Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 2

message: I've watched this article ebb and flow for some time and it seems to me that some form of protection needs to be enacted. Look at the history of edits over the past two weeks and a pattern becomes clear: 3-10 consecutive edits by IP users, then one by a registered user to clean up POV issues. I can't stand the anti-Keith waves and their accusations or the Keith fanboys who try to lash back and insert links to their favorite fansite.Is anyone else with me on semi-protection? --sigmafactor 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection should only be used to stop persistent anonymous vandalism. It shouldn't be used to prevent new users from editing articles, even if their contributions are opinionated. Rhobite 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we last spoke, there have been three or four obvious instances vandalisms and POV hijacking. Is that much activity in less than a week warrant semi-protection? --sigmafactor 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for leaving an article up for editing by new users, but there has to be a way to stop these constant back and forth edits between the O.o and the OW crowds.  --129.22.127.32 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that a promising dialogue has been established.  However, it will be difficult to discuss things here because the page is getting unwieldy.  Does anyone object if I remove this "Semi-Protection" section?  I will wait at least five days for an objection before I delete it.  Thanks. CuteGargoyle 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Generally, talk page discussions aren't deleted, unless they're really irrelevent. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to weed out the things that seem like that may be irrelevant.  This issue of semi-protection hasn't been futhered for quite some time.  I think a lot of discussion is going to have to take place on this page in the near future, over POV questions, and I'm trying to clean the page up a bit since it's getting to be so long.  I'm hoping that putting out a request for objections before I remove stagnant stuff will be a considerate way to achieve that.  What do people usually do when talk pages get too long? CuteGargoyle 21:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually there are achives created at Talk:ARTICLE/archive1 and so on. --waffle iron talk 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it. --waffle iron talk 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You deleted the section I added just yesterday but kept this old one?  I was suggesting we delete this semi-protection one, because it's ancient, and now it's one of the only ones still here. CuteGargoyle 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not deleted, it's on the archive page. I just assumed that all sections are added on the bottom of the page by using the "+" tab.  Feel free to move it back by removing the section from the archive and adding back here. --waffle iron talk 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection? 

message: The entry for Keith Olbermann in Wikipedia as it stood on March 31st when I first read it was a disgrace. It is little more than a fan site. The entry is rife with unsubstantiated, subjective, unfounded statements. I have made edits to the most egregious as a starting point towards a more objective entry. Not suprisingly, the primary editors of this page appear to be Keith Olbermann fans and do not like these edits.
I can site numerous examples but one section of the entry will serve to illustate my point.  The entry did not just gloss over but ignores Keith Olbermann's well-earned reputations for being a prima donna and destroying a host of professional relationships in his career. The entry presents a fantasy version of Keith's departure and subsequnet relationship with ESPN and the show for which he is most widely known - SportsCenter.
KEITH LEAVING ESPN
The account of Keith leaving ESPN is one even Keith Olbermann himself would disown. According to Wikipedia Keith Olbermann left ESPN because he didn't like the commute or the social scene in Bristol or some such blather. These things may be true but it not why Keith Olbermann left ESPN. He left, as has been well documented, because he alienated almost every employee of ESPN and his position there was no longer tenable.
In numerous interviews, including most recently a Q & A interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN Keith Olbermann had this exchange, Keith has acknowledged the nature of his sudden departure from ESPN:
LAMB: We’ve about a minute left here. There’s a quote, one of my favorite quotes that I found from a fellow at ESPN, Mike Soltis.
OLBERMANN: Mike Soltis.
LAMB: Soltis. This was in one of your alleged difficulties with ESPN.
OLBERMANN: No, this was after I left, in fact.
LAMB: ”He didn’t burn his bridges here. He napalmed them.”
OLBERMANN: Yes, that’s a pretty good one. I liked my version of that better. I had said, when Tom Snyder asked me did you burn your bridges there, I said, ”No, I burned the bridges and the river.” I’m the only person to have done that. 
How bad was it?
When ESPN held a "reunion week" for the 20th Anniversary of SportsCenter, a show Keith Olbermann put on the map, he was not invited to appear. John Cotey of the St. Petersberg Times wrote:
"We didn't want to bring him into the workplace," said ESPN executive vice president Mark Shapiro. "The damage he could do in one day in the newsroom could put us in damage control for two years."
and..
Olbermann had written an apology of sorts, published on Salon.com, for some of the things he said in Freeman's book.
There was hope then, Shapiro said. But others at ESPN weren't so eager to forgive.
"I was blown away by how much that one meeting ... how people reacted to me even taking the meeting," Shapiro said, adding he had no idea how many "bodies were buried along the way."
He was undeterred, though, until a short time later. Just six months after Olbermann's mea culpa on Salon.com, ESPN/ABC president George Bodenheimer hired Lisa Guerrero for Monday Night Football, and the final piece of the bridge demolition disintegrated into ash.
"It's a complete repudiation of Monday Night Football's tradition," Olbermann was quoted as saying. "(John) Madden and (Al) Michaels should walk, and Bodenheimer should be led away in handcuffs."
And so ended Shapiro's flirtation with Olbermann.
"Personally I couldn't get past that," Shapiro said. "Even though he did leave a tremendous legacy and helped chart the course of the show, there was too much bad stuff that came with it, unnecessary bad stuff."
and
Shapiro said. "There's probably a lot of people inside and outside that disagree with the decision. But we want this to be meaningful. We want to look back at (SportsCenter) fondly and not contentiously."
Shall I continue or can we engage in a thoughtful discussion about how an NPOV Keith Olbermann wikipedia entry read? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcox1963 (talk • contribs) .
:I agree that the parts about ESPN are a bit rosey, but you make the whole heading of Leaving ESPN read: Keith left ESPN in 1997.
:Instead of trying to rewrite the section, you deleted it wholesale. That's unfair to all editors. I suggest you make one edit at a time and discuss it on the talk page instead of changing the whole article. --waffle iron 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Entries Are Not Fan Sites 

message: As I have noted previously, the reason I made comprehensive edits to the Keith Olbermann wikipedia entry is because it is replete with errors, misinformation, political bias and self-serving promotion. I believe it should be erased rebuilt from scratch.
I have been asked by a couple of self-appointed editors of this entry to refrain from such comprehensive edits and to "discuss" edits on the talk page. I suspect that this is a waste of time and that the real purpose of people editing this entry is to advance their own political agenda, promote certain left-wing web sites, and as a way for Keith Olbermann "fans" to demonstrate their unquestioning "support" for Keith Olbermann. That said, I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt so perhaps I will be proven wrong.
:Great.  Please note that if I disagree with any of the points you make below, that doesn't necessarily prove you right in your suspicions.  It simply means that I disagree with you on that point.  CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my new section at the end of page, | "Promotional" facts. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding the word "fact" wrapped in double curly brackets will insert a flag that a citation is needed, so making this list on the talk page is not necessary.  Also, not every fact in every article warrants a citation.  Since editors are volunteering their time and effort, it's considerate to flag only those items which are in doubt.  Also, if there is any possible way for you to find the citation yourself and put it in, it's much nicer to fix the flaw yourself, rather than to just complain about it. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If in fact you are not serious about these citation issues, but are trying to make a point that you should not have to support your own edits with citations unless every other fact on Wikipedia is also supported with a citation, please see the guideline WP:POINT. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That said, you'll notice that I and others have made a sincere effort since you made this list to add more citations to the article. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to leapfrog the earlier comments, but this is a response to this original subtopic (Massively non-NPOV), and the indents are getting a little tangled.  Can any experienced Wikipedias give insight about the policy for citations?  It seems extreme to me to delete every fact which lacks a citation link.  I could see doing it if its veracity was in question, as the "cousin of Mike Tyson" thing was for a while.  Otherwise, wouldn't it be better to put a  note next to the fact and leave it be?  Is there a category of facts which don't always require citations?  Also, if a question is settled to everyone's general satisfaction, is it kosher to remove it from the Talk page?  (For instance, I deleted the Mike Tyson question the other day.  Also, if we settle the question of the citations, which is really one issue, would RCox or anyone else mind if I deleted those boxes from RCox's critique, to better focus on the remaining POV questions?)  Thanks. CuteGargoyle 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cute, one of the prior complaints I received about my recommended edits is that I did not provide a citation for each statement or fact in my edits. Another complaint was that I was not explaining why I thought that much of the entry was non-NPOV and not first posting my suggested my edits to this entry on the TALK PAGE first. I have attempted to respond to those complaints by providing a detailed analysis of the page and have included the same criteria that was used in evaluating my previous attempt to edit the page - that assertions should be supported with citations where possible. If you edit out portions of this discussion you are opening me up to the same criticism I was getting before. I'd like to get some assurance from some experienced Wikipedians that if you start deleting portions of my critique that we are not going to end up chasing our tail by seeing renewed criticism about MY suggested edits along the lines described above. 
Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am reading your statement correct Rcox, I believe you are correct. Generally, removing statements from talk pages is frowned upon, unless they are trolling/vandalism, which this certainly is not. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can agree with the assertion that this article should be rebuilt from scratch, but I have a problem with the constant edits made by both maintainers of fan sites and maintainers of obviously personal vendetta sites.  This is not a personal attack upon the poster of this section, but the fact that he has asked the readers of his anti-Olbermann page to overwhelm this article with too many edits to keep up with should perhaps give the admins some pause.--Spentangeli 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I figured that this was the same person who runs(ran?) OlbermannWatch. That makes me sick. Tell you what, I'll put up a request for a Peer Review and get this mess straightened out. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Robert, I am not "spaghetti legs".  As far as OW being satire, I have never seen "good natured" satire that routinely made use of extremely personal insults like OW is wont to do.  If I were a wagerer, I would certainly bet on the fact that most, if not all, of the anti-KO people who post similar such insults are unaware that your site's intent is satirical.--Spentangeli 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see what the content on Olbermann Watch has to do with whether my analysis of the Keith Olbermann entry being massively non-NPOV is accurate. I wish we could be discussing that instead of Olbermann Watch. I am new to editing at Wikipedia so forgive if I am offbase but as I don't understand how such a sidebar discussion get us any closer to improving this entry I am not sure why we are engaging on this topic here.  I would most respectfully request that you please address your comments to the substance of my recommended changes. We all have biases and I have mine. I am not hiding them. If you feel that my suggestions are non-NPOV please let me know and I will respond. That said, for the record, I did not say the site was "good natured". Depending on the form, certain forms of satire routinely makes use of "extremely personal insults". One is called  Juvenalian satire. I looked it up :-)  I said "most of what I write is written with tounge planted firmly in cheek" and that is the case. Can you find contra-examples of this, sure, but I am not making an absolute statement and I am confining myself to my own words on that site. What the commenters or other contributors write is not up to me. I don't write their comments or posts and any reader/writer is free to have their say.  Some commenters are anti-Keith, some are pro-Keith. I would say that being open to all points of view in the comment section is what makes the site such a popular place to talk about Keith Olbermann and his show, Countdown. If there is still some doubt as to how liberal a policy I have on comments just read through the many vile, personal comments about me. As to who understands what about the satirical nature of the site I have no idea. Are their people who take the site too seriously? Sure, and sometimes I comment on that. It is not my job, however, to compel anyone to do anything on Olbermann Watch. In the end, satire is in the mind of the satirist not in the perception of the audience. I like the Wikipedia entry for Satire. I don't how to make it be hyperlink but here is the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire Robert Cox Rcox1963 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire Keith Olbermann Entry Massively non-NPOV 

message: Dposse, have you ever heard him say it's been *about* x days since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq?  I think the wording was much more accurate before your edit of that. CuteGargoyle 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: he says it at the end of every show. dposse 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the closing taken from the transcript from Weds. April 26:  "That‘s COUNTDOWN for this the 1091st day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq.  I‘m Keith Olbermann, goodnight and good luck."  Where does he say "about?"  He always states the exact day. CuteGargoyle 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Dposse.  This is the edit to which I was referring when I started this section. CuteGargoyle 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  That wording doesn't strike me as POV at all.  Isn't that exactly what he's doing?  Reminding viewers exactly how many days?  I think it is a very factual, neutral summary of what he's doing.  People can decide for themselves about his motives and if he is a biased newsanchor.  Another option would be to delete the sentence entirely. CuteGargoyle 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind it not being in there.  That seems to be the way it stands right now.  I just didn't want it to be inaccurrate, with the word "about" in there. CuteGargoyle 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Days since "Mission Accomplished" 

message: I haven't yet figured out how to add citations to the article; and rather than newbie maul the page, I figured I'd just provide the links and let someone more experienced handle it for now.  For this quote:
"In fact, it is Westwood One who broadcasts O'Reilly's radio show and not FOX."
Proof can be found here:  Westwood One: Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
Also, it is not listed as being on FOX News Radio Service.  However, it is also worth mentioning that his shows are present on the Fox News Talk channel on XM.  68.33.190.182 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Couple of Citations 

message: I don't agree that listing a show's schedule violates NPOV.  The showtime is a fact, and not in itself a recommendation (unless it's worded like, "Catch the best show on TV at...").  I'd like to see the showtimes for the TV and radio broadcasts reinserted.  They are certainly pertinent for anybody coming to this page to read up on Mr. Olbermann.  Why make people hunt around to find this simple information?  CuteGargoyle 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any thoughts on this question yet?  Should I put the schedule times back?  CuteGargoyle 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem with it. I think they should be there. 
JeffBerg 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Promotional" facts 

message: I've added several requests for citations to this section.  The critics who have accused Olbermann need to be specifically identified, then referenced with links to articles/quotes in which the actual complaints are addressed.  As an example, Olbermann may indeed end "each program by reminding viewers about the number of days since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq", but who has complained about that?  A documented accusation that this exhibits "liberal bias" needs to be cited.  There is only one citation in this section, and it only briefly mention's Olbermann's departure from MSNBC.  It doesn't address any of the other issues in that particular paragraph.   With sources provided, this section's POV problems will be eliminated.  Hal Raglan 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hal.  I'm sure that anyone could dig up a number of blogs which would say such a thing, or if not, could produce a blog entry to this effect and then to reference back to themselves.  We already have a citation of the Media Research Center in this section.  Do you care to expound a little more on what kind of reference you're looking for?  Mainstream media?  Academic research?  A quote from Olbermann himself? CuteGargoyle 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it seems to be using weasel words to simply say "Critics have accused Olbermann of liberal bias" and leave it at that without referencing any particular critics or their specific comments.  Just a citation to a notable conservative critic or two would be nice. Something from the Media Research Center, for example.  I've rewritten one of the sentences to actually provide a quote from Olbermann, but the cited Washington Post article that has been provided for that quote really doesn't say that he's been accused of liberal bias by anyone other than a blogger who has an anti-Olbermann site.  The article simply talks about Olbermann's critical commentary on the Bush Administration.  Comments/articles that actually accuse Olbermann of having a liberal bias/political agenda should be cited.  The complaints that are listed in that section now are not sourced. Hal Raglan 16:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the one reference from the Media Research Center doesn't really accuse Olbermann of having a liberal bias...it says he has made comments that are more liberal than conservative but otherwise doesn't seem to be particularly negative.  Stronger comments should be found.  I personally would prefer quotes/comments from notable conservative critics, rather than just from blogs or forums.Hal Raglan 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you generally, but I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a proper critic to cite.  Is Michelle Malkin "notable," for example?  Would Bob Cox be?  Who would you name (a person or a media source) as a more legitimate critic than just any blog or forum comment on the web?  Thanks.  CuteGargoyle 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Michelle Malkin is a notable critic, in that she is  nationally recognized by thousands of fans for her sarcasm-drenched,  anti-liberal views.  I don't mean to imply that simple infamy automatically makes her opinion worthwhile, or that her writing skills are any more notable than any of the hundreds upon hundreds of  bloggers out there.  Its just that a huge assortement of people read or listen to her opinions.  The same is obviously  true of the even more popular Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc, etc.  I've already mentioned Media Research Center...certainly an organization that keeps such scrutiny of "The Liberal Media" would have one or two bad things to say about Olbermann, if he is generally believed to have a liberal bias?  As far as I know, Bob Cox's only claim to "notability" is that he seems to passionately hate Keith Olbermann, and he produces a blog that publicly reveals his rabid, seething hatred.  To me, he seems like a crackpot, but if others think his views are worth reporting here, that's fine, as long as several other opinions/accusations are also included. Certainly specific accusations can be easily found online if critics widely believe that Olbermann is a liberal with a political agenda.  These accusations definitely need to be included and sourced.  But this section should not exist if the section has only been created to address one man's complaints.Hal Raglan 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have no problem with removing the section altogether.  I also think it's possible to write it neutrally enough for it to fit in.  Avoiding weasel wording is the challenge.  There have been a couple of less-than-complimentary articles written about KO in the last year or two which might provide a quote for this purpose, if somebody wants to look into that.  I really like your last sentence there, Bairdso66.  That's really the core issue here.  Can people decide for themselves?  Wikipedia isn't about force feeding opinions.  I think if we say something like "KO ends each newscast by tallying the number of days since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq," the reader can decide if that is meant to embarrass the president, if it's liberal bias, if it's over the top, or that kind of thing.  They may decide that they like him more for it.  If the reader is already of a certain mind, I don't think trying to spell out the conclusion for them is really going to influence them.  Let's just try to keep it neutral and honest and let people provide their own coloring.  CuteGargoyle 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of bias 

message: If "Accusations of Bias" belongs in this article, doesn't a "Praise from Critics" section belong also, to keep the article balanced? CuteGargoyle 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Praise from Critics" Section 

message: Okay, User:Kimchi.sg was kind enough to let us know about the official Wiki policy toward external links, which is to follow this style guide: WP:EL.  My reactions to the guide follow.  These are my first thoughts, not entrenched positions. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dposse just removed KO.o from the page.  Why no discussion first?  Am I the only one who thinks it's not a problem to have it there? CuteGargoyle 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Taken seriously by whom, Suzie Q?  At least I'm considerate enough to reply to people's issues instead of just whining and complaining.  When have you ever done one lick of work to improve this article? CuteGargoyle 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll thank you to not call me a whore, Mr./Ms. Anonymous-Online, and not to make other assumptions you can't support.  Why bother...what?  Why bother to improve the article?  Um, because that's what this site is for.  Why are you here?  Just to complain and badmouth people?  You need to turn your words around and point them at yourself.  Who's doing the demeaning here?  I haven't said or done one thing to demean you.  Who is pushing an agenda against the better interests of the Wikipedia?  As for "selectively editing out the views and opinions of others" I have done no such thing.  Please keep your self-described "true fans" far from me.  They sound scary.  CuteGargoyle 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Who am I "attacking?"  And what the hell are you talking about? CuteGargoyle 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Is this article ok now? Did we take care of all the POV stuff? It sounds fine to me. dposse 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any POV problems either.  Unless specific concerns can be noted here on the discussion page, that NPOV tag should go.Hal Raglan 16:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  so, can we take the sign down yet? 

message: Here's a link about his alleged Asperger's.  --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've seen him on lists of celebrities like that before, but I have never heard him mention it in any interview.  If you follow the link from that page to the bio for KO, there is no mention of it there either.  I think someone made an assumption about this based on KO mythology (trouble with coworkers, genius at sports trivia, etc.).  Once he got on one list of Aspies, he'd get cloned onto all the other lists.  The thing about KO is that he has mentioned many personal details about himself - the feet, his height, his head injury, his celiac condition, his religion.  If he had Asperger's, wouldn't he have mentioned it at some point? It seems like it would be important enough for him to feature a story on it at some point.  I still consider this an unconfirmed (though interesting) rumor. CuteGargoyle 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting excerpt from that page you linked to:  "I have listed here some well-known people who have shown some autistic or AS traits. Some may have autism or AS, in their mild or severe forms. Others may be elsewhere on the autistic spectrum. And others listed may just be unusual individuals."  Also, notice that there are fictional characters in the list.  This guy is just making guesses and assumptions. CuteGargoyle 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asperger's Syndrome 

message: for the record, please do not blame me if this article gets vandalised. In case anyone is wondering why i'm posting this here, some guy complained on my talk page that i vandalised this page from my school. dposse 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't blame me. 

message: Fearing an revert from Olbermann supporters aka.. (bush bashers), I wanted to get feedback from people concerning the adding of commentator to Keith Olbermann's definition of duties "news anchor", "sportscaster" etc.. I feel that he has in fact become a strong commentator recently in the past couple of years speaking out against anyone and anything conservative...any thoughts on the issue??--Bairdso66 04:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think commentator is a fair word to use.  For instance, in the smoking lecture, he was most certainly expressing his own POV.  Today, he's discussing the ramifications of Bush's immigration speech with Chris Matthews.  They are both playing the role of commentator (which is another word for analyst) for this broadcast.  CuteGargoyle 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  In addition to being a news anchor and sportscaster, Olbermann is definitely a commentator (and uses his blog in that capacity) so I can't imagine anyone having a problem with adding this descriptor to the opening paragraph.Hal Raglan 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  commentator 

message: Hi.  It looks like most of the people here are new so I'm going to give an expanded explanation of what happened.  
I was the mediator from the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal who took the Keith Olbermann case that was filled.  Just so you have my background:
* I don't watch the show and until today I didn't know the name
* I'm not a Scientologist
* I have no tie to any of the sites under dispute
I do research prior to posting so that I know where the argument stands.  During the course of that research I discovered that basically this was a simple yes/no issue and I made an advisory ruling to include the link. 
In the future you all should have discussed this and tried to come to an agreement by yourselves.  This did not justify a case before the cabal.  In this forum you sort of talk at one another and revert each other changes.  I'd like to exempt User:CuteGargoyle who has tried on several occasions to get the discussion page to work.  Next time he tried join in and work with one another. Jeff I'm glad you got a real account going and welcome to wikipedia.  jbolden1517Talk 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text pasted from my discussion at User talk:JeffBerg#Message Board links - Draeco 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediation summary close 

message: and will do so in alphabetical order. These include, with their post counts, and date of establishment as follows:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=315
Over 46,483 messages, established 2005 
http://www.quicktopic.com/29/H/CCZ5hH7RnZhQ
over 64,000 views, nearly 4000 posts, established 2004
http://www.quicktopic.com/25/H/mHMnt3nXci7qu
Over 250,000 hits, over 15,000 posts, established 2005
http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3116806&pid=5269878&st=1080&entry5269878
Over 1,000 replies, over 100,000 views, established 2004
Jeff
Hi--I wish to agree with Jeff's very well-put points and respectfully disagree with the mediator. KO.o is hardly a legitimate discussion site, and what it offers is inaccuracies, half-truths, and distortions, which you would have found with minimal research. The only legitimate link that should be included with the article is to Olbermann.org, which offers a great deal of legitimate material on Olbermann in several media formats which would enhance the article.
Let me point out that I have no affiliation with either site.
 
I think that Jeff is right though--what's fair for one should be fair for all. Either include fansites for other news personalities or include them for none. This exception is wholly unfair. Jack.
Thanks Jack. I've now made the page edit so the forums I've listed above are also all included, in alpahbetical order. I suppose an argument could also be made that they should be listed in chronological order, but since Michael's site would end up at the bottom. . . well, I'm sure he might have issues with that so, I just did them alphabetically. Jeff
I would also like to express my agreement with Jeff's original argument. I don't think Wiki is the place to publicize one's message board or other fan forums. I agree with Jack that the mediator was incorrect but I believe that Jeff has come up with the most equitable solution to the problem. Listing all of the available KO fan forums will give people a chance to examine them and decide which one, if any, they find interesting or useful. Glad to see such an acrimonious situation resolved diplomatically. - Joni Ann (on edit: Just noticed all the J names, so I added my middle name to make discussion easier!)
I asked for further clarification on this issue from Wiki, here is the respose I got: 
"In the case of the Keith Olbermann article, I think you did the right thing by adding link to all five boards at the end. But then it's just my personal opinion that Wikipedia articles should contain as much information as possible. It would also be O.K. to list none of them, according to your logic on my talk page, but listing only one out of several message boards would not be good at all."- Draeco 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the Wikipedia:External links. In specific WP:EL#Occasionally_acceptable_links says 3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. and WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid 10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. --waffle iron talk 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, I have no problem with listing them all. I list them all on www.keitholbermann.org. Just came back this morning and the link to my site was removed again--I put it back up... someone evidently didn't get the message.  Jeff, if you want to put back those other links you favor, please feel free to do so.  Democratic Underground is the most problematic, as you have to pay to post on that one, but I agree they are much larger, since they are a large "Democratic Underground"--the KO part is just a sub-board.--DoctorMike 11:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be the QT'ers themselves, if they don't want a high profile link to their board.  It could also be something/somebody else.  CuteGargoyle 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are still there this morning. The formatting was a little screwy at first and it may have possibly looked to someone as if they were duplicate boards. I moved some things around last night and reformatted and now they appear differently on the front page so I think it's easier for someone to tell that there are two of them now. JeffBerg 14:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added links to ALL Keith Olbermann message boards/fan forums 

message: Ok, we can go back and forth with edits that are PoV here, or we can work towards getting a NPOV section. Would one of the folks who are coming in and continually changing it away from what it is now respond here and tell us why you think it needs to be changed, while keeping NPOV? Thanks. SirFozzie 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, let's not change the article to a POV without discussing it here first. SirFozzie 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly feud 

message: I've been having some struggle on Laura Ingraham's page, mainly with one temporarily-banned user but potentially with other Ingraham loyalists, to introduce an NPOV account of Ingraham's March 21, 2006 appearance on NBC's "The Today Show." Ingraham, who visited Iraq for six days in February, criticized coverage of the Iraq conflict by "NBC and networks of the United States":
:To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off.
To which, the next day, Olbermann replied:
:A note about Laura Ingraham's comments. I've known her a long time.  I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've know her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. In was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in considerable of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vought, unforgivable in light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopft. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq.  And it was not only unforgivable of her; it was desperate and it was stupid.video here
I think Ingraham's remark should be part of her entry. It's important to note that Ingraham herself did not travel with the Iraqi Army, but visited under the protection of U.S. occupation forces. Anyone who might have a look at the conflict, perhaps provide a sympathetic, solving voice, is welcome. Sandover 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well well well. You thought I wouldn't notice this, you trying to rally support against "Ingraham loyalists"? Oh, we're trying to make the article POV are we? Funny how you never said a word about it on the relevant discussion page. So much for WP:AGF, huh Sandover? You're busted. Haizum 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and just so everyone is clear, I am the individual that was temporarily blocked. Unfortunately for Sandover's agenda, this doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that he has just cited me as an enemy of his cause on another page. Not only is this completely unethical, but citing a past block of mine for the obvious purpose of discrediting me is a blatant personal attack. I welcome your input, and I encourage the rest of you to invite Administrators to review his actions, because I will be. Haizum 07:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: How does contacting staff make someone a loyalist? The BS is crowding out your brain cells, Sandover. 68.55.4.83 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laura Ingraham's 'hotel balconies' comment 

message: Just for those who are still not convinced that Keith Olbermann has a leftward lean to his nightly rants....here is a list of some of his worse person in the world candiates....just for fun
-Bill O'Reilly(nightly)
-Laura Ingraham
-Rush Limbaugh
-Brent Bozzell
-Ann Coulter
-Michelle Malkin
-Sean Hannity'''
Pattern anyone??--Bairdso66 01:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes your credibility, Bairdso. 68.55.4.83 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worst person list 

message: I think fru23 is right there is a need for a criticism section. He provided good sources. I would like to continue where he left off. JcLiner (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You really don't know when to give up, do you? You must honestly believe we're all complete idiots. NcSchu(Talk) 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's making everyone jump through the administrative hoops again, which is presumably the motive of his activity at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I like your "I am not a sock of fru23" userpage.  That's very postmodern.  Switzpaw (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Watergate-era, as in "I'm not a crook!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism