Talk:Kim Komando

message: The term "bibliography" is ambiguous as a title for the section listing Komando's published works.  It is not immediately clear if she is the author of the books, or if she is a subject of the books.  Please clarify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.12.44 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, makes sense. I switched it to "Published Works". ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bibliography" -> "Published Works" or "Writings" 

message: Here is the text of the assertion:
"Accordig[sic] to a talk radio industry publication, the program is considered the most-listened to weekend syndicated talk radio show. [1]"
Why it has been removed:
1) The source reference link is not correctly cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.  It says Kim Komando is the source, then directs the browser to the talkers.com page.  This is a violation of the talkers.com terms of use, and therefore, must be removed immediately.
2) The more appropriate place for this assertion is on The_Kim_Komando_Show Wikipedia page.
3) This list of statistics is not substantial authority on the topic.  The footnotes clearly say these statistics are very rough estimates.
4) The list makes no claim about Komando's show being the "most-listened to" or a "weekend show."  It is only by inference by the reader that this claim is made.  
5) Serious doubts about the validity of this list: a) Don Imus is still listed, b) why is the distinction given to Komando's show over Brinker's when the statistics are indistinguishable?, c) Art Bell's weekend show isn't even listed here, d) do these statistics include Komando's *daily* Computer Minutes?  
6) Weasel wording.  "is considered" is on the list of avoidable weasel words.  Her show could be *considered* to be all sorts of things.
;Response:
:# - talkers.com's TOS is irrelevant to wikipedia.  For the rest of it the article's citation can be improved to fix this problem.
:# - I can accept this point, but it doesn't mean it can't be mentioned here in the context of mentioning her accomplishments.
:# - Industry magazines are considered reliable sources. Thats why we cite the source.
:# - Fair enough.
:# - The stats are part of a magazine article, and as such, are not updated daily. Either way this entire point is irrelevant.
:# - It's not a weasel word because the source making the consideration is referenced.
:So, in closing, even with my objections to your various points I support the removal of the sentence.   I'll see what I can do about creating a better worded sentence using this source. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still object to the distinction about the top weekend-only rating.  The source listing does not make this distinction.  The reader is led to infer this conclusion.  IN FACT, the Brinker Show and the Komando show are statistically indistinguishable, if you look at the margin of error.  The source list does not even distinguish what qualifies as a weekend-only show.  You are, therefore, adding original research.  About the weasel wording:  The talkers.com list makes NO CONSIDERATIONS at all. A consideration is a view or an opinion based on reflection.  Humans make considerations.  That's why it's weasel wording.  Finally, the cume statistic should be placed in the first paragraph that deals primarily with her radio show.
Gee, had no idea posting information about one of the most listened to women radio talk show hosts would generate such controversy.  Komando's like No. 3, and the biggest on the weekend. She doesn't do politics, which is rare. Thought someone might care about that accomplishment.
Regarding that list of biggest hosts, the Talkers Magazine list hasn't been updated. It list Imus, who recently was forced off the air. G. Gordon Liddy, I believe, doesn't have such a big show anymore. So it's likely Komando may move up.
Anyway, I put the original claim to large listenership on the Kim Komando Radio Show page, which I at the time didn't realize existed as a separate entity.
Don1962 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don1962, thanks for adding this insight.  I was concerned that the original wording claimed much more than what the talkers.com statistics actually represent.  The error bars are significant, and there's been a lot of criticism about the ratings method itself due to newer, but ignored, distribution channels like podcasts, internet streaming, and satellite.  Her show is indeed quite popular on the weekends, but making a superlative statement when comparing apples to oranges seems inappropriate. Do you feel satisfied with the current wording?
**Biography 
How about some more information, i.e., place of birth, parents, education? T.E. Goodwin 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for removing audience rating assertion 

message: i mean it says something like "broadcasts from a 10,000,000,000 square-foot studio" - who the hell would care about that?  and many of the citations are from Komando.com
who edits this page, Kim herself?  it just sounds silly.  and i listen to her a few times a month but come on. 66.87.4.244 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads a little bit like propaganda 

message: Her bio info says she graduated from college at 20. That would still have her born in 1965...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.252.185 (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Born in 1967? Graduated from college in 1985?? 

message: I tagged the whole article and all the dead links I could find (almost all).  I was able to fix one of them.  Article needs lots of work.--TjoeC (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links and overall lack of citation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kim Komando. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://komando.com/abtkk/staff/kom.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://komando.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kim Komando. 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/20070929194736/http://www.familyfirst.com/kim_komando_1.html to http://www.familyfirst.com/kim_komando_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226163138/http://www.komando.com/about/bio.aspx to http://www.komando.com/about/bio.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Komando. 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/20160511131054/http://nabshow.com/news-releases/kim-komando-address-nab-show-radio-luncheon to http://www.nabshow.com/news-releases/kim-komando-address-nab-show-radio-luncheon
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.komando.com/about/bio.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) 22:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I agree with the tag placed two years ago: the referencing is atrocious. There are some that fall afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY and others are just a bad idea such as her mother's LinkedIn profile. I think in a while I'll challenge and cut some more of the wholly unreferenced stuff. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toned this down, referencing needs work