Talk:Ed Schultz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Obama press conference

What about his appearance with Helen Thomas at the first Obama press conference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.71.142 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article requires better structure and expression. The "Political Views" section needs to be expanded, with verifiable evidence to support the assertions made. I'll try and find some time to do it myself, but I've tagged it anyways. Any assistance with this would be most appreciated. Jackk 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the political views section is a little misleading. Ed is a little more conservative and that is why I like him but "against abortion" makes it sound like Ed is not Pro-Choice, which he is according to his producer. And Ed is for gay rights, although I'm not sure of his position specifically on gay marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.39.166 (talk • contribs) .

Under political views, "against guest worker programs" is cited as a departure from progressive politics . . . a large proportion of liberals are opposed to guest worker programs, as they are harmful to unions and lower-class citizens; guest worker programs have typically been a conservative movement in the recent past, spearheaded by the president himself . . . again, this whole section needs cleaned up.

I just read the discussion of the "Whiskey Bottle Incident", and it's overstated and misreported to say the least. First of all, I don't believe there any glass shattered in the announcer's booth as a result of the bottle toss. My recollection (and I was there - Ed attacked me and my fraternity brothers in the stands) is that the bottle went through an open window. I also do not recall the bottle having ever hit anyone. Statements made immediately after the event did not report anyone having been struck by the bottle.

As for Ed's political leanings - find which way the wind blows hardest and you'll find Ed's political leanings. In the 1980s, Ed was a staunch Reagan conservative. At that same time he was the Voice of the North Dakota State Bison. When Clinton came into office, and became popular, Ed realligned his political leanings to fit those of the times. At about that same time, Ed became the voice of the University of N. Dakota Fighting Sioux (the Bison's greatest rival).

Should we split this?

I'm wondering if we should split this article into two. One for the host and one for the show. There is a lot more information about the show that could be put into it, but it goes beyond the host. Chadlupkes 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Go right ahead. Lots of hosts have two articles: one of themselves, and one for the shows. See Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show; Stephanie Miller and The Stephanie Miller Show; and Al Franken and The Al Franken Show. --Asbl 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone had already, but then merged them. Let's see how it goes. Chadlupkes 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dog shooting

I have removed the bit about Schultz shooting his dog. I don't see how an unsourced rumour is "interesting and relevant." Rumors don't belong in Wikipedia. An encylopedia is factual...not filled with rumors. Even if this rumor was backed up with sources, I'm not sure that shooting your dog is the kind of thing worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. --MatthewUND^(talk) 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact is he blows up whenever someone says, "Hey Ed, how's your dog?" I don't know how you'd cite that, but it's true. And the reason people do it is because they know the rumor. And the fact that people do it and he reacts to it pops up on the air every once in a while. It's a self-perpetuating mini-controversy. But...whatever. Keep it deleted.Spottacus 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Only thing I could find on it is a little blurb in the Fargo Forum archives from a Q and A article dated Thursday, Aug 10, 1995. Monkeysocks2 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

appearance listings

He has appeared way more times then this at both the primary and general election stage. I remembered he was on Larry King, im guessing in the panel section atleast at a dozen times. So let's eliminate the section or only list something when its notable.--Levineps (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How is he ranked 5th?

I know the lib who put this in is desperately searching for a successful "progressive" host but he is ranked "11th" by Talkers (actually about 16th most listened to when ties are accounted for). Anyways... [1] Mr2b (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation Clean-up

I'm not sure what citation style was being used specifically, but the previous use did not abide by any (that I know) guidelines for in-text citation. I only changed those in-text citations to MLA rules, which are: (Last Name Page Number/Year of Publication). There's no space between the author's last name and page number (e.g. Smith 320). Also, the period follows the citation, not before it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just a neater means of citation (other widely used citation styles are fine too, it just seemed as if the author of this article was using something akin to MLA).

To the author(s) of this article: I would also like to state that a citation comes after information being referenced, not before. While there are, indeed, a variety of citation methods, I know of none that use a citation at the beginning of a sentence. As such, I would like to suggest that the citations be placed at the end of the sentence prior to the period. These citations in the article all appear to be in-direct citations, but they should be properly cited nontheless. Hence, the citation should look something like this: The duck walked across the street with her ducklings (Smith 320). NOT: (Smith 320) The duck walked across the street with her ducklings. If the author is, in fact, using an appropriate means of citation, then I do apologize. However, I do not know of any means of citation that uses such a format as is now used in the article. Anyway, thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.70.154 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's Lock This

Let's please lock this article and clean it up - it is the subject of a ton of vandalism lately. It's all "socialist this" and "socialist that"... --Iron Chef (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When is the lock determined? After the last person who gets his bias into the article decides that he likes it the way it is and no other points of view are welcome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.222.208 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Article is a little thin

Ed Schultz is, in many respects, as controversial as Rush Limbaugh. Just last night, he called Sarah Palin by the term "Caribou Barbie," and Rush Limbaugh as "the Drugster". His political views are well documented to be as far to the left as Limbaugh is to the right, and has made a call for President Obama to act in very constitutionally unlawful ways to "get the job done" on everything from health-care to the BP spill. I wish I hand the time myself, but I'm sure there are those that can fill in the gaping holes in this article. --151.201.148.142 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make any edits to the article if you are going to approach it with bias. --Iron Chef (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue

In a 2003 Sports Illustrated article on North Dakota, Schulz, who was viewed as too loud and opinionated, was tied for second with George Stienbrenner as an "Enemy of the State" with 5% of the vote. Brett Favre was first with 39%.[8]

seems to be WP:Undue. --CarTick 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I was just fixing it to correctly represent the source. However, it is true that Schulz is very much disliked in ND. Arzel (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

i will be surprised if any newscaster of his type would be liked in ND. please feel free to remove the content, i dont care if he is enemy of the state. --CarTick 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Why is there no controversies section? In order to be fair, this article must have a controversies section just like ANY CONSERVATIVE FIGURES biographies have? It won't be very difficult at all to dig up dirt on this guy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.115.174 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections are discouraged in any bio because they tend to attract endless additions, violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. It's much better to integrate that information into other parts of the article. If you have very well sourced information about a controversy, feel free to mention it at an appropriate place in the article, bearing in mind that the amount of emphasis it receives in the article should be proportional to the person's entire public life. In other words, if there is a minor controversy that was briefly mentioned in a widely distributed and unbiased news source, it might be appropriate to make a brief mention. If there is a major controversy that was discussed extensively by a wide variety of sources, it might need a little more emphasis. Read the blue links in my post for more details. I strongly suggest discussing major controversies on this talk page, with appropriate sources, before adding to the article. And BTW, if there are controvesy sections in other bios, and especially if they are overweighted, feel free to discuss changes on those articles' talk page. Cresix (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the recent controversy about what's-her-face should go on the page for his radio show if anything, since that's where the name-calling took place. Dick Laurent (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversies sections are certainly discouraged for left leaning personalities. Neither Ed Schultz or Keith Olberman have such sections, despite episodes where they were suspended from their shows. Minor right leaning personalities on Fox like Brian Kilmeade and Eric Bolling both have Controversies sections where they are called racists. It is folly like this that keeps Wikipedia from ever being a credible source for any even semi-controversial area. It's OK to bury Ed's offensive comments in the text, but highlight much less inflammatory talk in special sections for others. Wikipedia needs a consistent policy. It clearly has none now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.15.181 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This page should have at least a small controversy section for the amount of times he's been suspended.

But just for the record, to this day, Sarah Palin's article has NO controversy section.

When we talk about wikipedia bias, liberal articles have a liberal bias and conservative articles have a conservative bias.. its one of the biggest inherent flaws of wikipedia and there is no evidence to support an across the board liberal or conservative bias of wikipedia as a whole.

Lies

Please remove or rewrite the paragraph under Controversial Statements which includes the words "Ed lied to his Audience..." as this is not congruent with "neutral tone" and is clearly biased. By the nature of the beast, most, if not all of the personalities representing both the left and the right regularly make controversial comments, or twist the meaning of a quote by, in this case, truncating it, on almost a daily basis. Thanks, in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.36 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've made an effort to clean up that "liar" assertion and brought it to the attention of the BLP noticeboard as some editors are insisting on inserting it there Smiloid (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Did he or did he not lie to his audience?

--24.187.8.149 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Far ...

Unless someone can demonstrate that he has been associated with violent groups or that he seeks governmental change by means outside the political party system, we should not use terms like "far left" or "far right" about his current politics or his past politics. I have accordingly removed the word "far" as a qualifier for his politics.Dogru144 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Dogru needs to lighten up and quit trying to be a wikipedia nazi. Schultz himself has described himself as not only a lefty but a far left lefty. So quit trying to be holier than thou Dogru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.97.49.194 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Header

Ed's great, but this is about as NPOV as a typical presidential attack ad.

What exactly isn't neutral? I see nothing here that is not an accurate recounting of fact.

Supposed pro-conservative bias in this biography

This biography seems to have some conservative bias inserted. The major uncited portions tend to be negative and anti-liberal or pro-conservative. See sections noted below:

"Schultz's political views leaned towards the right during the early years, and Schultz told the Los Angeles Times that he "lined up with the Republicans because they were anti-tax, and I wanted to make a lot of money...." Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders.[citation needed]" That's evidence of Republican, anti-liberal or pro-conservative bias? It

Religious Background

It should be obvious that political and social commentators pages like this one should show their religious beliefs since they discussing these things pretty much every day they are on the air. What is Ed Shultz's religious background? Please add this information without it this page is incomplete. 202.29.57.211 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Other bias in this biography

In addition, this quote is inaccurate. The supposed source it cites does not contain the information written: "Rogers believes these politicians are hypocrites who should be exposed, unless they are Democrats."

This quote on abortion - "Thus, Schultz is pro-choice but does not support partial birth abortion.[citation needed]" - does not match up with the cited information above it. Schultz does not like abortion and this conclusion is not founded in facts or sources. What is the source of him not liking abortion?

This quote is also untrue: "It's been noted by some that he has remained silent over President Obama's past comments touting the turnaround in the U.S. economy. (Vowell 2004)." Schultz has spoken out many times about this issue, and how could a source from 2004 say anything about President Obama and the U.S. economy. The source is phony and Schultz has loudly spoken about the issue of Obama's rhetoric and the truth about the economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.242.166 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Any citation for Schultz loudly speaking about this issue?

I've also noticed some potentially libelous POV language in the "controversial statements" section. I've made an effort to clean that up and brought it to the attention of the BLP noticeboard.Smiloid (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Weasel, "Reasonable" Gun Control

"Reasonable" is a weasel word. Many people have divergent views of what "reasonable" means in this instance. His actual position should be claimed and cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.44.153 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Gubernatorial Run

The following should be sourced, especially the business about the money motive, as Ed's money seems to be a frequently inflated issue in this article. Also, with no source, it's difficult to determine whether this is worth inclusion at all.

'Schultz considered running for the Democratic-NPL party nomination for governor against incumbent Republican John Hoeven in 2004, but decided to continue his more lucrative career in radio.' 02:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated factoid

I don't think the sentence that lists Schultz as a runner-up for "enemy of the state" from a 2003 Sports Illustrated North Dakota website belongs in the article. I've removed it before citing WP:NOT#NEWS but it has been added back. The article currently says "In a 2003 Sports Illustrated article on North Dakota, Schultz, who was viewed as too loud and opinionated, was tied for second with George Steinbrenner as an "Enemy of the State" with 5% of the vote. Brett Favre was first with 39%."[2] This just doesn't seem notable or worthy of inclusion in a BLP. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 01:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously a joke by S.I. and should only be included if it's made clear that S.I. was being funny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disparaging Bison

This statement - "Schultz incurred the ire of NDSU fans when he began to disparage the Bison during rival Sioux broadcasts after his many years of NDSU announcing" has had a citation needed tag since 2009. I looked for a reference to support it, but did not find one. As this is the biography of a living person, negative statements should be sourced or removed. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a bit of OR by some annoyed fan, and even if true, not considered notable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Net worth, sources

Celebritynetworth.com is not a reliable source (see this discussion). Schultz's net worth doesn't belong in the lead per WP:UNDUE. If we find a reliable source for his wealth, it can be included in the body of the article. Diffen.com is also not a reliable source as anyone can edit it. [3] Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 02:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Celebritynetworth.com said he's worth $11.5 million. Is there another more reliable source?

Whoever you are... Are all celebrities' alleged net worths covered in their respective articles? Or is this one guy being singled out for some reason? Like maybe, to "prove" something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuits and Conflict of Interest deleted before the article was locked

Prior revision:

On March 9th, 2012, Politico reported that Schultz had received nearly $200,000 in speaking fees and advertisement charges from labor unions without publicly disclosing this income, a potential conflict of interest for his television show, which is currently billed as a news program. [19]

According to the Huffington Post and Politico, MSNBC's Ed Schultz is being sued by an NBC News employee who claims he helped Schultz break into TV—and was then stiffed out of his rightful share of earnings. [20] [21]

19.^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/msnbcs-ed-schultz-addresses-union-payments-117006.html 20.^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/ed-schultz-sued-by-nbc-em_n_860455.html 21.^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0511/MSNBCs_Ed_Schultz_sued_over_TV_deal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.222.208 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not valid sources here, and Huffington is typically considered unreliable also. If there's anything to this story, it should be possible to find legitimate coverage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the New York post unreliable on this issue? http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/ed_show_battle_hTKBuTUNnBhJ5CP43fmuaN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.222.208 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:3RRNO, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is not edit warring. changing IP addresses to add 'unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material' will not prevent such information from being removed from the article. To the editor who persists in doing so - take the time to find reliable sources that support your edits. It is inevitable, otherwise, that this page will be protected against IP editing for longer and longer periods. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Net worth and Edit warring, again

See the prior discussion here Talk:Ed_Schultz#Net worth, sources, as well as my comment about edit warring directly above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit material

I have deleted the following from the article because I believe it was not reliably sourced:

In April 2011, NBC News producer and sound engineer Michael Queen sued Schultz, claiming he failed to compensate him for getting him on MSNBC. But Washington federal district court Judge Beryl Howell issued summary judgment on April 30, 2012 for Schultz, who argued he never signed a contract with Queen

But on April 4, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Howell. In a freelance article for the Daily Caller Evan Gahr discovered in the court files that Schultz had encouraged Queen to get him a job on Fox News. Gahr also reported that Schultz's ex-wife had obtained a domestic violence restraining order against him during their divorce. Schultz claimed the order was issued without any allegations of domestic violence At a federal court hearing reported exclusively by Betsy Rothstein for the Daily Caller Judge Beryl Howell scheduled the lawsuit for trial on May 11, 2015.

The first reference may be OK. Its tone is neutral and journalistic, and Politico is generally accepted as a Reliable Source. The second and third sources are a legal filings which are generally not accepted as references. All the others are cited as if they came from the Daily Caller, but in fact they are from The Mirror, a British tabloid and not a Reliable Source. Also, the tone of those articles makes it clear that they are opinion pieces rather than journalism.

I am happy to discuss here exactly what can and should go into the article on this topic. However, there may not be any Reliable Sourcing available. I did a Google News search and found nothing. It appears that Reliable Sources have not picked up on this story. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)