Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 3

message: I've tried to clean up the paragraph in "Accusations of Bias" where Olbermann uses a MRC report to show that only 174 out of 600 of his worst persons were conservative, removing the POV/original research statements concerning what the editor opines to be "curious choices" etc. In the end, the paragraph itself is a problem because highlighting Olbermann's failure to disclose the 174-27 conservative/liberal ratio in the MRC report is itself a POV statement on the part of the editor. On the other hand, simply leaving Olbermann's claim concerning the report without any criticism at all (which, correctly me if I'm wrong is itself unsourced) is wrong since the report that Olbermann cites is in itself an attack on the alleged bias of his worst-person-in-the world segment. Since the report itself came first, in my opinon this paragraph should begin by listing the MRC report as an accusation of bias against Olbermann (including the 174-27 ratio), and only then giving Olbermann's arguement that the report somehow exonerates him (so long as you source it). In the end, using this format does weigh heavily against Olbermann since it seems to represent him as a liar without any counter-criticism, yet I don't see any fairer or more professional way to do it. Thoughts? Edders 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accusation of bias" section - MRC report piece very messy. 

message: From "Comments about Rita Cosby": "Olbermann wrote to a former fan, turned one-night stand "
Is this true? Jossip.com is a gossip site.
:Jossip doesn't seem to meet WP:RS requirements and is thus deletable from the article. At least, in my opinion. --Bobblehead 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and rewrote the sentence without mentioning the one night stand. If you're able to find a reliable source, feel free to add it. --Bobblehead 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One night stand"? 

message: Should we keep the Olbermann Watch paragraph?  It doesn't appear to meet the WP:RS guideline and is more an advertisement for the website. A rewrite of the MRC paragraph should cover the same area covered by the Olbermann Watch paragraph (namely that the report was conducted, what it found, and an anecdote about Olbermann using it to show he isn't biased).--Bobblehead 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree.  Olbermann Watch is simply an obscure blog and doesn't come close to meeting the noted guidelines.Hal Raglan 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh oh, sorry... I posted my reasoning for that rewrite above. I chose to be bold, but if the community of editors disagrees with what I changed, I expect them to revise it. -Eisnel 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olbermann Watch 

message: I noticed it a but late, but does anyone else think Reid repeating Olbermann's opnion is worthy of adding to the Comments on Donald Rumsfeld/fascism section? It's a pretty big deal that a Senator would go so far as to quote a mere comedian (or satirist/whatever).
As a side note, I've removed the extra criticism section. The reason we kept the Rumsfeld/facism bit was because it was related to the genuine Nazi salute controversy. If we list EVERY single time Olbermann attacks someone as some unsavoury figure from history; this article would simply explode. Plus it's written in a slightly POV manner; be careful when stating your own interpretation of quotations. Edders 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A sentence, with cite, referring to the Reid quote wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't go overboard though. It's notable, but not that notable.--Bobblehead 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's worth mentioning that Reid quoted it on the Senate floor. Even if it's a minor thing, it helps us establish whether this comment has any sort of lasting notability or not (blast my inability to see the future!). -Eisnel 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harry Reid quotes Olbermann 

message: Where is Olbermann's impactful commentary on the Bush administration given on September 11th, 2006? The Nation said he "without a doubt the best news anchor on television today" after that, comparing him to Edward R. Murrow. It has been making its way around the Internet over the past few days and it certainly belongs on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.96.31 (talk • contribs) .
:Just added a sentence, don't think it needs much more. Does that fit your needs? Also, don't forget to sign your additions to the talk page by putting ~~~~ at the end. --Bobblehead 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just seen this comment on the internat and I am rather confused right now. It would be nice if there was some information on the article page about what he said, contradictions to other statements (for example I have seen in another 9/11 documentary an assistant of Clinton saying Clinton did not react to the warnings he gave him about Bin Laden etc.) and factual correctness on the whole. I am German which is why my language may not be proper. Greetings 85.212.22.34 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We have not forgotten, Mr. President." 

message: It sounds like you guys know what you are doing, but I can't help but notice that there isn't a specific "criticism" heading. I have seen this heading in articles about much less controversial individuals than Mr. Olbermann. Just an outsider thought. 
Zach
zachsumsion@yahoo.com
:A criticism section has purposefully been left out.  If you take a look at the criticism sections in other articles you'll notice that they generally turn into one big bitch section and generally violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. However, having said that, criticisms of Olbermann are perfectly acceptable as long as they are properly sourced, just include them in with the rest of the article as appropriate. --Bobblehead 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I think the whole beginning of the last paragraph makes no sense at all. It seems as if someone cut something out after the citation but didn't fix the change. I would change it myself but I don't know much about the incident to put anything there. I think someone that knows more about it than I do should go in and fix that whole last paragraph, it's ugly. SkepticMuhs 9:34 16 September 2006 (UTC)
:Probably my horrible writing style at work.;) Rewriting is always good.--Bobblehead 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of 'Return to Reporting' Section 

message: Hi Bobblehead,
Well, a lot of fans were very interested to learn this during PopeWatch.  The fact might be good to leave in the article considering that there are anti-KO anti-Semites calling him a "dum" Jew on the Internet.  It doesn't take up much room.  I can also dig up a transcript for a reference if you give me a little while.  Would you consider putting it back in? CuteGargoyle 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to it being added back in once the source is found. If you do find the source, mixing it into the Early life and career portion would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KO Trivia -- Raised UU 

message: Discuss.  I'm leaning towards yes, and I suppose time will tell since we haven't yet seen the full extent of the fallout.  But I think it's safe to say that referring to the guy as a "monkey" pretending to be a journalist is going to make notability. Hiddekel 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's notable in the context of his increasing Anti-Bush stridency on the air recently, via his new so-called "Special Comments" segment. That probably deserves a paragraph or two in the "Controversies" section. --Aaron 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the question falls under WP:NPOV#Undue weight, particularly: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject".  I did a Google News search for olbermann wallace and got ten hits (a search including monkey only gets six hits), including commentaries from not terribly reliable sources (mostly blogs) - perhaps the most reliable of which is an MTV News article about the Wallace/Clinton interview that mentions Olbermann's rant just once.  I'd say that the Wallace/monkey rant isn't (yet) very significant. Schi 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Wallace Criticism: Notable or Not? 

message: The blog addition was pretty clear cut as not being acceptable to include, but I'm not sure on the NY Post page six link. I'm not overly familiar with page six other than that it's a gossip column and that the previous editor/reporter for it got canned for getting paid to include/not include articles about people. Does anyone have thoughts on it being reliable? --Bobblehead 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Post page six 

message: Just a note about me deleting the section on accusation of bias. Since the bias accusation is based solely on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and not necessarily about Keith Olbermann himself (except in his role as host of the show) I moved the entire section to a nearly identical section on Countdown's article quite awhile ago. The other subsections in Criticism detail actions that took place outside of the show, or have elements that are outside of the show. --Bobblehead 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of bias section 

message: Well?  The feud is clearly not based entirely on differing political positions of the two men.   Warren -talk- 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally its own section and was merged into the "Political positions" section for lack of a better place.  Maybe including it as a subsection of "Return to MSNBC" would be more appropriate? Switzpaw (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To respond in a timely fashion (rather than waiting until an edit that was recommended on a talk page three days earlier is actually put in place, and then deleting it), I agree with Warren on this one. The feud with O'Reilly section was separate at one time and still should be, even though there is a political dimension to it. Their feud isn't really a "political position". It is clearly a big enough part of Olbermann's life to warrant its own section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved it under the "Return to MSNBC" section, since the feud is pretty much entirely confined to his television career.  Warren -talk- 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" in the "Political positions" section? 

message: Per Typtofish's proposed wording, and Warren's reference concerns, I propose the following:
Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.[REFERENCE 1].  He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,[REFERENCE 2] and criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain.[REFERENCE 3]"
There are no weasel words, no synthesis of thought or conclusions, and still references specific examples.  Of course, the [REFERENCE]s will need to be supplied where noted.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Blaxthos' version here is an improvement over mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It sounds good. NcSchu(Talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This construction isn't exactly my cup of cocoa (rather timid and stilted sounding) but in the interest of compromise and comity I'll accept it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Observers such as [SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO TWO] have credited Olbermannn with carving a niche in cable news commentary by directing his fire principally on rightward leaning politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and pointedly criticized the George W. Bush Presidency, and the 2008 Presidential Candidacy of Senator John McCain.
One could stick in "gained notoriety" somewhere but I don't think it's necessary. Establishing a "niche in cable news commentary" suggests that one's fame is probably growing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with either of the versions Tryptofish has now proposed, as they avoid problems with undue weight.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, this doesn't address what I said.  While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections.   Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to [blank], blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that [blank] actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My reading of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, where it uses the example of the baseball player and advocates a version that states facts, such as the years when the baseball player had certain statistics, is that it actually is in agreement with what we have here: it says that Olbermann has criticized certain kinds of people, then gives specific factual examples that substantiate that statement. I also continue to believe that the presence of citations at the end of the sentence is understood by readers to mean that the sentence is derived from information in those references, not simply created by editors, and therefore is not an assertion of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: OR, how about changing the first sentence to something in the format of: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary; according to (name of commentator) at (name of source, such as the Washington Post), "quotation."(ref)"? The quotation would have to be interesting enough to be in the lead, not be so idiosyncratic as to go against undue weight concerns, and capture all of what was in the previous version of the sentence: his criticisms, his particular criticism of the right, and the causal relationship between these criticisms and his niche. But, really, absent a good quote like that, I think that numbered references would be just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact [Keith Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979] it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one [ex: The Republican party is clearly morally superior to the Democratic party] the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Wikipedia is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu(Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu.  Let's get the citations in place and call this one done.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been quiet here for a few days, which I hope is a good sign. As an editor who was not originally a party to the debates preceding the RfC, I'm going to be bold and make edits to the lead in accordance with what I understand of this talk. I'm going to leave it to others to provide the references. Please understand that I'm attempting to reflect the talk here and there is nothing etched-in-stone about my edit, so please no one feel unhappy if you would prefer to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: NYTimes say's its 4 mil. a year
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After the 2008 Election, NBC Uni and Keith Olbermann has been agreed to have a new-contract which his salary is 30,000,000 US$ in over 4 years (that makes 7.5 million per year). Thus, the info which mentioned at the box is correct. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary 

message: Saving the trivia section as historical.  Though it was (properly) removed at least some of it should be integrated into the article (prose please).
//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I, the very-first creator of Mr.Olbermann's Korean language wikipage, cited these figures under the name of 'Other major broadcasting appearances'(그 외 주요 방송출연 경력, in Korean), not as 'trivia'. You may find the solution from it(I hope, personally). Cheers. Thanks. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The article erroneously states that he received a Bachelor of Arts at Cornell in Communications.  Cornell offers only a Bachelor of Science in Communications through the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as the Ag School.  The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the second largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third largest college of its kind in the United States.
This is where Mr. Olbermann recieved his degree  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilly77c (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "About the Department" page from the Department of Communications website specifically states that it is proud to be part of Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  This is not the same as graduating from the ivy league College of Arts and Science which most people think of when one states they are a Cornell graduate.  Mr. Olbermann's bio is misleading.  Fizix137 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The college is a statutory college meaning it is given money by the state to operate as a public school. It is not the same as the private University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk • contribs) 15:56, March 5, 2009
I have already changed this according to the refs. Thank you. --Ali'i 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You didn't change it enough. It is still misleading and someone might think he received his degree from the Ivy League Cornell which, while he openly boasts of this, he did not. Traumatic (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bachelor of Arts? 

message: Since it's widely accepted that Olbermann went to Cornell, we'll need a reliable source saying he went somewhere else. It seems like there must have been a column or meme somewhere spurring IPs and SPAs into action, so this should serve as a reminder wikipedia is based on verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Olberman himself admitted he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences not Cornell University on Thursday, March 5, 2009 why hasn't this been changed yet?  Should I assume that means his defenders don't consider Olberman a reliable source?  While that may be true when he is talking about others, I'd say we can trust Olberman's confessions about himself. --DaleEastman (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is a reliable source that says he went to Cornell University.  The Cornell school paper says that he went to the ag school. I've added dubious tags. THF (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Correct... there is a recent Ann Coulter column deriding Olbermann's use of "Cornell" where she says he went to a different college within the overall Cornell system. I think. Until we can find a different source, it should remain as is. Thanks. --Ali'i 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be a full moon :) Whereever he graduated from, can we please have a citation and list the institution by its proper name either way and then move on. Thank you, --Tom 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornell seems to think he's an alumni of Cornell. They don't specify which college within the Cornell umbrella he got his degree from though. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: According to reference number 20 (http://cornellsun.com/node/13424), he went to New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now that that question has been resolved (apparently). Cornell runs and operates CALS. Is there a functional difference between saying he got is degree from Cornell University and he got his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? Or is it more inline with a person saying they got a degree from Harvard University when the degree they got actually says Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? --Bobblehead (rants) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In just doing rummaging around the two websites (cornell.edu and cals.cornell.edu) it appears the current relationship is more inline with a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard University relationship than say a University of California, Santa Barbara and University of California, Los Angeles relationship. Cornell lists CALS as being the second largest college at Cornell University and the list of departments at Cornell University and programs at CALS seem to point at the same locations. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of this being said, I don't see a problem with refining his degree as being from CALS versus Cornell, but then, I also don't see a problem with saying his degree is from Cornell. It is common within Ivy League universities to have their degrees not actually come from the university, but rather from the "college" that a person's degree program falls under. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A university consists of one or more colleges. It's more like the difference between [] and [] -- they're both part of the same [] (the diploma looks the same)/ WindyCityRider (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: More information is better than less, so long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source.  From what I have seen, I agree that he attended the Cornell University that has Ivy League sports teams, but it is equally true that he received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the school.  Both versions are accurate and both should be included.Tommylotto (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think less information is better. The last thing we want to do is confuse folks, cheers! --Tom 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text:  More information is better, unless it clutters up the article needlessly and is indicative of somebody pushing an agenda. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are all true in relation to this.  The information is cluttering up the article, its needless, and its all about agenda pushing by the anti-american fringe.  The additionial information only gives fodder to the Ann Coulter fringe of America, this whole dustup is over an Ann Coulter column from today, and we all know how she loves to throw bricks. MehTsag (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not misleading in the slightest. Cornell University consists of 7 colleges, Olbermann graduated from the 2nd largest. The acceptance rate for CAL and LAS is virtually the same (about 1 in 5). http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000003.pdf Do the math. WindyCityRider (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornell 

message: In the bio box it says that Olbermann has a B.S. degree, but in the body it says he has a Bachelor of Arts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.149 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I removed the redundancy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: As Ann Coulter recently pointed out, isn't it worth mentioning that Keith Olbermann received a BS in Communications from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, not the School of Art and Sciences that he would lead everybody to believe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.221.234 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Degree 

message: Can we get this fixed?  He has been caught.  Lets get this changed to the truth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnram6662 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the existing discussions above.  The degree came from Cornell.  The specific college is trivial.  Henrymrx (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not trivial.  Point to the correct wiki page, Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Olbermann has admitted it, the Cornell Daily Sun documents it (as a reliable source).  Point to the correct page. Ann arbor street (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to say that his degree did not come from Cornell University, that is a false statement.  Lots of component colleges have their own articles.  If your program was in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, your degree still came from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Your degree would say "University of Maryland" on it.  You would still be a Terrapin.  Henrymrx (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Did you see the part where he held up his diploma which says "Cornell University" (and nothing else) in big fancy letters at the top?  Who cares which college he attended within the University?  It's trivial. Henrymrx (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were "trivial" Wikipedia would not have a separate article for the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Why haven't you petitioned to have the "trivial" second article merged?  The fact is it admission and graduation standards at Cornell are set by the individual colleges, not the University.  But even if that were not the case, censoring the additional precision provided in specifying the college at Cornell is a disgrace.  Not leading the reader to the article on the AG College, but to the Arts & Sciences University is misleading at best, and depending on the motivation, dishonest in the extreme. --72.146.231.191 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because lots of component colleges of Universities have their own articles.  If you attend the Philip Merrill College of Journalism or the University of Maryland School of Architecture, your degree comes from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Who really cares about which college your program was in?  His degree came from Cornell.  If you want to put it somewhere in the education section, I doubt anyone would object.  But saying he didn't get his degree from Cornell is blatantly false.  Besides, he's a Cornell alumnus according to Cornell.  Henrymrx (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it say Cornell when it should say CORNELL AG SCHOOL 

message: Olberman did not attend Cornell University, he attended the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences a separate contract/salutatory school with far different admission and graduation requirements.  He readily admitted this in yet another of his infamous feuds.  This time with Ann Coulter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleEastman (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see the part where he held up his diploma which says "Cornell University" (and nothing else) in big fancy letters at the top?  Who cares which college he attended within the University?  It's trivial. Henrymrx (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were "trivial" Wikipedia would not have a separate article for the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Why haven't you petitioned to have the "trivial" second article merged?  The fact is it admission and graduation standards at Cornell are set by the individual colleges, not the University.  But even if that were not the case, censoring the additional precision provided in specifying the college at Cornell is a disgrace.  Not leading the reader to the article on the AG College, but to the Arts & Sciences University is misleading at best, and depending on the motivation, dishonest in the extreme. --72.146.231.191 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because lots of component colleges of Universities have their own articles.  If you attend the Philip Merrill College of Journalism or the University of Maryland School of Architecture, your degree comes from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Who really cares about which college your program was in?  His degree came from Cornell.  If you want to put it somewhere in the education section, I doubt anyone would object.  But saying he didn't get his degree from Cornell is blatantly false.  Besides, he's a Cornell alumnus according to Cornell.  Henrymrx (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Info about College