Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 1

message: Do we really need this trivia? I'd accept the shoe sizes, the damaged depth perception (however, I'd remove the "Ouch.") and the Celiac Disease. But if no one objects I think the vertebrae and the pajama-part should be deleted.
"Big Guy" Trivia
Shoe size is 13 1/2 or 14.
Possesses six lumbar vertebrae instead of the usual five.
Damaged depth perception in 1980 by rushing to catch a subway car at New York's Shea Stadium and slamming his head into the top of the door frame. Ouch.
[edit]
Non "Big Guy" Trivia
Has Celiac Disease (gluten intolerance).
Claims not to blog in his pajamas, because he doesn't own pajamas.
__________________________________
---Wintermute- 21:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody object to my deleting this little section?  The page is getting long, and the controversy over POV is embedded in the following section, not this one. CuteGargoyle 09:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the Trivia Section 

message: "I don't know of such a fan site. I... might start one someday.
I'm content with the article as it stands." -S*Bufe
LOL! Articles about WAY-out-there liberals like Keith Olbermann get the stamp of approval from potential 'fan site' operators, while Bill O'Reilly's article is edited by people that make Michael Moore seem like Phyllis Schaffly. 
I think I'm starting to understand Wikipedia circa late 3rd Qtr 2005. And it's breathtaking! Big Daddy 14:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From The "Pretty Much Says It All' Department 

message: * What's the purpose of deleting this?
:"In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive compendium of first and third base coaches in baseball history." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "He was taken to task inthe blogosphere for trying to make the story about himself the day after news veteran Peter Jennigs passed away from lung cancer." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding changes by 12.167.224.228 

message: "Owing to its more jaundiced view of the White House than other cable news programs, it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration."
This seems like such an unable to be proven and potentially fallacious statement. Is it encyclopedic? -- iKato 01:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the reasons for the revert. I'm sure you think your original theory holds all the water in the world, but unless you can site a reputable source Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --sigmafactor 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof? 

message: I'm confused - how did Olbermann almost get fired from MSNBC for saying "Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking — now. While it's easier"? Clearly something's missing from this story. Nobody gets fired for telling people that they should stop smoking. Rhobite 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this sentence.. feel free to replace it if you can shed some light on why MSNBC would fire a commentator for promoting healthy behavior. It doesn't pass the common sense test. Rhobite 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost fired? 

message: user 81.135.245.231 keeps removing the incident that Olbermann played on his show... that of threatening callers on a call-in show for calling him and saying Keith's name. John wesley 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know the M.Rpt played parodies, I need to double check their stuff now.  John wesley 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about Majority Report, but this was covered on Media Matters, which is very accurate (although obviously they focus on discrediting O'Reilly). Rhobite 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how seriously to take any of this stuff but for the heavy irony.  We should be able to rewrite this part of the article to explain the canonical definition of irony so as to undo the harm done by the darn song.  Ironic (song) John wesley 14:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess when Olbermann played the piece he prefaced it with saying that the clip came off the O'Reilly website itself and that there is a 7 second delay.  But the incident is funny, due to the irony of it being a call in show. John wesley 16:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feud with O'Reilly 

message: I edited that last sentence of the "Feud With Bill O'Reilly" section, which originally said,"Later, as a guest on The Colbert Report he called O'Reilly an 'idiot,' and compared Fox News to Nazi Germany."  If you watch that episode (3/14) of the Colbert Report, you'll clearly see that Olbermann's comment is taken out of context. He jokingly ripped on O'Reilly when questioned by Colbert, however he did not directly compare the Fox News Network to Nazi Germany.  After Colbert, in his own satirically sarcastic way, claimed that the O'Reilly caller harassment incident and the use of Fox security was okay, Olbermann replied somewhere along the lines of "Yea, if you live in Nazi Germany."
: I concur.  Not a "comparison" to the Nazis.  That's really pushing it. 67.174.180.72 22:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody object to removing this section?  It doesn't appear to be an ongoing controversy. CuteGargoyle 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Fox News Nazi comment 

message: My take: 
*Calling the feud "mostly one-sided": POV and untrue. Both commentators have taken shots at each other.
*callingallwingnuts.com should definitely be mentioned, it appears that the person who called was part of that site. That doesn't excuse O'Reilly's behavior, of course.
*"Olbermann starts off every edition of his program with highly critical news concerning the Administration or some other conservative leader." This is a very bold thing to claim - every single show starts off with an anti-Bush story? This kind of statement cannot be in the article without a citation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Reilly edit war 

message: Why do two of the special comments, one regarding the Bush administration and one regarding the Clinton campaign, warrant their own sections on this page while the rest are covered on the List of Special Comments pages?  I propose removing the Clinton campaign criticism section, at least, as an unnecessary content fork for the Keith Olbermann article. GoodnightmushTalk 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think the Clinton criticism section needs to be expanded.  Watch his show.  It's at least 30 minutes of bashing Hillary Clinton and fawning over Obama.--Lindsay (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Bush Administration and Clinton Campaign 

message: I can't see any precedent for just tagging the article with two links to collections of news stories, and have reverted the change. As per WP:EL, wikipedia isn't just a collection of links, external links should be used sparingly. Collected stories could be found simply by Googling the subject, there's no need to include specific collections on external sites. Is there a precedent for adding news article collections to BLP pages? Redrocket (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such stories are potentially important sources of information for public figures like Olbermann who are frequently commented upon or criticized by such organizations. Such links are not the equivalent of google searches, but are instead specifically targeted collections of resources.  I have seen such links in plenty of other WP articles and I expect to find links to such resources there.  Also, EL should not simply contain merely links to the official websites of the subject and such outside views make EL a more complete and more neutral resource. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't "simply contain links" to the official website of the person, it contains a wide variety of reliable secondary sources. Besides, choosing certain sites as ELs that house "specifically targeted collections of resources" housed by organizations that are commented upon or criticized by the subject of an article doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOV. Redrocket (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: We aren't here to replace Google.  Anyone who is sufficiently interested in what other information about Olbermann is available on the Internet can use a search engine.  As an encyclopedia, we generally want to limit our use of external links to providing specific sources for specific statements in the article, plus a link to an "official site", plus perhaps another link or two for specific things that we can't include in the article for copyright reasons.  Wikipedia:External links discourages the use of external links that simply point to aggregations and search results.  Linking to lists of articles from two opposing organisations (from a political perspective) is a bit gray-area, but, in my opinion, it's likely that it won't last too long in the article because someone will perceive it as not meeting WP:EL...  -/- Warren 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison to google makes little sense to me beyond the superficial aspect of "it looks like a list".  I think a centralized collection of articles from an organization which frequently mentions the subject of the article would be more useful than a list to a couple of articles, and individual articles shouldn't clutter up EL anyway unless they are ones of particular value or importance. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External News Links 

message: Hi Gamaliel -- I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. --Kangaru99 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what I said when you posted this same message on my talk page: How is NPOV "being compromised"? One yahoo news article doesn't make an issue encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  tax section 

message: Where's your source that says he's an athiest?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.25.104 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athiest? Where's the proof? 

message: Lengthy article in the New Yorker on Olbermann.  Lots of useful information in there, could be a good source for future article improvements.  Warren -talk- 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new yorker article 

message: I put up a section on Keith's tax problems.  Not surprisingly it was removed.  Why?  This story was widely covered including an AP wire story.  I would also like someone to explain the justification for the "anti-smoking" section.  This was three years ago, Keith did a handful of mentions of his "campaign" and then never mentioned it again.  Why would a few brief segments from several years ago belong in Wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.23.241 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anti-Smoking section seems like trivia, and I don't think that is so important to his biography that it deserves its own section. Switzpaw (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olbermann Tax Problems/Removing Anti-Smoking Section 

message: Do the subsections dealing with content of Countdown need to be so long?  The first paragraph in the Perceptions of Ideological Orientation subsection ("Although it began as a traditional newscast, ..") gives a good short description of the editorial content of Countdown.  If I could edit this article any way I wanted, I'd keep that paragraph in this article and move the content of the following sections to Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
* Perceptions of Ideological Orientation
* Criticism of the Bush Administration
* Feud with Bill O'Reilly
* Criticism of Fox News
* Criticism of the Hillary Clinton Campaign
Olbermann is an opinionated commentator, and these sections are just going to bloat as time goes on. Switzpaw (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me Switzpaw. Some duplication in the two articles is unavoidable, but there is much more than needed in these two. In both articles, however, there are similar "accusations of bias" (or some similar title) sections in which anti-Olbermann contributors stubbornly insist on labeling Olbermann a liberal, while pro-Olbermann contributors even more stubbornly insist that he has no discernible political bias (even though he has become a hero to them largely because of his bias). The whole thing is pretty silly. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections within Career at NBC Universal section 

message: On the Wikipedia page for Bob Tur, it states, "His daughter, Katy, a reporter with WPIX in New York, is living with MSNBC news anchor Keith Olbermann[9].  The source[9] is "Limbaugh for Lefties," from nymag.com, 4/16/2007.  At that time, Katy Tur was 23.  She is now 24. The New York Post has written about Katy Tur in Page Six, to which Olbermann himself called specific attention on "Countdown" by refuting its claim he was taking a medication for RLS that has sexual side effects.
How is his status not relevant when so many other people's on Wikipedia are? I updated Olbermann's status, as well as corrected his age, under Edits.  Someone removed them in record time.  I didn't refer to the age of his significant other.  I simply repeated the statement about Olbermann and Tur living together as found on the Wikipedia page for Bob Tur.  I wonder if it's been removed.
I think it would be appropriate to have a Personal Life section that includes the existing text on his early life.  Why not include his early career in its own section? I hope I signed this correctly this time. Mrs. Peel (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life (2) 

message: Removing this quotation as there is no reference for the quotation, and per this. GoodnightmushTalk 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times Quote 

message: Clarification is needed here.  Is Olbermann a news anchor because he hosts his own show, or is he anchoring news coverage outside of Countdown? Switzpaw (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both, by all accounts.  MSNBC refers to Countdown as a news hour, and Olbermann as an anchor.  Additionally, he's anchored several primetime events (conventions, primaries, etc.).  With regards to the article you referenced in your edit summary, the source only deals with the pair's roles during political coverage.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make that edit, another editor did.  Given recent news articles that say "MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as Anchors" (though they are specific that it's about election coverage), the lack of identification of Chris Matthews as a news anchor in his Wikipedia bio, and a reference to a consensus that was established over a year ago(?), I think it's completely understandable why people are making those edits.  That being said, I see your point. Switzpaw (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't pay closer attention to the editors making the edits.  I certainly understand why there's been recent activity surrounding the issue, though I don't think it's a definitive change in the broad context of a biographical article.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, called Olbermann a commentator and analyst in a recent conference with New York media, carefully omitting the term "anchor."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.214.55 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Polemical commentator, Do you have any reliable source which calls him that way. if you dont and it is entirely your opinion, it would mean to indicate that you tend to have a rather strong dislike for the subject. Remember such comments might make people question your intentions here and not take your arguments serious. Good luck. DockuHi 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Consensus That Olbermann Is a News Anchor 

message: I'm not sure why this was removed. A simple fact template would do. 'Credited' can mean a lot of things, including given recognition to someone (hence the 'credits' at the end of a film). A google search yield two results: this one, where the quote was probably originally from; and this one, which shows that Olbermann wrote something that was published in 'The Sports Collectors Bible'. Actually, upon further research, it seems Olbermann was probably just a source for information in the 'Sports Collectors Bible'. NcSchu(Talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence the term "credited".  Thanks for the legwork, NcSchu.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That's not really any part of the definition of the word, so I think it was a bit much to remove that whole statement because of your incorrect perception of what the word entails. I've changed it to 'referenced'. NcSchu(Talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I have a life..that's probably why. Editing using an iPod Touch during lecture is very difficult, even more so when you need to copy and paste a reference. I figured since it's here that someone would care to add it later, as you did. NcSchu(Talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Collectors Bible 

message: It doesn't make sense to say that Countdown has made a gradual move toward punditry if the program was on the air for only a few months when Olbermann started criticizing the Bush administration (in the run up to the 2004 election). Also, NBC executives have carefully avoided calling him a news anchor on more than one occasion since September 7.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.214.55 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the word 'gradually'. We don't need it. We don't need 'quickly', either. If, however, there are multiple outside sources characterizing it as one or the other, maybe it would make sense. --Elliskev 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gradual? 

message: The subsection First NBC stint ends with Olbermann ashamed, depressed, and crying. It doesn't tell us how that stint ended. I assume he went to Fox Sports because an earlier section of the article says that he arrived there in the same year as his travails at MSNBC (1998). The First NBC stint subsection, however, should inform the reader, at least very basically, as to how that stint came to an end. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First NBC stint 

message: I changed the heading from "Ideology" to "Viewpoints," as that is more what the section is. Also, "ideology" trypically pertains to politicians or philosophers, of which he is neither. An ideolgy is more of system, and there is no cohesive, self-contained philosophical system presented in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political positions 

message: Regardless of the order given to his job titles, let's not pretend that Olbermann in 2008 is more famous for his sportscasting career than he is for Countdown, or that there's more content in the body of this article on his earlier activities than there is on his post March 31, 2003 activities. One might well get that impression from reading the lead as it presently stands. WP:LEAD: In a well constructed article the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the text. To that end I'm adding a bit the lead paragraph. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source either way that Olbermann's known more for one or the other? Before Countdown he was probably only known for sportscasting, so by placing all emphasis on something he's only done in the past few years we would indeed be violating WP:RECENT. Seriously though, alphabetical order will solve every problem, and I highly doubt anybody would notice the difference between any wording. NcSchu(Talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Well thanks for your concern NcSchu, however, I'm now pretty much "over" the great "job title order debate". I've "vented". Not nearly as bad as a love affair gone wrong, I can assure you. Now I'm simply pointing out that the emphasis in the lead should roughly parallel the emphasis in the rest of the article per WP:LEAD, and trying to expand on the lead accordingly. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this some sort of campaign?  I'm having a lot of trouble assuming that this is a good faith effort to improve the article -- given the history of , this seems more like a politically motivated effort.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per relative emphasis guidelines I think newscaster and commentator have to come before sportscaster. Olbermann remains a sportscaster, but pretty much all references to him today in the third party sources, particularly prominent ones, are in reference to his work in newscasting and political commentary. GoodnightmushTalk 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of the references to OJ Simpson today are in reference to him going to jail, but that article's lead lists retired football player first and convicted felon last. :) Switzpaw (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Speaking as someone who's actually worked on WP:LEAD, I'd like to point out (not for the first time) that the relative emphasis clause doesn't dictate the order in which things in appear.  The order of professions is relative to how long they've done something, not what they're best known for.  Even still, Olbermann was very well known as a sportscaster for many years before the political stuff came along; the only reason anyone really cares about his political stuff now, and wants to make a lot of hay of it, is because of the 2008 election and his role in it.  Warren -talk- 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: My point is that User:Goodnightmush did not address the WP:RECENTISM argument.  If Olbermann is mainly notable for being a sportcaster, as Warren contends, then this article should be trimmed to exclude some of the Countdown with Keith Olbermann criticism and Feud with Bill O'Reilly (and I advocated that a few months ago, see an earlier talk page comment).  We might end up with an article that has a lot more meat on Olbermann's legacy as a sportscaster, and WP:LEAD#Relative_emphasis would support listing sportscaster first.  Switzpaw (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the lead 

message: I asked on April 1 and didn't receive much response, so I thought I'd bring it up again. Why does the single "Special Comment" about Hillary Clinton warrant such significant mention, particularly on a page about Olbermann, not even about Countdown? GoodnightmushTalk 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess it needs to go. undue importance. Docku:“what up?” 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, seems WP:UNDUE. Dayewalker (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good example of WP:recentism when it really happened. Docku:“what up?” 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Question I pose, was Olbermann's criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign notable with respect to his career?  Was Olbermann an exceptional critic of the Clinton campaign?  Did his viewers come to understand his viewpoints significantly through his criticism of the Clinton campaign?  If true, keep, if not, there may be a case for deletion now that some time has elapsed.  Switzpaw (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good portions of this article relate to KO's criticising of various people.  I am not saying that this should remain, but if removed then why would his others be justified?  And if removed it would appear that only his criticism of non-liberal or Republican figures is worthy of inclusion, in which case one has to be careful that the article is not just a repository of his rants against non-liberals and Republicans.  Arzel (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I removed it was because it had no reliable secondary sources to indicate its significance (the primary ones don't even indicate that either, they're just videos of him talking/a blog post). As it stands now there's no reason for it to stay. I won't remove it and start an edit war, but there is no reason for this section to remain. NcSchu(Talk) 19:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I do support the watering down of the other criticism sections. I don't think the criticism section has to be a 'list and summary of people KO has criticized.' So much of the stuff just hasn't got the relevance to stay. I'm probably going to tag it later with some template. NcSchu(Talk) 20:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry folks, but I can't help feeling that deleting this section, as has been recently done, is a political act; an attempt, at least in Wikipedia' little corner of the world, to patch up the differences between Obama's media fan Olbermann and the person who will apparently be President Obama's Secretary of State. While I don't think that Olbermann's criticism of Hillary Clinton should be over-emphasized (and it could certainly be incorporated into a more general section as NcSchu suggests), I strongly believe that it should at least be mentioned. It is certainly worth noting for posterity that in an extremely close nomination contest between the first truly serious black aspirant for the Presidency (Jesse Jackson never really had a chance) and the first truly serious female aspirant for the Presidency, the subject of our article strongly and repeatedly criticized one of them. Not to do so smacks of censorship. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: One other thing I just noticed is that Goodnightmush seems to think that there was only one "special comment" that targeted Hillary. No, there were two: March 12, 2008 and May 23, 2008. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then find a source. It wasn't a political removal, it was just an observation that the section was completely baseless while going over recent edit changes. Arguing that it's important because she might be Secretary of State, as one editor did, however, is political, and doesn't negate the fact that it's unsourced. NcSchu(Talk) 13:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: In the absence of a separate section on KO's criticism of Hillary Clinton, I've tweaked the the sentence in the "Viewpoints" section where this criticism is mentioned (I had forgotten that it was even there). I think that the weight given to his criticism of Hillary in the article is now about right. If others disagree then let's discuss it here. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find my more detailed statement here.  Badmintonhist's proposed change seems like a pretty good compromise.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it's a good compromise. NcSchu(Talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Wow, someone take a picture, we all agree on something....  Warren -talk- 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Hillary Clinton 

message: I feel this section is too long, and is an example of recentism. It should be cut down significantly. Keith Olbermann's career is much more important than some squabbles with O'Reilly. What does everyone think? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's not long enough.  The more the better. Since it's recent lots of people will be interested.  And who knew Olbermann had a career before his feud with O'Reilly? Thanks! (Wallamoose (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with RRG's above comment. Switzpaw (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the demand for a longer section, especially when it comes from someone who knows Olbermann through his feud with Billo and they (still and may be even always will) look at O through the Billo prism. I just am not sure if it is a good enough reason. Docku:“what up?” 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about forking the Feud with Bill O'Reilly section into a new article, and leaving a paragraph summarizing the main points of the NYT article, perhaps with the quote from the Fox public statement and MNSBC press release that followed?  Switzpaw (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not necessarily be notable enough for a separate article. Docku:“what up?” 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it is either. Can we agree to cut the section in half or more? I don't think Wikipedia exists to document petty squabbles like this one. For example, the FOX News Spokeswoman's statement is nothing but a glorified personal attack on Olbermann. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the attack parts for now. If a consensus is achieved to restore its full length, or to cut it out entirely, we can act. Here's the full original quote: "Because of his personal demons, Keith has imploded everywhere he’s worked, from lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind the idea here isn't to scrub material that is unflattering to Olbermann, but to get rid of non-notable details.  Switzpaw (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I understand that, but is a bio page like this really the place to air personal attacks like that? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's notable and important to weigh in with respect to the controversy, then I believe so.  That being said, I don't necessarily think leaving in the full quote is necessary.  But, I was thinking that we should start with removing the Nazi salute trivia.  Switzpaw (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia's policy on scandal mongering. Switzpaw (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked it out.  Thanks.  I'm not sure it applies though, "Personal details about peoples' lives and thoughts may occasionally provide important or relevant information to a topic."  The content we're discussing is in regard to Olbermann's professional career and includes disputes in public on his own broadcasts. I don't consider the NYT a gossip column, and they seemed to think it was notable. Other aspects of his career are covered extensively and I see nothing wrong with a short summary of his having breakdowns and feuds with a cited source so readers can find out more about this issue.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus seems to have formed despite your feelings on the matter, Wallamoose.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The NYT's decision to report the quote by the Fox spokesperson as relevant to an article entirely about the feud is different from our decision to weigh relevance for an encyclopedic article. Our job isn't to pick out the salacious quotes and repeat them here. The Fox spokesperson isn't a reliable source for his breakdowns and feuds, which isn't even the essence of what is being written about in that paragraph. Switzpaw (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feud with O'Reilly 

message: After glancing over it, I'm not seeing any real problems with Wallamoose's recent cleanup, except for the last sentence: Olberman's ratings almost doubled, however, as viewers tuned in to witness his side of the 2006 feud.
	
I believe the source of this statement is an MSNBC press release stating the ratings for April 2007, so this paraphrasing is dubious. Do we have a reliable secondary source that reported on the ratings increase
Just re-read the press release, it said the ratings were up over the period of a year, but it doesn't exactly say it was a consequence of the feud with Bill O'Reilly.  Do we have a reliable secondary source for this?  If we are stuck with the primary source, it may be prudent to just say something like "Olbermann's ratings almost doubled, however, in 2006." Switzpaw (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This title header makes it seem like I'm dead...  RIP  :)  Some editors might want it so. Glad the edits seem to be okay... at least for now.  I went by the ref notation: (2006-05-01). Does that mean something else?  Maybe just leave out a date or use the date of the article, "as of early 2007" is okay with me.(Wallamoose (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I think this section should have been shortened, I believe the reduction may have been overdone. For example, merely noting that Olbermann extensively covered the Mackris lawsuit against O'Reilly doesn't really give the reader the flavor of that "extensive" coverage -- the goading, finger-to-the-eye nature of it. One might think that Olbermann was merely covering it the way that a traditional newscast might have covered it, except in more detail. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave analysis to independent reliable sources.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  On talk pages we routinely discuss how accurately the articles reflect reality. Let's not pretend that talk page dialogue and article copy follow precisely the same rules. I didn't propose that my take on Olbermann's treatment of the Mackris lawsuit be written into the article as is and unsourced. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to craft text to "really give the reader ... the goading, finger-to-the-eye nature of it" is editorial analysis, plain and simple.  Wikipedia should only cite claims made by the reliable sources; WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV specifically prohibit that sort of editorializing.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The ref notation of 2006-05-01 was incorrect, and it has been corrected to 2007-05-01. Switzpaw (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I like the new section, before it was filled with fluff and gave way too much weight. NcSchu(Talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I would assume that readers would click on the Geraldine Ferraro hyperlink and scroll down to 2008 presidential campaign involvement.  Switzpaw (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Ferraro even criticize Obama?  I thought she said something about it being harder for a woman to become president than a "black man".  See that, I'm too lazy to use the reference or to scroll down into the presidential campaign involvement.  Help me!  :)  Just sayin'.  (Wallamoose (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The remarks were made as a direct criticism of Obama, and they were made during the 2008 democratic primary race.  Ferraro was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and she was attempting to portray Obama as unqualified by suggesting that his skin color was the factor by which he'd gotten as far as he did in the primary.  It was covered extensively in the media for a while.  Look, readers of an encyclopedia are expected to use the hyperlinks to familiarize themselves with related topics.  Please research issues before making suggestions -- I don't think your comment was very amusing.  Switzpaw (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to tussle with you, but it seems that you have a strong POV on this issue that might not be universally accepted.  My only point was that if the controversy over the comments was notable, it might be nice to include the comments or at least give the reader an idea of what they were with a short paraphrase.  For what it's worth, which ain't much, my recollection was that Ferraro was arguing the Obama campaign's position that Obama was at greatest disadvantage.  Victim status seems to be a high honor among some Dems, but I prefer to view the accomplishments of both politicians as impressive in their own right and historic as individuals representing groups that have been underrepresented in government, especially at the highest levels.  As such, Ferraro, Obama, and Clinton, have all made great strides in advancing the cause of diversity and equal opportunity in Government.  I didn't think the comments were a direct criticism of Obama, although they outraged many as seeming to diminish his achievments.  Ironically Ferraro's accomplishments were diminished by some as being achieved mostly on account of gender politics.  So there's a lot of irony all the way around. I apologize for the lack of amusement I provided, I was just trying to keep things light. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not ask someone to give you a synopsis of an event in order to accuse them of POV and turn it into a soapbox.  This is an act of bad faith, and if you do it again I will report your behavior.  Switzpaw (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't meaning to ask for a synopsis of the event. I was trying to illustrate why I thought some kind of description of the comments themselves would be good to include. I shouldn't have brought up POV at all, and was only doing so because I thought the abscence of the actual comments discussed leaves too much to inference. I was not acting in bad faith, and I apologize for the misunderstanding I've caused. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Wallamoose Cleanup of Feud with Bill O'Reilly Section 

message: Seeing as though there seems to be an autumn (or, I guess, if you're in the southern hemisphere, spring) cleaning going on here, I'm wondering if other editors have suggestions about how to improve "Criticism of the Bush administration". It's a lot of bullet-like statements and also filled with direct quotes from Olbermann, which, while they prove he said such things, don't really explain why its more relevant than other special comments. I'd basically like to improve the flow by making it more descriptive of how this criticism has been relevant and remove a lot of the direct quotations, which don't help the section at all. NcSchu(Talk) 05:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, have at it. I do think some Olbermann quotes should be preserved to give a taste of the character of his commentary and criticisms.  Paraphrasing has its limitations... I'm going to try to refrain from major clean-ups until the dust settles from my last effort...(Wallamoose (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my point is basically that we should be stressing here, like in all Wikipedia articles, secondary sources that talk about the article's content, ie. Olbermann's criticism of the Bush administration, instead of using a series of his quotes to tell a story. NcSchu(Talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, this article has too many lists of quotes and isn't tied together very well. And the content is rather light-weight.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Bush administration 

message: apparently Olbermann was voted sexiest newscaster in a Playgirl poll in 2004. I can't decide whether this belongs in the article or not... it's a major publication, sure, but it's also pretty fluffy as far as information is concerned.  Thoughts?    Warren -talk- 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Olbermann ran a tough campaign -- linking his website to PLAYGIRL's and urging his viewers to get out the vote. support inclusion. Docku:“what up?” 20:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Brief mention seems okay with me.  Might be one of his bigger accomplishments...  :)(Wallamoose (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dare I ask how you stumbled upon this article? NcSchu(Talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: We should put this in the intro. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a less serious note, 

message: In the last section, "foreward" is incorrectly spelled "forward."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev4n (talk • contribs) 03:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling error 

message: This needs a criticism section. Here is a list of reliable source. Tell me if I need to find more. http://newsbusters.org/search/google?cx=000670030471699741183:ydh8bjxaqui&cof=FORID:11&query=olberman&op=Search&form_id=google_cse_results_searchbox_form Fru23 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Newsbusters is neither reputable nor adequate as a reference.  You need not only more, but better, sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form. NcSchu(Talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's just trying to play the WP:POINT game, since his AFD of the O'Reilly criticism article is doomed to the dumpster again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, yes it is, this has been discussed elsewhere, what is the difference between media matters and newsbusters, they are both considered reliable in the eyes of wikipedia. Fru23 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Criticism from Media Research Center/Newsbusters is already noted on the Countdown with Keith Olbermann page where it belongs.  Switzpaw (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And if the criticisms section gets large enough, it could be spun off into a separate article, which is exactly what happened with the O'Reilly page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: But some of it focuses directly on Olberman so it should be here, I am not sure were to put the new section though. Fru23 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Baseball bugs, assume good faith. Fru23 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He made no personal attack, Fru. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Please tell me where in the article the criticism section should be placed. Fru23 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to do any work, it's already in there.  Check out the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article.  Switzpaw (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is for criticism regarding his show, not criticism directly relating to him. Fru23 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you arguing for renaming the O'Reilly criticism page to the O'Reilly Factor criticism page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: You've presented absolutely no substantial sources (you may have well linked us to a google search result), presented no evidence of notability, and most troubling, you haven't even mentioned what the criticism is.  Switzpaw (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No, I just want to know were in the article to put the criticism section, after that is decided I will create the section, if it gets to big a fork might be needed. It is all notable this has been decided before.  Fru23 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't even proven that you have material that is relevant for inclusion on this page, so I think you're getting a little bit ahead of yourself.  Switzpaw (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More of his WP:POINT game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what you are talking about. 
*http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olberman on 24 tv show
*http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/09/05/matthews-olbermann-deny-media-doubted-palins-maternal-fitness olberman on mothers running for president  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fru23 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First reference is criticism of a segment Olbermann did on Countdown, hardly a notable controversy that needs to be addressed here.  Olbermann's criticisms of the Bush administration are noted here already and I'm not seeing a case that it should be expanded upon.  Any mainstream publications bringing up this bit about 24?  Did it have an affect on his career whatsoever?  Second reference, statements made regarding Olbermann's coverage of the RNC convention is addressed in this article already ("During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Olbermann co-anchored MSNBC's coverage with Chris Matthews until September 7, 2008, when they were replaced by David Gregory after complaints from both outside and inside of NBC that they were making partisan statements.")  It's becoming very hard to assume that you are making a good faith attempt to improve the article from a neutral point of view.  Switzpaw (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Good idea. Let's transcribe everything they say, as it's all notable. That shouldn't take up too much room here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it is on topic, they are a reliable source therefor when they cover Olberman it deserve to be included in this article. If you can find any other source contradicting him about his comments on 24, you should include it as an alternate view point.  Fru23 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic being the target of their attack, right? Good luck. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bad faith is so obvious, Fru, it's not even funny.  Appearing on Newsbusters does not make it notable, reliable, or important.  Quite the obvious, actually.  You have offered nothing here that is in any way convincing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  Unless different rules apply to different peoples bios, Yes if they criticize him it is notable because they are notable. Please tell me where in the article the criticism section can go. RepublicanJacobite you are wrong.  Fru23 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the WP:POINT game that you're up to. Thanks for admitting it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  RepublicanJacobite just because you do not agree with something does not mean its not notable. Please keep your pov to your self. thank youFru23 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, from you? Tell us another one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: What point, trying to add reliable sources is not WP:POINT. I also don't think that mentioning outcomes on different articles is either, altough I may be wrong.Fru23 (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: That does not matter. Just because you do not agree with them does not mean it is not notable. Its a losing argument saying otherwise baseball bugs , Schuym1 ,Ramsquire nojian, and Blaxthos will back me up on that, right? Fru23 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the troll -- he appears to be intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to try and prove a WP:POINT.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fru, you keep asking where you ought to put the criticism section. Are you entirely sure you want to hear the answer to that question? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: That was uncalled for...  Blaxthos calling someone a troll is a personal attack, I suggest you stop. Fru23 (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this seems to be a spill over from another article, but it should be noted that criticism sections/articles in general should be avoided wherever possible. In general criticisms should be interleaved into the appropriate sections of the article. So if there are criticisms of Olbermann in relation to Countdown, then those criticisms should be included as appropriate in the Return to MSNBC section or in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article. Criticisms of Olbermann as a person can be included in the Personal life section, etc. Criticism sections often become a dumping ground for every trivial gripe that anyone has about the person and often result in the creation of content forks.  Seriously, if Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies can be merged into existing articles about her, it can be done with any article.;) Would anyone be happy with a "Praises" section? --Bobblehead (rants) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although this is indeed a bad faith spillover from another article, I actually think that "criticism sections" have more value than the current consensus gives them.  Especially when some individuals court controversy, it is often the case that much of the coverage they receive from reliable sources describes criticism, and there is not a better way to present the information.  I don't think that's the case here or with Hillary Clinton, but it probably is for, say, Michael Moore.  It would create a choppy presentation to try to "weave in" criticism.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think criticism sections themselves are bad, I only think ones fueled by organizations who are extremely and obviously biased are. Educational and well thought out criticisms are more than welcome. In voting there is a type of bias associated most commonly with Internet polls that results in a majority of votes from individuals who are more emotionally (usually negatively) connected towards a subject, therefore skewing the results. I don't think Wikipedia should become a place in which the negative things about people are splattered against a wall in an article since they just happen to be things that are more likely to be written about on the Internet. I don't think I've seen any article with a section labeled 'praises' as User:Bobblehead describes, so there is some kind of aura in many articles that suggests the subject is universally hated. NcSchu(Talk) 19:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text:  A good rule of thumb to follow for criticism sections is this -- if there is nowhere else in the article that a piece of criticism can be placed (ie. the subject isn't covered elsewhere), and the criticism is significant enough to warrant widespread media attention, and there is no significant aspect to the story aside from the criticism, then you can place it in a criticism section.  If all three of these conditions cannot be met (especially on a BLP article), then the criticism doesn't belong in the encyclopedia.   Warren -talk- 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: NcSchu, is it impossible for the negatives of Olbermann to be large in number, or are you really going to rationalize ignoring/denying criticism because you want to avoid sounding like a meany? Follow up question: could you possibly make your biases toward Olbermann any more obvious? --Dsticker (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I mentioned I got socks for Christmas? Coincidences never cease, it seems. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a guy making odd assumptions for Christmas. Now THAT is a coincidence.--Dsticker (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a troll for Christmas. If you have evidence of me being biased then good for you, however my dislike of criticism sections goes well beyond this article; I have simply decided to make my feelings evident on this specific talk page given the timing. Anyone trying to get a criticism section for this article while trying to remove those for conservative pundits must not claim others are being obviously biased. NcSchu(Talk) 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And anyone denying a criticism section when the conservative counterpart has an entire page dedicated to criticism is what?  Where have I ever tried to remove criticism from conservative pundits? I've only made any edits on the fine, right down the middle journalist Keith Olbermann's page. You're obviously biased. Period. I say that as someone that has only read this page. That's it. Not as someone defending conservatives. Why it's impossible to slightly agree with fru without actually BEING Fru is beyond me. --Dsticker (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well you either a sockpuppet, in which case go away, or you're a brand new user and you have only come here to make a point and not contribute in a constructive manner, in which case also go away. The criticism sections that are entire pages have been put through many deletion sequences only to escape unscathed. Why am I concentrating here? Because it's easier to kill the beast before it's born. NcSchu(Talk) 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind this isn't really about Olbermann, it's about Fru23's frustration at not being allowed to unilaterally delete stuff from Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because consensus is against him. That separate article was spun off because it was getting so big in the main article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Fru23's edit history doesn't give much hope that he's come to this article in a selfless attempt to improve its informative value.  That said, the interplay between WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY and WP:BLP, as well as the ground rules adding criticism to articles that actually works, can be a bit difficult for newcomers to understand.  Editors will make mistakes in this area, and that's okay.   Warren -talk- 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I also agree with fru23, I think that the sources should be added. JcLiner (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JcLiner was a sock of KingsOfHearts / Fru23 and has been indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least he agrees with himself.  Imagine the confusion if he didn't?!  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a criticism section