raul654 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The original research protest is interesting. But the above quotes make it clear that he went to Cornell University's ag. college, and graduated. Again, the RFC is about which wikilink to use for the text "Cornell University." Ann arbor street (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the wikilink issue... if the link is to read "Cornell University" and we have a page Cornell University, then that's where is should link to. To have it link to some other wiki page would be misleading (bordering on linkspam). WindyCityRider (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[Removed post which violated policies on personal attacks and articles about living people]
Here they are again:
Hope you don't loose them in the chatter. Ann arbor street (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) <outdent>And, as I explained to you before, neither of these sources say "Olbermann's degree was granted by X". They can be used to conclude that (a) he attended Cornell, (b) he was registered in a major that was located within a particular college, and (c) he graduated from Cornell. They do not address degree granting. So please, provide a link that supports your assertion. Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC) What's the rationale for a piped link? How does changing [[Cornell University]] to [[Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences|Cornell University]] improve the article in any way? Guettarda (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This tactic of burying an RFC in the hat/hab hole is interesting device. Is there a reason why we don't want outside views on the issue of a "piped link" to the Cornell University college Olbermann attended? Back to the point behind the prematurely closed Rfc. The article says "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts." On the one hand, one might argue that a piped link to the pertinent Cornell college is an "Easter egg" link. On the other hand, it is an issue of preciseness without bogging the article down in minutia, ruining readability. I am not sure this got flushed out, as many of my esteemed wikipedians seemed to get sidetracked with wikilawyering, as opposed to discussing how to make the article potentially better, and the big gun showed up to stifle the Rfc, preventing outside and new (to this subject) contributors from helping form a consensus. Too bad, really. Ann arbor street (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) |
Would somebody be so kind as to point out under what rubric other users are burying my follow up comments in an already closed hat/hab template delimiters? The comments were directly aimed at improving the article, and pointing out that much of the preceding "debate" was off topic. The article says "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts." The discussion to precisely wikilink to the college he attended, or, alternatively, specify in prose, should not be buried for ideological reasons. The hat/hab template delimiters should not be used abusively to stifle discussion. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Cry foul though you may, but several editors deemed the RFC worthy of speedy closure -- your assertions have all been answered ad infinitum above. You've produced no policy, rationalization, precedent, or example to justify your position. Conversely, those in favor of closure have cited thousands of examples of what is preferred Wikipedia practice. RFC isn't a blunt instrument... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia was about truth,he never went to Cornell. He also went to school at the university of South Carolina. The Ag school at Cornell is not hard to get into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.153.62 (talk • contribs)
- No, Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not Truth. Articles are based on reliable sources, not Revealed Truth. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe that's true in the Rightwingoverse. In the reality in which the rest of us live, he did go to Cornell, his degree (which he showed on-air) says Cornell University, and he never went to any school in South Carolina. And your statement about CALS being easy to get into is just as wrong as the rest of your comment. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- You guys are so ridiculously in the tank. It's one thing for you to assert that Olbermann went to Cornell, it is entirely another to consign to the memory hole the fact that a public debate exists about the assertion. This matter has origins, a context and is relevant in terms of understanding Olbermann and the very snarky nature of his journalism. Cover it up like a good little kitty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.142.198 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- By the way . . . I would just settle for a mention of the fact that Olbermann attempted to prove he went to Cornell by whipping out his diploma on air. Does mention of that remarkable event not have a place somewhere at wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.142.198 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Troll elsewhere, this issue is done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It all depends on how the issue is treated by reliable third-party sources. What do reliable third-party sources say about the issue? Point us to them, summarise what they have to say, and let's discuss whether we think the coverage is notable enough for inclusion in this or another article. OK? Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I dispute that there is a "protocol" or "practice" or whatever else you wish to call it that warrants exclusion of information concerning his college. It certainly is not official WP policy. I know of no WP policy that would warrant the exclusion of reference to the verifiable fact that he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Such a "protocol" if such a protocol exists might be appropriate for other universities where the colleges are mere departments at the same university. However, in the case of Cornell, the differences are significant. Some colleges at Cornell are private institutions, while other are state-supported land grant colleges. The distinctions between colleges at Cornell are more significant than at other institutions. Thus, since Cornell and CALS is a unique situation, the protocol or practice that you allege would have to be supported by reference to other wiki articles concerning other Cornell CALS graduates. It is my stated position that both answers Cornell University and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences are equally correct in stating where he went to school. I would propose that the university be identified in his bio box and the full college be identified in the text of the article. Please do not delete or bury this post as it is not fair to prevent other editors from seeing this reasoned compromise.Tommylotto (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's time to move on Tommylotto. This dead horse has been kicked to a pulp and you aren't going to get your way on this. Olbermann attended and received his degree from Cornell University and that is accurately explained in the article. Going with your approach would only increase confusion among readers of the article and perpetuate the inaccurate portrayal that Olbermann did not go to Cornell University. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RBI / WP:DENY time. The essays are mostly for vandalism, but the concepts work just as well for agenda warriors and single purpose accounts. Obviously, the block reference is only intended for cases of disruptive editing to the article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that Tommylotto is not trolling. Trolling is a specific activity designed to provoke a reaction, whereas Tommy is sincerely trying to help an article. He's being calm, rational, and civil. He's not being disruptive, he may have a certain Point Of View (who doesn't?), but he's certainly not a troll (at least insofar what I've seen). Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, he's not by strict definition a "troll". Regardless of the nomenclature used, he is ignoring consensus and the points made by veteran editors in favor of simply repeating his viewpoint ad infinitum. At this point we're not obligated to continue to explain it to him (or other agenda warriors and SPA's) -- best course is to deny recognition here, and refer said editors to the extensive consensus above via their individual talk pages. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It depends what you mean by consensus. I do not support what you call consensus. Linking to the college within the university he attended is consistent with the current wording. It appears that there is a number of editors who are trying to fight against what they perceive as acknowledging Ann Coulter, but WP should not be a tool in an information war against Ann Coulter. Link to the college, or change the wording. Ann arbor street (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- You're right, he's not by strict definition a "troll". Regardless of the nomenclature used, he is ignoring consensus and the points made by veteran editors in favor of simply repeating his viewpoint ad infinitum. At this point we're not obligated to continue to explain it to him (or other agenda warriors and SPA's) -- best course is to deny recognition here, and refer said editors to the extensive consensus above via their individual talk pages. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that Tommylotto is not trolling. Trolling is a specific activity designed to provoke a reaction, whereas Tommy is sincerely trying to help an article. He's being calm, rational, and civil. He's not being disruptive, he may have a certain Point Of View (who doesn't?), but he's certainly not a troll (at least insofar what I've seen). Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Also, WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- WP:RBI / WP:DENY time. The essays are mostly for vandalism, but the concepts work just as well for agenda warriors and single purpose accounts. Obviously, the block reference is only intended for cases of disruptive editing to the article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's time to move on Tommylotto. This dead horse has been kicked to a pulp and you aren't going to get your way on this. Olbermann attended and received his degree from Cornell University and that is accurately explained in the article. Going with your approach would only increase confusion among readers of the article and perpetuate the inaccurate portrayal that Olbermann did not go to Cornell University. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I dispute that there is a "protocol" or "practice" or whatever else you wish to call it that warrants exclusion of information concerning his college. It certainly is not official WP policy. I know of no WP policy that would warrant the exclusion of reference to the verifiable fact that he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Such a "protocol" if such a protocol exists might be appropriate for other universities where the colleges are mere departments at the same university. However, in the case of Cornell, the differences are significant. Some colleges at Cornell are private institutions, while other are state-supported land grant colleges. The distinctions between colleges at Cornell are more significant than at other institutions. Thus, since Cornell and CALS is a unique situation, the protocol or practice that you allege would have to be supported by reference to other wiki articles concerning other Cornell CALS graduates. It is my stated position that both answers Cornell University and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences are equally correct in stating where he went to school. I would propose that the university be identified in his bio box and the full college be identified in the text of the article. Please do not delete or bury this post as it is not fair to prevent other editors from seeing this reasoned compromise.Tommylotto (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)