Talk:Lawrence O'Donnell

message: I already had attempted to resolve the concerns of Runningninja about the ungrammatical text, apparently before he noticed it. This text was still to be seen, because another user apparently restored the imperfect text, errors and all, after claiming that I had used "original research" and "novel syntheses" of published material in my edit.
I flatly reject the notion that I did any such thing. As has been the case with almost all of my posts on this site, I was attempting to correct grammatical and/or spelling errors and/or organizational problems with the material. In particular, I was trying to move the material regarding "The Ed Show" to a paragraph that delineated other reported instances of Mr. O'Donnell's on-air behavior, where this text clearly belongs; also, I was simply trying to create links for "The Ed Show" and "Peter Schiff" that clearly need to be there.
I refuse to have anything further to do with this article after this nonsense. I urge someone else to accept the responsibility for the needed cosmetic fixes. Rontrigger (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope someone will restore my corrections 

message: "In 2009 Lawrence O'Donnell hosted The Ed Show. During in which he gave an interview to Peter Schiff and rudely interrupted him several times throughout the interview." Not only is this grammatically incorrect, but it seems biased toward portraying Donnell in a negative light. Perhaps this stub-section should be deleted, and instead add his fill-in to the introductory paragraph (since the keith fill in is up there too)? Runningninja (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: What's with the discrepancy between the one listed at the top and the one under "Biography"?  Callmenaomi (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate 

message: I think the point Mr O'Donnell made (i.e. what he actually said) was that Mormons believe that Jesus will return TO MISSOURI, not just 'to earth', which belief is common to Christians. 99.224.220.52 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus returning to earth 

message: Wow.  This article is a serious hatchet job.  
Is this what happens when someone disses Mormons?  :-)
Seriously, this article is a disgrace.  NaySay (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is when that person rants like a madman. I suppose you want to sanitize the Mel Gibson article of any mention of antisemitism? Bytebear (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You can't be serious.  Are you saying that those articles don't mention their rantings? There is an article called Criticisms of Bill O'Reilly for crying out loud.  An entire article (AKA a POV Fork) designed just to bash one person, and you are complaining about verifiable quote because it sounds "cute?"   Bytebear (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I would agree with you if only for notability, however, his involvement in Big Love gives him enough of a connection to Mormonism to make it notable.  And this isn't a commentator who makes outlandish claims on a daily basis for ratings.  Bytebear (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hatchet job 

message: This paragraph in his career discussion ----
"His aggressive debate style has led to several notable on-air confrontations. In October 2004, while a guest on the MSNBC show Scarborough Country, O'Donnell shouted "liar" over and over again at fellow guest Swift Boat Spokesperson John O'Neill.[3][4] In May 2005, while serving as a guest panelist the CNBC program Dennis Miller, O'Donnell began shouting at fellow panelist Cathy Seipp on the issue of public education and teachers."
----
Is this not a prime example of journalistic shill?
:No, obviously not. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The label plainly has nothing to do with debate style. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Please review WP:OR.  Also, there are references to self published articles, which need third party citations or they should be removed. Bytebear (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aggressive Debate Style" a euphemism for Journalistic Shill? 

message: Attention: the pseudonym Lawrence O'Donnell is not same of Lewis Padgett: plural novels of Catherine Lucile Moore and Henry Kuttner write one white the other are signed Lewis Padgett, but, when Catherine L. Moore write white not help of H. Kuttner, she signed Lawrence O'Donnell.
Well: one can said:
* When C.L. Moore was not maried, she signed C.L. Moore (same what H. Kutner krew that she a man)
* When C. L. Moore and Henry Kuttner are married, they signed by the pseudonym of Lewis Padgett
* When C. L. Moore, married, write alone (or white very littel help of H. Kuttner) she signed Lawrence O'Donnell.
I pry you excuse mi for the bad english, but I born in contry what not speak english --Jean-François Clet (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawrence O'Donnell ≠ Lewis Padgett

message: Ok so I confess I'm no expert on the photo policy. But I'm pretty sure that two photos of the same person showing them in almost identical ways is redundant. Plus the one at the top is far more representative of how he appears when I've seen him on TV.
So, dude who put up the second photo, it's totally cool that you got a shot of Lawrence O'Donnell but I think it's redundant for the article. Or is it? Anyone know better? --Qwerty0 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so I looked at a number of BLP articles and they do support my instinct. I also found that the image policy does hint toward a stance on redundancy: "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. Three uniformed portraits would be redundant for a biography of a famous general." I'm taking out the second photo. --Qwerty0 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  two photos? 

message: I added that he and his wife have a 16-year-old daughter, Elizabeth Buckley Harrold O'Donnell. I got this information from the 1/5/2002 official transcript of The Mclaughlin Group, link: http://www.mclaughlin.com/transcript.htm?id=264.  O'Donnell is quoted as follows: "I will have to cite the most honest person I know, my perfect daughter, seven-year-old Elizabeth Buckley Harrold O'Donnell."
I added 9 years to this age and wrote that his daughter is 16. (If her birthday happens to fall between 1/5 and today's date, 1/25, then she is 17, and this must be corrected.) 
As of the time I'm asking this question, I could find no other way to learn of and verify the name and age of O'Donnell's daughter.
My question: Does the Mclaughlin reference to the daughter's name and age need to be publicly referenced in the Wikipedia article, or is it sufficient that the link is documented here?
Jhnntc (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: New sections go at the bottom of the talk page. The source belongs in the article, as you have already done. BTW, you can't determine her age based on the date of the interview, so it's best to leave out her age without a more specific source. Cresix (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must my addition of O'Donnell's daughter be publicly sourced? 

message: I don't understand why people must censor O'Donnell's accusation that John O'Neil was a creepy liar.76.168.205.230 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he only called him that once. I personally believe it is more important to make it clear how argumentative and disruptive Mr. O'Donnell was than to point out one phrase he used, although you are certainly free to try to work that quote in. –CWenger (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First it is not "censorship". It is hyperbole to describe something as "censorship" just because you disagree with it. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but that does not mean that anyone can add anything they wish. Wikipedia has guidelines and policies. One of those pertains to keeping articles (or sections, or statements) proportional to the weight it deserves in the context of the entire event. Yes, he said "creepy liar" one time, despite the POV-pushing earlier comments that he said it repeatedly (he said "liar" frequently, not "creepy liar"). The heated tone of the entire situation is described well as it is in the article right now. I think parsing out a single phrase in such a shouting match is putting too much weight on one word. If we include that, then we'll need to add more to keep it balanced, and may end up with a long string of quotations. O'Donnell stepped over the line in that debate; I think that is obvious without POV-pushing the "creepy" word. Leave it like it is. Cresix (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I personally believe it is more important to make it clear how argumentative and disruptive Mr. O'Donnell was -- Why? Surely it's most important to present facts in an unbiased way, without spin or agenda, and leave conclusions and characterizations to readers. -- 184.189.216.159 (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Creepy Liar

message: I just noticed this reversion. Without commenting on the quality of the material that was removed, I'd like to point out that show-related stuff like this is better suited to The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. This is O'Donnell's biography, so basically it should only have material that is significant within the context of the subject's whole life. I anticipate this sort of thing will crop up again, so it may be prudent to create at an FAQ that regular editors of this article can point to if it begins to happen more frequently. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show-related stuff 

message: Given the flood of vandalism - much of it classic WP:BLP violations - I have semi-protected the page for a day. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The current description of O'Donnell's 'fistfight' demand of Tagg Romney makes him seem like a buffoon who threatens people without reason - maybe the context to why he made these comments (Tagg Romney's talk of wanting to 'take a swing at' President Obama and the fact that a lot of that night's 'Last Word' had been about the alleged 'combat cowardice' of the Romney family.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.84.168 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if this not-important-at-all crap was just deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More context for Tagg Romney controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lawrence O'Donnell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021032825/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was a leaked video which recorded Lawrence O'Donnell melting down and becoming enraged at production staff.
He was humiliated by the leak and the staff member who leaked it was fired. The Young Turks commented on this matter.  Stephen Colbert commented on this matter. 
The Late Late Show with James Corden commented on this matter.
Given how decorum and objectively/dispassionately covering the news is valued in newscasting, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? One of the matters that caused O'Donnell to meltdown is that his staff did not sufficiently censor/cut an interview of Joe Arpaio to his specifications so O'Donnell had to respond to what Arpaio said.
The lack of self-control that O'Donnell displayed was notable and went viral on the internet. The audiences of Colbert/Corden found it rather humorous. O'Donnell twisted paper, broke a pen/pencil, made manic/angry gestures, cursed, raised his voice, etc.Knox490 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Inside Edition covered the fact that O'Donnell made a public apology for his outburst. O'Donnell said "a better anchorman" would have handled the technical difficulties better.Knox490 (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Savage commented on O'Donnell's meltdown as well.Knox490 (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence O'Donnell meltdown: Leaked video 

message: His profile and that of his former wife have different divorce dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.70.50 (talk) 
:Some sources appear to indicate O'Donnell's divorce was in 2013 (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: Given his age, it would also be extremely germane, in light of his passion for public affairs, to know how he avoided the draft and the biggest war of his lifetime (Vietnam). In 2018, he came out with a book about 1968, a pivotal year for all of us his age, and so he must have thought about this era. Thus, it would be interesting to know how he dodged the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 
:If you can find reliable sources that support these claims, propose text here so we can look at it. I doubt very much it'll get any traction though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any details about O'Donnell's education ... such as what did he major in at Harvard?