Talk:Erin Burnett/Archive 1

message: I have taken the liberty to remove some personal comments that were posted here by a fan of Erin Burnett. I need NOT remind you all of the warning above. So please try to refrain from all the personal commentary. - ICarriere 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Comments from Fans

message: The anoymous coward with IP: 170.63.96.108 vandalized the Erin Burnett page. Among other things, the coward wrote:
Erin Burnett is a enjoying undeserved success after being continually hyped on MSNBC by Joe Scarborough.
The vandalism was reversed and the vandal's identity has been noted:
Reference: http://www.arin.net/whois/ the internet address 170.63.96.108 traces to the following physical location:
Massachusetts Department of Revenue 
200 Arlington St.
Chelsea, MA 02150
Apparently it's not enough to steal from the pockets of hard working Americans; the MDOR employee feels the need to vandalize our free encyclopedia also. - ICarriere 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous Coward from IRS

message: (OptimistBen, Statsone)
First, I count as 3; so your comment, “2 against 1”  doesn't hold water.  Second, I have no bias for or against the person on this page.  As such, I am acting as a mediator between the mindless idiots who advertise their undying love, and the angry fools who clearly hate Erin Burnett. 
Finally, a transcript from Chris Matthew’s website, does not count as a source for a controversy. If however, the statement becomes a controversy (causing commentary from someone in the mainstream media, i.e. Television, Talk Radio, New Paper), then by all means add the comment.  
Reference: The Wikipedia policy on the “biographies of living persons” 
We do not create controversies, we document them. So, until a controversy arises, do not add this comment to the page. - ICarriere 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You count as 3, eh? Wisecracker? You assume that we both have personal biases? I have no such thing. I have a bias for a position, which I am advocating; you have a bias towards a different position. For all I know you are a fan and have a website devoted to her, and for all you know I am her angry ex-boyfriend. Claims of bias at this point are specious at best and incendiary at worst. I agree that it is premature to list it as a controversy, and think it be left best as a quote. 206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Existent Controversy

message: To prevent a violation of the WP:3RR rule, I have asked for  intervention by Admins. statsone 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will mark the  intervention resolved, for now. statsone 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Admin Intervention

message: ::::"I am acting as a mediator between the mindless idiots who advertise their undying love, and the angry fools who clearly hate Erin Burnett..." - ICarriere
::::Insults and assumptions are not a great way to have a civil conversation. Clearly there's a disagreement here, although I am somewhat on the fence at this point. Ironically, ICarriere said that she very nearly did the same thing that we did. The idea that this becomes a real controversy only when a mainstream news organization covers it but not when a few nonmainstream groups reach twice, thrice, or even ten times as many people seems very strange. The line between old and new media will continue to merge, especially since most mainstream news is no more credible when it is doing straight commentary work, as this story is. The primary source is credible and verifiable (we generally shouldn't go so far in our skepticism as to say that this clip never really aired, although Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theorists).
::::For me this statement was significant enough to be put down as a quotation. Generally quotes in the Quotes section are outstanding comments which have drawn attention -- this quote clearly did that. 206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Uncivil Behavior

message: Well, today I was watching my Daily Show and I saw the clip of Erin Burnett's quote followed by a sarcastic discussion. While I don't think this is necessarily all that more noteworthy than sites with such huge readerships as DailyKos covering it, it does satisfy ICarriere's condition. When the clip is put up on indecision2008.com I'll be linking to it and putting it up. Where would you guys prefer that I put it -- under Popular Culture, perhaps? It seems fitting wit what's in there now, the praise of Rush Limbaugh. OptimistBen 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Show is confirmed.  statsone 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If The Daily Show provides a source for the airing, then the article may need to be updated. statsone 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clip Airs in The Daily Show August 16th

message: I have spent considerable time and effort to create a well sourced article about the person in question. To that end, my primary interest is the preservation of the article's integrity. I welcome the contributions of others as long as these contributions adhere to WP:BLP.
Statsone/OptimistBen has argued to add the 'China Quote' to the article. The dispute is whether the comment was spoken with a hint of irony or whether it is indeed a statement which conveys the opinion of Erin Burnett.  
I believe the quote is unfairly being portrayed as her opinion, when she has clearly made contrary statements in regard to the subject. Moreover, I believe the repeated placement of the quote is an attempt to intentionally cause harm to Ms. Burnett.
First, I would direct your attention to the above warning,
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
The biographies of living persons states,
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."
The definition of a 'reliable source' states,
"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"
As I said before, my concern about the quote is that it was spoken with a hint of irony. And to portray the quote as her opinion seems both deceptive and potentially harmful. 
The policy statements that addresss the issue directly would include the following:
1) An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. - WP:BLP
2) Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. - WP:BLP
The second problem I see is whether the quote created a controversy worth mention. Statsone/OptimistBen has argued this point by citing several political blogs and a mention on the Comedy Central's Daily Show. 
However, when I reviewed the Erin Burnett fan club on Yahoo *  I couldn't so much as find a mention of the quote.
What I find even more troubling though, is the source of the so-called controversy. When I did a Google search of the Internet, I found the original post was made on a political blog called the democraticunderground. 
Fortunately, this problem is also addressed by the WP:BLP. I would direct your attention to the following policy statement:
1) Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. - WP:BLP
2) Editors should also be careful about perpetuating a vicious feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. - WP:BLP - ICarriere 08:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argument for Removal of Quote

message: When the guidelines say that no self-published information should be submitted, it is specifically referring to information which has no other source and is "unverifiable". The key here is verifiability -- that is, whether we can check a reliable, credible source to see if the information is true. We know that this information is verifiable and true, as you yourself have admitted. (Or you trying to argue that the clip was fabricated?) Furthermore, the Daily Show is one of the most widely-watched news shows in the world right now. Verifiability and credibility are unquestionable. We can even use the transcript from the official website of the network if we want. The point is that we know the statement was made. You're really not winning points with anyone by trying to deny that.
As someone noted previously, the question now comes down to significance, and if the majority of the Wikipedia users believe that this is significant, then you alone have no right to stop it. OptimistBen 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:OptimistBen|OptimistBen]]

message: Good time to get yourself a cup of coffee or tea as this is a long post.  It may be in more than one post so please check the history of this page.
I, along with others, have already summarized the reasons to place the Controversy on the main page so there is no need to do so again.  My reasons are in the main section entitled Summary and Response .  Please reread them so as to not waste time.
As for the rebuttal to the post by ICarriere , I will comment on the section line by line if needed.  I have tried to put the  quotes are written by ICarriere in blue  and the   WP quotes in red. 
ICarriere wrote  I have spent considerable ....  Wikipedia belongs to noone.  Please do not assume you own the page or any parts thereof.  You can even look at the comments on your talk page and the comments you leave others.  You are one editor and not 3  as you have claimed.
ICarriere wrote  Statsone/OptimistBen has argued to add the 'China Quote' to the article. The dispute is whether the comment was spoken with a hint of irony or whether it is indeed a statement which conveys the opinion of Erin Burnett.  This is simply incorrect.  I do not know the views of others, but to say I want the comments included as the comments convey the opinion of Erin Burnett is simply wrong.  I want the comments included as they were spoken by her, are still being talked about, are revelant to the story, and with the current crisises in the stock market, defective Chinese goods, and currency manipulation, it belongs in the story as it is now a part of her life.  If she since has made comments that she was either misunderstood, misunderstood the question, or was wrong, then the followup comments belong in the article also.
ICarriere wrote  ...quote is an attempt to intentionally cause harm to Ms. Burnett. is worng.  reasons above.
ICarriere quoted  This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This quote has been repeated many times and has been refuted.  The source is a transcript of her from the show she appeared on and an additionally a video of her making the statements.  She made the statements.  Please do not bring the subject of source up again.
ICarriere quoted  Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Same as above.
ICarriere quoted  An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'... not a tabloid ...must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.  She made the statement on TV under no stress or threat.  She was working at the time and was receiving payment as it was her job.  There are no privacy matters to deal with here.  She did the harm herself.  Wikipedia is not spreading any false rumours.
ICarriere wrote  The definition of a reliable source states...  ...original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we  The source is not being discussed here.  It has verified.  Move on please.
ICarriere wrote  As I said before, my concern about the quote is that it was spoken with a hint of irony. And to portray the quote as her opinion seems both deceptive and potentially harmful  Irony?  She said the quote.  She is the owner and needs to deal with the consequences.  Is was her opinion when she made them.  Please see above.
ICarriere quoted  ...do not harm... repeated again.
ICarriere quoted  ...even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia...  Yes. Discussed above.
ICarriere wrote  The second problem I see is whether the quote created a controversy worth mention. Statsone/OptimistBen has argued this point by citing several political blogs and a mention on the Comedy Central's Daily Show.   Please state the facts clearly.  The source is the Hardball transcipt. Verified.  As for the controversy, there is one. The quote is now part of Erin Burnett's life.  The sources quotes were in response by a request by Admin Theresa Knott where she asked w.r.t. controversy, if it exists then you can post a link to people discussing in the papers etc?  .
As for the Yahoo Groups ICarriere wrote  ...fan club...  , I am surprised you bought that up.  It was you that removed a post regarding a fan club  and left the comment  Please do not add so called fan clubs that are nothing more than a borage of advertisement on a user's page .
As for the group itself, it is interesting to note they feel the other incident on the same show where Chris Matthews showed a lack of professionalism and even harrassment .  It is a controversy that belongs on the Chris Matthews page and maybe even on the Erin Burnett page as it has received more attention than this quote.
ICarriere wrote  What I find even more troubling though, is the source of the so-called controversy. When I did a Google search of the Internet, I found the original post was made on a political blog called the democraticunderground.  Again the source is not a blog.  It is the transcipt itself.  As for the post on the blog, you are confirming it is a controvesy and belongs on this page.
ICarriere quoted  ...source...  and  ...feedback loop in which an unsourced... has been discussed many times and does not need repeating.  Please read above.
This has been discussed too long and the obvious diecision is to allow the quote to be entered.  I think Controversy was not the best title for the section so I had changed it Controversy dangerous Chinese goods but if anyone has a better suggestion, please put it forward. 
Please be civil as discussed before. 
Let's reach a concensus, place the quote in the article, and move om.
statsone 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Statsone|Statsone]]

message: ICarriere - I do not know who you are, but that quotation needs to be on her page.  When I edited the page to add it, I did not express any bias and left the quote in full.  Regardless of what your opinions obviously are you cannot change what she said in her own words.  She did not misspeak, she clearly stated her opinion.  Furthermore, I have yet to hear her say anything to the contrary.  For you to say she "misspoke" is your own opinion and should not be expressed on this page.  
I did not read about this from any "left-wing blog" nor watch it on the Daily Show, I actually watched it on Hardball.  I agree that I shouldn't have used the blog as my source, but I do not mind going back and changing my reference to be the actual show.  A source does not have to be another internet site - I was merely trying to link to the video.
I think you are out of line here. 
Additionally and for the record, I recently created a Wiki account and I am a new user.  I have no other accounts.  You idiot kid 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by You Idiot Kid

message: I'm not going to change the article page because I know that ICarriere would just revert my edits and we'd be back to where we started in this whole mess and I'm going to bed soon but it can't go without remark.
1. He didn't put the quote on the page!!!! It's what the controversy is about, you have to be kidding.
2. His personal editoral slant: "liberal talk show host Jon Stewart", "mis-interpreted comment", "immediately clarified". 
:a) Jon Stewart might be liberal, I don't know if he claims to be or not, but I don't see how it pertains to this at all.
:b) That the comment is "mis-interpreted" is ICarriere's editorial bias. While I don't believe that Erin Burnett wants toys to have lead in them, I do believe that her still means her point about sacrificing quality and safety for cost. Why force either view down the readers throat? Why not let her words about the quote speak for themselves and let the reader draw their own conclusion?
:c) Days later isn't an "immediate" clarification.
3. ICarriere has the quote a bit off. It's tough to transcribe live speech and I'm not giving him a hard time about this. Here is what I caught when I listened to the video. I ask others to please double check.
"You know this follows what you and I were talking about, it's happened to Mattel a couple of times. Toys made in China, there are some safety questions about toys made in China, alright, that's the fact."
"And you and I were talking about, this is what people got upset about. I had said, that look, if people want to start making toys, and by extension a lot of other things guaranteed to be safe and make them in China, then the costs of production are going to go up in China and that means prices at Walmart may to go up too."
"China has kept prices low in this county and that's why I called China our friend the other night on Hardball."
"You know, Chris, nobody wants Children to play with toys that aren't safe. Nobody wants that. I don't want that, you don't want that but safety and quality come with a price."
4. I think a Controversy banner is more appropriate than a Popular Culture banner.
5. Lastly, I encourage people to chip in on what should be on the article's page. I don't think ICarriere should be able to dominate the moderation of this. He was wrong about excluding the quote in the first place and has shown poor judgement repeatedly. Aquavit 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICarriere's new edit of the page 

message: So it is clear that Erin Burnett has no real formal educational credentials beyond the undergraduate level in economics or finance or anything?  She doesn't even know the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation.  She does talk a lot, but actually conveys remarkably little.  (Not that that makes her atypical for a CNBC Talking Head.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: So Erin Burnett has no M.B.A. and No M.S. in Economics or Finance?

message: Having recovered from a long 4 hour drive, I was going to do a summary, consensus, and recommendation to start a consensus edit for an admin to change the article.  But, it has been unprotected so that is late.
Unfortunately, it will not look at if will stay that way long, but I will give it a try.  Just the lack of a NPOV and the quoting of blogs, which a few days ago was against [WP:BLP], shows the edit war will start anew.
I also have used this edit to revert the vandalism of a user, who was warned  not to change the edits of others.  I hope that individual will respect the comments of others.  This page is the talk page and not the main page so changes are handled a little different..  I see no reason for that user to change the headings of others or to place a major heading as a minor sub-heading .  ADMINS PLEASE ENFORCE.
I will edit the main page in a bit but need to put forward a few comments.  I will not place all the references here as many are already on this page so they don't really need to be duplicated.
Just sometimes it is better to argue with a wall instead of a person.  After a while, the wall will talk back to you and then after a little while longer, will agree with you.
Having put up with a lack of civility, stubborness, threats, misquotes, and parania, it is time to end the ridiculous debate.  Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on the views of an editor who owns a page.  If the change to the page can not be agreed on quickly, or an edit war starts again, then I ask an admin to protect the page again and bring this forward to arbitration as it is now wasting everyone's time for no good reason.  I am not asking for my edit to be the final, but will see what will happen. In fact, others are invited to edit as that is what wikipedia is. The truth needs to be heard and enough of the edit war that is way too one sided. 
As for signings, it seems some don't understand how to.  After editing a page, place 4 of the ~ at the end.  This will automatically place your name ( with a link) and a date stamp.  It is also good practice to preview your edit before saving the page.  Also, place an edit summary as this helps in some cases when a quick review is done.
Please, everyone be nice and civil. --statsone 04:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  I apologize for not signing some comments and then editing them with a sig.  Have you been to User:Theresa knott's talk page?  She listed some good sources there. You idiot kid 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No she didn't. ICarriere did. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflection

message: I have made a request for full prtection. --statsone 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with and support this request. You idiot kid 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for protection

message: I think the article is fine the way it is written now. The Daily Show is a notable source and to get on it usually means you did something pretty notable (usually not in a good way). ICarrere, you are seriously harping on WP:BLP and ignoring WP:CON and WP:OWN. I don't want to dissuade you from editing but let it go. From someone who happened upon this article and the talk page, it is you who seems out of line. Spryde 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As someone who has been here since the beginning the quote looks great as it is now.  Although, I hate how she said "a extension" and not "an extension" but I guess we can't correct her own grammar.  Should we clean up the rest of the article, and by that I mean should we get rid of the second quote in the "Quotes" section as its source seems to violate the no blogs rule? You idiot kid 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, reading it, that blog sourced it from Portfolio.com. I will update the source at is would be more appropriate Spryde 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the title of the reference ( minor edit) --statsone 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a neutral third party too, I think: I think that having the two quotes together connected by the Daily Show comment presents the matter neutrally, and it should stand as is.--SarekOfVulcan 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From a neutral third party

message: Frankly, this one seems like a no-brainer. (1) Erin Burnett's comments on China are the most notable thing that she's ever uttered since being on TV. I'd never even heard of her until I heard about what she said about Chinese-manufactured toys (which is what brought me to this page). Second, there's more than ample proof from reputable sources that she said it. Any denial of that smacks of wikilawyering to me. Third, it seems that the same people who set the bar extraordinarily high when it comes to proving that she made the statement, set an extraordinarily low bar for demonstrating that she said it accidentally, or that it wasn't what she really meant to say. This appears to demonstrate a violation of WP:NPOV. Ossified 04:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how what she said was an "accident."  I believe what she said was stupid, and she realized that and corrected herself.  But these words didn't magically, accidentally, fall out of her mouth.  She chose them and regretted it.  I think that once the majority of us found a reputable source for her correction, we were all in favor of including that.  You idiot kid You idiot kid 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is a beautiful thing! The result on this page is quite good. Ossified 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Ossified 

message: Greetings, I am reverting your additions as they appear to be POV/slanted. I am assuming good faith so if you could either source or provide verification of the statements without the loaded words ("curiously") put in, please do so! Spryde 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Gr1st did before I did... Spryde 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Edit by 65.7.153.91

message: Ok, after watching this page for awhile, I guess I am now involved a bit. Looking at the school for her, it seems there is a bit of confusion on where she went to school. I have one source that says St. Andrew's School in Potomac, Maryland  and a internet fan site that says it is this St. Andrew's School. Since verifiable and reliable source trumps fan site, I gotta revert to that version. Logic also dictates that since she grew up in MD, that she went to high school in MD however knowing the area she grew up in, rich people can trump logic sometimes... Spryde 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. And yet this WashPo article says she went to boarding school in Delaware. Is it possible she went to two schools named St Andrew's? Gr1st 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this sucks. Two sources that are conflicting. One is a op-ed piece (Howard Kurtz is a media critic/journalist) and the other is a profile in a industry trade publication. The area that she grew up in on the Eastern Shore is near Middletown but pretty damn upscale which lends to the school in Potomac (upscale prep academy as well). Any other reliable sources we can find to break the tie? :) Spryde 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say Kurtz is a better source, but in any case Potomac is a long way from the Eastern Shore, and the Potomac SAS isn't boarding. ASt this point I'd say the scale tips in favor of the Delaware school. I'd check for a yearbook but I'd have to recover my login and I don't have time to do that right now. Mangoe 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed to the Delaware one and eliminated the "most likely" quote for now (I'm a bit dubious), though I'm not adamant about its exclusion. Mangoe 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source seems valid.  Did you want the quote removed because it wasn't sourced or because it wasn't appropriate? --statsone 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So much for neutral...

message: This page has become very long. If anyone knows how to archive pages, it would be great to have that done. - ICarriere 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. SamanthaG (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Discussion page? 

message: Some nitwits keep insisting on removing the camel cull story, on the basis that Burnett's pet names are worthy of being in an encyclopedia but a global incident where she insulted the leader of a country is not. Get over yourselves and allow the controversies to stay on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsequent to the rant, fierce reaction from informed Australian citizens has been vehemently against the comments made by Burnett. Comments have suggested that "Burnett clearly has no clue" and "...having never traveled to Australia and seen the environmental impact, these comments have been clearly made by an ill-informed, bat shit insane television presenter who should probably stick to wrongly predicting finance". "She should just fuck off, stupid sheila having no clue what's going on in Australia but feel like they can comment on our domestic affairs.. Get back in the kitchen love, or I'll jump on my 'roo and come get you."Kevin Rudd called a 'serial killer' on CNBC NINEMSN 2008.
Other than some minor concerns with the wording ("rant" may be accurate but is far from NPOV, and there is no way to know if the posts really were from "informed Australian citizens"), my main concern is that it relates to comments made on the News story, and thus is simply relating the equivalent of non-notable, highly opinionated forum posts and is very much one sided. If the story has legs then there will be better commentary to use, and if not then this is, at best, undue weight, and at worst attacking the subject. - Bilby (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Support removal. Blogs, chat-sites, and web-forums are not WP:RS, even if they are attached to a WP:RS story. Editor analysis of blog patterns is WP:OR. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know why Australians are so hell-bent on killing camels, but opposition to animal cruelty hardly makes a person "ignorant." Also, referring to the "bitches" [sic] comment is offensive to women, every bit as much as the word "nigger" or "gook." Hanxu9 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public reactions regarding camel cull story 

message: The only reference for the story that she appeared nude on the cover of Maxim in 2007 is today's Australian story about the camel cull controversy. A detailed search of the net fails to reveal any evidence of such a photo shoot other than an oft-shown cover pictire which looks very much as if it is photoshopped.  I'll stop short of removing the reference to the Maxim shoot but I think a more experienced editor might want to look at it closely.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.92.251 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I checked the 2007 covers, and she wasn't on any of them, so I've removed the material. I suspect that the journalist grabbed it from here, as it was unsourced when added. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maxim photo shoot - spurious? 

message: I moved messages from 2008 and earlier to the archive. --Sophitessa (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived old stuff. 

message: I saw your news segment about the Camels in Australia.  There is not 1 million camels.  I dont know where you get your information from - they are mistaken.  There is 250,000 camels - they use them for racing in the outback - not all of them.  They were used for transport - now we have trains, cars, motorbikes, trucks, etc to get around with.
They are CULLING them.  They are not going to kill them all.  They are also going to send them back to where they came from.  
Why dont you say something about the kangaroos they kill.  They dont eat all of them.  They ruin stock and scare livestock at night.  My sister lost her beautiful grey gelding that way.  They jumped into his enclosure and he tried to run and being so scared he went  through the closed gate (its always closed at night) and they found him on his side (he was laying there all night) - and he couldnt get up in the morning.  The vet was called to authanase him, not shoot him.  
We dont have much water out there either in the outback and some camels get killed running into thr trains that cross the desert.  This is dangerous not just for the comel but also the passengers on the train.
THINK before you open your mouth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.219.134 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Camels in Australia 

message: This is the only part of the article even remotely critical of Burnett. I think it's properly balanced by inclusion of her (IMO reasonable) explanation of her China remarks.  Full disclosure, I was the section's most recent editor.  --CliffC (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any real evidence that this material is notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It reflects controversial on-air comments made about a US trading partner.  They are at least as notable as her excellence in varsity lacrosse and field hockey, or the fact that she gave the commencement speech at her alma mater. --CliffC (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Bilby's just-now tightening up of the section, good job.  And it leaves more room for the camel story.  :-) CliffC (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "They are at least as notable as her excellence in varsity lacrosse and field hockey, or the fact that she gave the commencement speech at her alma mater." ...those take up just one sentence each in this article. There isn't an entire section on her college sports abilities or her commencement speech, nor should there be. I don't see how this China section merits two full paragraphs...does a sound clip that makes it to the Daily Show justify its own separate section? Is there really a "controversy" here? If it is truly notable, I fully support weaning this down and incorporating this so-called "controversy" into the Career section. 71.227.179.189 (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have hidden the China story. If you are going to label something as a controversy, you need evidence it was a controversy, i.e. discussion in reliable secondary sources of it as a controversy. For that matter to mention it at all in a wikipedia article it should be mentioned in reliable secondary sources otherwise you're giving WP:Undue weight to something. As someone who hosts a show every weekday she must have mentioned thousands of different things we can discuss. In other words, in the absence of reliable secondary sources discussing her comments, there's no particular reason why this one is of any particular note. (Editor opinion is largely irrelevant since we go by sources not editor opinion.) If reliable secondary sources can be found, these should be added to the article then the section can be unhidden (although there can still be some discussion on how long etc it should be) but if none are found within a few weeks it should be removed. This is an issue which comes up in most WP:BLPs of (particularly controversial) media commentators so you can find plenty of other discussion of the same issue if you wish. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "China and toy safety" section undue-weight tag unjustified 

message: Wikipedia is not a newswire.  The "camel" controversy lasted all of a day, it simply is not biographical.  (That is, by the way, what makes it distinct from the Chinese "controversy," which received some ongoing coverage for a reasonable period of time.)  This was addressed several months ago, although it appears it's being dredged back up for whatever reason.  Please review wp:notnews and if you can justify this as being encyclopedic using some reliable sourcing I've yet to see, please make a case here for it.  user:J aka justen (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Major topic?  It didn't even last a day.  Find me an article from more than a week later.  Encyclopedic content survives at least one news cycle.  This "controversy" did not.  user:J aka justen (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: One of those may not be reliable and appears to be from the same week.  The other mentions her once, in the next to last paragraph.  The other was simply a reprint of a Bloomberg article from August 7.  These do not establish that this was anywhere near encyclopedic.  Stop adding unencyclopedic content without consensus.  user:J aka justen (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Three separate editors have removed this content as it is not encyclopedic, and the links you provided reinforce that it was a one news cycle blurb.  When it comes to biographies of living people, contested information does not stay in the article without consensus.  Consensus here and at the appropriate noticeboard has actually been that the camel "controversy" should be removed as Wikipedia is not a newswire, and this is not biographical.  Why on earth there are people in the world who care about an American reporter's joke about a camel cull is beyond me, and I suppose that's really the part that "has not yet become clear."  user:J aka justen (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously you care about this issue.  For the life of me, I can't see why, but I digress: the issue is that it is not biographical, no matter how much you care about the issue.  The sources you provided to attempt to prove it was a "lasting" concern did not do that: one mentioned her only in passing, one was not immediately discernible as reliable (and even if it was, it was from the same time period), and one was a reprint a few weeks later in a monthly "magazine."  You have not established this to be biographical content, and edit warring to reinsert "controversy" into a biography of a living person is not permitted.  Unless you're able to provide sourcing indicating this was a lasting biographical matter in the life of Erin Burnett, there's nothing further for me to comment on.  user:J aka justen (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Camel redux

message: Astounding (well, not really this is Wiki) that Burnett calling the President of the U.S. a monkey is not even mentioned - if she had been referring to the current holder of the office, this would have been a career buster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like, if anything, she has a history of offensive comments about important figures in government. They're either monkey's or serial killers in her eyes. I was glad to see the mention of the controversy surrounding the cull in this article because this is the only reason I know of her.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: do these things really need to be in this article? perhaps the one might somewhat be justified but the other one regarding Jon Stewart has no relevance what-so-ever to be included.
If you included controversial statements like this regarding other wikipedia articles they would never end.Woods01 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm bothered by this too. The second case at least has proof of notability; the first, not even that. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not the fact that she made the statement that is at issue; it's whether or not WP:RS critics have a notable opinion about what she said.  I would argue not. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, lets correct an inaccuracy in the IP's opening statement, the reasons for the revert were explicitly stated in the edit summaries and both are valid reasons for removal. In fact due to WP:NPOV how other critics construe her statements is strictly not relevant to this article. Aside from that there is no context. What critics? Who do they work for? But, as wikipolicy points out even if those questions could be answered the item is still BLP violation along with its POV problems. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be note that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an online forum. The IP may want to begin at this page Help:Contents/Getting started to learn the process of editing here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversial statements 

message: I am bothered by the fact that the first time I ever tried to make an addition to Wikipedia, it has twice been removed with no valid reason. I added:
On January 28, 2011, Burnett reported on the unrest and potential revolution taking place in Egypt. She stated, "...if democracy in the Middle East spreads, the United States could take a huge hit...what that means for oil prices, they're going to go stratospheric." Critics argue that she implied that the US must support dictators in order to keep cheap oil flowing.
This statement is factually correct. The video clip included in this article shows her literally making that statement, thus the quote is accurate. Moreover, I did not say if it was wrong or right. I did not say anything political about what she said. I kept it completely objective by placing it under the controversy section and saying that "critics argue..." I was told that this was "not encyclopedic." I am not sure what the standard for "encyclopedic" is here. It is factually true. If we want to discuss what is "encyclopedic" we can discuss why news anchors of mid-level notoriety even have pages. Additionally, I would say the reaction to this note proves that it is "controversial" thus its placement. Additionally, I was told that a blog was not a good citation. I would like to point out that there is a video of her on the blog, which I think is valid proof that she made the statement. Additionally, a blog is valid proof of differing opinions and critiques on a subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.195.86 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the fact that she made the statement that is at issue; it's whether or not WP:RS critics have a notable opinion about what she said.  I would argue not. <B>—Torchiest</B> talkedits 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, lets correct an inaccuracy in the IP's opening statement, the reasons for the revert were explicitly stated in the edit summaries and both are valid reasons for removal. In fact due to WP:NPOV how other critics construe her statements is strictly not relevant to this article. Aside from that there is no context. What critics? Who do they work for? But, as wikipolicy points out even if those questions could be answered the item is still BLP violation along with its POV problems. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be note that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an online forum. The IP may want to begin at this page Help:Contents/Getting started to learn the process of editing here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: different issue - same header

message: I can't find anything reliable for her birthday, though I've found numerous sites saying it's both July 2, 1976 and March 17, 1976, with a few also saying May 3, 1976.  I don't think we should include any date until we can get to the bottom of things and settle it firmly.  <B>—Torchiest</B> talk/edits 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds good to me. I didn't check when I reverted but it did occur to me that the version I reverted to probably wasn't referenced either. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday?