Talk:List of Keith Olbermann's special comments

message: "and looks to capitalize on the popularity of his special comments"  is NOT NPOV. Ademska 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone now.  Henrymrx 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic. Ademska 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate

message: There has been some recent disagreement regarding the proper method for summarizing the list of Special Comments.  Several editors have voiced neutrality concerns; reverts have the following explainations:
*Sorry, but I happen to right in this case. The purpose of these blurbs is to briefly and neutrally describe what Olbermann is saying, not to buy into his point of view.
*this should be a nuetral description of the piece, it should not parrot any ones talking points or opinions.
While I recognize that we must neutrally present information, the issue here is not WP:NPOV, it is one of original research.  MSNBC, as a primary source, already provides a summarization of each Special Comment.  WP:OR strictly prohibits synthesis of thought, and without a reliable secondary source that summarizes each Comment that's exactly what we're doing -- original research.  Listing a source's existing summary isn't "parroting talking points".  We should not be in the business of injecting our own analysis of or summarization of each Special Comment, and in this case we should stick with what the source says.  If need be, we can designate that each summary is from the source itself.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be honest here folks. Most of the articles in Wikipedia are rife with "orignal research," especially if you include the kind of O R that I am being "accused" of, which is merely to summarize cited materials in as neutral a way as I can. The issue is ,indeed, just as much NPOV as it is O R because both are supposed to be core principles of Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that the MSNBC summary of Olbermann's " Aug. 18 special comment" is clearly biased against McCain. We could, of course, change all of the comment summaries to the MSNBC versions and "warn" readers of the fact. The article would then be little more than a clone of another website. Perhaps this is what some editors want. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold the phone there, Tex.  First of all, please restrict your comments to the actual issues instead of questioning other editors' motives.  Second of all, there is no "accusation" here -- we're all trying to work together to build a quality encyclopedia.  This RFC is simply to ensure that we're all following our core principles, policies, and guidelines.  I don't think the fact that other stuff exists is justification to allow original research, especially when the primary source has already provided a summary.  The summary provided by the source is necessarily accurate because it's the source of the commentary.  Please don't confuse using an existing summary with some sort of endorsement or constitutes bias on Wikipedia's part.  Re-tooling an existing summary to try and sanitize it to attempt "fairness" is absolutely original research and can't be a better choice that going with a reliably sourced alternative.  My proposal is to stick with sourced summaries and to indicate that they're straight from the horse's mouth.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Bait notwithstanding, please understand that the summaries are necessarily accurate because the source itself has summarized the main points of the Special Comments.  By attempting to sterilize the point, you're changing the meaning.  WP:NPOV is not an authorization to bleach politically charged commentary -- this list summarizes the content of the Special Comments, which is clearly best covered by the given summary from the source.  Original research is not an option.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I reverted it because the description changes the meaning of how it is described in the reference used for making that information. Changing the description could be WP:NOR violation. DockuHi 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Quotation and attribution when possible or more reflective description (not white washed or polished) when not possible would have been a better description of what I had meant. It is my opinion, you are welcome to disregard it. DockuHi 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the reference, i reverted it back to the factually correct previous version. Well, I should have attributed it to MSNBC myself, well, now, Thanks, you have done it yourself. DockuHi 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If we're going to use MSNBC's summary (which is the only option compliant with Wikipedia policies) then we must of course note that the summary comes from MSNBC.  The advertising assertion is, of course, a red herring.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Practice what you preach.  This sentence was written in the third person and thus became your interpretation. Switzpaw (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Dude, here's another.  How is the reader supposed to know that this is coming from the primary source?  It's a reasonable expectation that a summary written in the third person (i.e. Keith explains ..) is spoken from an independent voice, be it a secondary source or an NPOV summarization from a Wikipedia editor.  To use this rationale as a way to present Olbermann's opinion as fact is not following the spirit of the policy.  Switzpaw (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, "dude", I have no idea what the accusatory "practice what you preach" means.  Second of all, read the comment just above, in which I specifically said "we must of course note that the summary comes from MSNBC."  And finally, please note the line just above the list of special comments (in the article), which clearly states "The links in this table are to transcripts or videos of the special comments. The special comment titles are taken from the MSNBC website; they are not mentioned on air."  :-)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment: Comment summaries

message: A question: is it original research when we write a summary and then cite the source material (maybe implicitly) as the source? And if so, isn't that what usually happens in articles that feature plot summaries for novels (like the Jane Eyre article) and Grey's Anatomy episodes and like, so how would the summaries for the special comments be any different? Purifiedwater (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS says that's valid, but Blaxthos is trying to say it's original research.  So I guess he considers the summaries to be an interpretation? Switzpaw (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research question 

message: As noticed during the beginning of 39th Special Comment(20th Oct. 2008), now the host Keith Olbermann started to publish Special Campaign Comment for the 2008 Presidential Election as his no.1 story of Countdown. In this case, 'the SCC' should creating the new and independent page of SCC as a sub-title of Special Comment (e.g. SCC-1, SCC-2), or just keep posting as the following SC (e.g. SC-40, SC-41)? What should we do? Any opinion will be delighted. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Olbermann stated in October 17th's or 20th's broadcast, I believe, that the Special Campaign Comments would not really be Special Comments. But a SCC page would likely not meet notability requirements, so I would recommend creating a subsection of this article. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, this paragraph has been done eventually by some passionate user(Not by me, anyway). Thanks trillion for this hard work. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Campaign Comment 

message: If I were a registered editor I might consider launching a discussion as to whether this list is noteworthy enough for inclusion. I'll let others argue that; what I did instead was I updated the wording in the intro to past tense as Olbermann's "special comments" ended their run in 2012, though his current "Resistance" show for GQ is basically all "special comments". 136.159.160.6 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated - but is this needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Keith Olbermann's special comments. 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  tag to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermanns_book_soars_on_amazoncom_43090.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212030930/http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/10/1667759.aspx to http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/10/1667759.aspx
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) 00:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified