Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Issues with the Trivia Section

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)

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)

Trivia is supposed to be trivial

I think getting rid of the pajamas part is fine (although there are quite a few female fans who DO think this a fun fact to know). I'm also glad that you left the vertebrae part, though. Combining the sections is more efficient, but less interesting to read.

-S*Bufe

Of course you're right... trivia is supposed to be trivial. However, I also feel that it belongs on a fanpage rather than in a Wiki-article. A Wiki-article should offer a quick overview, some facts and further links with additional information, so how about this: find a good fan-site that offers this trivia and add the link to the article (right after the trivia part). I think that would be a solution we could both live with, wouldn't it? ---Wintermute- 09:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of such a fan site. I own Olbermann.org, and might start one someday. I'm content with the article as it stands. -S*bufe

I think the trivia gives you a picture of who he is. For instance, Olbermann has done several segments on Celiac Disease. The pajama thing is a bit too cheeky for me, but the vertibrae part is not. Boisemedia

Great! So we're agreed. Now we just have to wait for a vandal to come by and put in a big paragraph about liberal paranoia and tinfoil hats. -S*Bufe

---

I see, so in the mind of S*Bufe anything less than a founding father of the ACLU is a 'vandal'? Gotcha!

Truth be told, Olbermann has made some vicious hateful comments about James Dobson, especially when he got caught flat out LYING. And, like they say, if the paranoid tin foil hat fits...wear it!

Lots of changes coming to this article. It's a blatant suck up piece and doesn't even deal with Keith's HORRIBLE reputation (amongst both liberals AND conservatives) for his antics behind the camera.

Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see any of your changes. I wonder why? Whoops! I see now. You've been banned for life. Ouch. That's gotta hurt. LOL! Eleemosynary 06:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added to the trivia section his beef with O'Reilly.

To 209.86.17.244: Why did you take off the Recountdown article?

i put it back

---

There should be some mention in the article about his unwillingness to back down from James Dobson's response to the Countdown's report about Dobson's charges against the We Are Family Foundation. You know, that thing about Sponge Bob. Olbermann and Dobson are now fierce rivals because of this. I don't blame Olbermann for taking on Dobson. Somebody's got too. :-) -Amit

"Somebody's got too. :-)" -Amit

Why?Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From The "Pretty Much Says It All' Department

"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)

Since when is Olbermann a "WAY-out-there" liberal? Only somebody who has never actually met anyone to the left of Paul Gigot could say that.

Check out that guy's talk page. He was clearly a neo-con and all-around trouble maker posing as an independent mediator. And he refused to be crticized.

Hmmm, are we sure Bill O'Reilly didn't have an account on here? :) --D-Day 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding changes by 12.167.224.228

• 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)

• Aside from the obvious typos and misspellings (not a great way to honor the deceased), being "taken to task" by OlbermannWatch hardly qualifies as an event worthy of record in the Wikipedia.

"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)

Proof?

"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)

Recently, i added a perfectly legitmate commentary on Olbermann's feud with O'Reilly, two minutes later it was deleted...Real objectivity here huh??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.155.98 (talk • contribs) .

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)

Accusations of Bias

Since the section is a mess, I propose a change. Because bias can only be thrown around and is strictly opinion, I think the section should be changed to just cover his feud with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike the bias, his problems with O'Reilly can be well documented in fact and should be covered anyway, as they are an important part of his career. The section, after you remove the opinion statements and the bits without cited sources, are all about O'Reilly anyway.

Are there any objections?

Ltspoonstick 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that several users have reverted the changes you have repeatedly made, possibly suggesting you are alone in your opinion.

I modified these sections to address all issues.

That's the thing, I haven't made any changes. I've reverted the article each time the Accusations of Bias section has been put up, and it keeps getting reverted right back.

I appreciate the changes, but the opinion section is still there, wrongly so. It's almost ridiculous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be something about whether he's biased, I just think that "it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration" (if a Democrat was in office, do you think he wouldn't criticize them?) and "..Some conservatives.." don't belong. It needs editing.

Ltspoonstick 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

the fact of his bias may not be verifiable but we know know he has covered critically both Bill Clinton and Bush the Younger; remember his nightly Monica show during the Clinton years? However, we can verify that named people who call themselves conservatives and some of Bush's allies have accused Keith of bias; so it is logically possible to be both factually not biased (or not materially biased) while simultaneously accused of being biased. John wesley 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully someone has added a commentary on the outright bias "reporting" of Keith Olbermann. I find it amusing that fox news always gets accused of partisianship, watch olbermann for a few minutes...it's not even subtle the intense disdain Olbermann shows for the adminstration. Democrats are not subject to critiscism from Keith...

This article slams Olbermann for not "covering contested states like Pennsylvania that went for Kerry" in the 2004 election. Hmmm, perhaps the reason for this is that Pennsylvania was never contested in the first place. If it was contested, then one might think that the right-wing media in this country, from Limbaugh to Fox News, would have mentioned it. To my knowledge, no one has ever even suggested that the Pennsylvania election was invalid in any way. If it was contested, I'd certainly like to see a link or other documentation. But until that documentation surfaces, I don't think this article should be referring to a completely non-existent issue like claiming that Pennsylvania was somehow "contested" in 2004.

Almost fired?

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)

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)

Feud with O'Reilly

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)

User:81.135.245.231 It had to be removed in previous forms as it has no context. The majority report is not credible. Now that there is evidence that Olbermann played it, it should stay.

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)

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)

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)

The problem that there is with the incident on O'Reilly's radio show, is that there is a 7 second delay that no one except fox radio people knows what was said. It cuts off after "Olbermann." Nobody knows what he said, he could have said "Olbermann is my hero," or "Olbermann wants me to kill your mother." Nobody knows what happened, and trying to paint it as a fact is pushing a point of view.

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)

I think the bias section and feud section need to be monitored to make sure they maintain a balanced point of view. There sure seem to be some strong feelings on this guy.

I removed the "coincidence" sentence with the link to Inside Cable News because it didn't seem like an accurate summary of what the blog was saying. As has been mentioned above, there is no concrete proof of what the caller said. As long as the Wikipedia paragraph makes that clear, I think we're fine. 67.174.180.72 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Fox News Nazi comment

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)

Does anybody object to removing this section? It doesn't appear to be an ongoing controversy. CuteGargoyle 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Left wing bias graf

I NPOV'ed the "Left Wing Bias" section -- though it's still not exactly great.

O'Reilly edit war

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)
• The edit war: Both participants have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please stop reverting and discuss your edits. Rhobite 23:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush Administration and Clinton Campaign

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. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

External News Links

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

tax section

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)

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)

Athiest? Where's the proof?

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)

I agree. I'm not saying he isn't an atheist, but there is no citation and I did a couple of quick searches and came up dry. Suggest removing the label if evidence can't be produced. 24.149.19.166 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

new yorker article

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)

Olbermann Tax Problems/Removing Anti-Smoking Section

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)

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)

Claims of bias

It seems to me that the section now titled Ideological orientation and claims of bias should be retitled simply Ideological orientation or Ideological viewpoint or something else along those lines. Claims of bias, though better than accusations of bias is a rather silly description for a couple of reasons. First, it implies a question when no question really exists. Anyone with an IQ above winter temperatures realizes that Keith Olbermann both has and displays political biases on his program and in other forums. Secondly, however, it also implies, without warrant, that there is something wrong with this. Claims of bias or accusations of bias is pejorative. It connotes that someone may be doing something that he or she isn't supposed to be doing. Accusations of bias derives from the fact that when Countdown first aired it was not overtly ideological, thus turning the program into an overtly ideological one seemed to be bad form or unfair play to some people. That ship, however, left port a long time ago. The section title should reflect present reality. The section text actually does this pretty well. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that most of the section is devoted to people calling him a liberal when he denies he is, I'd say that "ideological orientation" is insufficient. I see your point about "claims of bias"; perhaps there is some middle ground to be found. "Perceptions of ideological orientation", perhaps? Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But surely, Gamaliel, you realize that these "accusations" and "denials" are just a game on both sides. Why play into it? Of course Olbermann is a liberal in the sense in which that term is commonly used today (His criticisms of Hillary Clinton, incidentally, came when she campaigned at times like a conservative against Obama. He has never criticized her for being too far to the left, only for being too far to the right). But if he wants to deny this, fine. The facts speak for themselves. Whether or not the specific term liberal is used shouldn't much matter. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the terms we use, the fact remains that 99% of the section discusses how other people define him and the title of that section should reflect that. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions of ideological orientation sounds even more stilted than my title Ideological orientation. How about Olbermann and the "L–word"? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds stilted, but it's a start. Your suggestion goes the opposite direction, it isn't encyclopedic in tone. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about Disputed liberalism or Alleged liberalism? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in here and say that I don't think we want to go throwing "liberalism" into the title, especially when the subject rejects such claims. It may not the the best solution, but so far "claims of bias" or something similar ("purported bias" ?) seems the best choice... certainly better than playing into the "accusation/denial" game, as badmintonhist notes. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had a thought... how about "ideological perspective" ? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty similar to my Ideological orientation and Ideological viewpoint suggestions. However, I also have had a thought. How about Ideological perspectives (plural)? That would encompass "both sides" so to speak. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject is Olbermann's perspective, I don't see how the plural would apply... each person has but one perspective; we're not referring to the perspectives of the viewers, critics, or other parties. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the section's subject is not simply Olbermann's perspective. It is also about other people's perspective on Olbermann. That is why it is currently titled Perceptions (note the plural) of ideological orientation, and why it was previously entitled Allegations of bias, Accusations of bias, etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Olbermann, and the criticisms (or allegations, however you want to think of it) all are about Olbermann's bias (or lack thereof, depending on whom you ask). We're not detailing the observers' (again, substitute appropriate word) personal perceptions, we're detailing what they assert to be Olbermann's perspective. Hope this helps clarify what I mean. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has a section entitled "Perceived bias" and Bill O'Reilly's article says "Political views," implying that Olbermann has only been accused but O'Reilly's bias has been proven. Blatant bias in Wikipedia. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with O'Reilly's article, the place to deal with it is the talk page of O'Reilly's article, not here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Regarding this revert, as mentioned above the word "Accusations" has an inherent bias associated with it, and placing it in quotes has the effect of predisposing the reader to question the validity of the accusations entirely. I don't believe the best answer is to say "Accusations" of bias, which seems like double spin to me. I still suggest that "Ideological perspective" is the most neutral suggestion made thus far. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, we want to avoid sections that only contain criticism. One way forward would be to have a section on Olbermann's political views, and then spread the criticism of those views through that. This would let us have a section titled simply, "Political views".

It's also worth mentioning that criticism directed at Countdown, the show, doesn't really belong in this article, because segments like Worst Person In The World are a production of the show and its team as a whole, not just Olbermann himself. Warren -talk- 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I make no assertion that the content contained herein is appropriate or relevant. My only intent here is to ensure that the title remain neutral while it does exist. For what it's worth, I agree with Warren completely. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsections within Career at NBC Universal section

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)

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)

Personal life (2)

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)

Michael Moore comment

Wikiport (talk · contribs) added a "controversy" section regarding Michael Moore's (fairly tasteless) comment about Gustav, and comments about concerns expressed by Olbermann about his safety at the RNC.

In the case of the Moore comment, I don't see any evidence that it was notable. The sources listed are "Nationalreview.com 29 August, 2008" (which isn't specific enough to be a useful reference), a Danny Shea article at HuffPo, and something called olbermannwatch.com. I think it's safe to assume that the last one isn't a reliable source. Shea's HuffPo article doesn't mention Moore at all, (inaccurately?) asserts that Olbermann was going to "stay in New York to cover Hannah", and quotes the New York Post's Page Six...which isn't exactly a reliable source either. The sourcing isn't strong enough, IMO, to pass WP:V; there's nothing there that suggest that this is in any way notable information. "Michael Moore says something that offends people." That's about as noteworthy as "Keith Olbermann hosted Countdown on [some specific date]". Guettarda (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the controversy section as a completely legitimate heading to serve as an acceptable forum to host this knowledge. The content that I added meets the test of reasonableness as most of it is common knowledge to anyone who is able to use the most basic of search engines. There is no doubt that the information I provided is found on the links/footnotes I provided; for instance, olbermannwatch.com (admittedly a biased source) DOES host the actual video of the controversy currently surrounding Olbermann, which is completely relevant. The credibility of the source must be judged on the basis of the information it provides and the weight it holds; anything to the contrary, Wikipedia itself would be compromised. In research of the recent reversals and the individuals responsible for them, it is becoming more evident the an objective view of Olbermann is not something quite represented here. Wikiport (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Wikiport

Well, you may think it's reasonable, but that isn't relevant. The citation must comply with Wikipedia's policies. That link above to the policy on verifiability was put there to help you. Please read it. Also, I really don't see how Michael Moore making an outrageous statement even belongs in this article. Shouldn't it go into Moore's article? Henrymrx (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, not a random compendium of information. We can't include a section on every comment made by a guest on Countdown that offends someone. We need to stick to material that's notable.

For starters, this wasn't something Olbermann said. Moore said it. If it were somehow worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would probably belong in an article about Moore. Maybe an article about Countdown. But this article? How so? More important though is the question of verifiability. "Nationalreview.com 29 August, 2008" isn't a source - it's a website and a date. When we are talking about controversial information about living people, the standard of sourcing is higher than for average articles. So the first thing you need to do is provide a real source. Then we can decide on whether the information is notable, and where it belongs.

Your statement that [t]he credibility of the source must be judged on the basis of the information it provides and the weight it holds; anything to the contrary, Wikipedia itself would be compromised suggests that you don't understand Wikipedia's mission or sourcing policy. Please take a look at WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The material written was regarding Olbermann's reaction to the Moore comment, on air; it also illustrated published opinions regarding the fact Olbermann is in New York to cover recent storms and the current public opinion that has been expressed in reaction to that fact. A relative statement can be considered factual, as you see examples throughout the existing text of the Olbermann entry here on Wikipedia. A citation linking directly to the source fits the criteria for a reliable source, granted a reader may be required to actually read in order to find that information. The definitions of generality and specificity do not deviate according to one's interpretation or lack thereof. Here is a separate link to the video which spawned controversy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lrAf_TE-1I - It is the same video listed in my citations, actually a more complete version. This material is just as relevant to feuds with O'Reilly for example, which is listed on the existing Olbermann page. [User:Wikiport|Wikiport]] (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The basis of wikipedia is not truth. It does not matter whether this event happened but rather its relevance can be referenced by secondary, verifiable sources. So far you've provided only primary sources to 'prove' that the event happened, which doesn't explain the need to include it here or why it will stand out as a relevant part of Keith Olbermann's life. Another person making a comment on his show is unrelated to Olbermann; an 'open smile' is hardly worthwhile material to be discussing. The 'safety issue' hasn't been discussed by any mainstream news source and doesn't seem to be something multiple organizations are covering, so I don't see why that's important either. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So true. If the sole criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article were that the information be true, I'd be fighting to keep these edits in the article. :-) Tomer^talk 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make a subjective interpretation of primary source material - please consult our policy on original research. But that aside, you need to show that this is notable information. It appears to be trivia, coming from a gossip page known for its almost non-existent journalistic standards. Dubious trivia does not belong in any article, but it's especially inappropriate in an article about a living person. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to show anything is "notable," when there are users like you that just interject their own opinion and call it useless. I don't see how you are the authority or judge that users have to appeal to just to show that something is notable. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a guideline on notability. In a nutshell, the page says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. This topic does not appear to meet that standard. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Quote

Removing this quotation as there is no reference for the quotation, and per this. Goodnightmush^Talk 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC says Olbermann, Matthews won't anchor

I am not sure if this has been discussed here before. Does this mean that Countdown is scrapped? Docku^Hi 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It just means Matthews and Olbermann will not be anchoring MSNBC's election news coverage any longer. They will still host their weekday shows and appear as analysts on the election news coverage, they just won't be the guys sitting at the anchor desk during the coverage. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to have Olbermann's and Matthews's removal as anchors of the election coverage mentioned twice in the article? If the current content in Return to MSNBC section isn't enough, expand it there. An entirely new section really isn't necessary. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted back to remove the section and add back the original mention. The new section was unnecessary, out of place and very very biased. He also wasn't 'demoted' as far as the source says. I mean, his primary role on MSNBC hasn't changed, this was sort of just a temporary thing anyway. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Demoted" isn't supported by the ref. And don't you like the little "this and the fight with Joe Scarborough led to the demotion"? Conveniently placed after the ref. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't what this page is for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, and they all jump to Olbermann's defense. What a shocker! Thank God you all added the qualifier 'percieved'. Because it isn't enough until Olbermann rips off his jacket revealing his Obama '08 T-shirt on camera until you'll all stop billing him as a down the middle journalist. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your unhelpful, unrelated comment. NcSchu(Talk) 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hey, no problem. I figure, with dozens and dozens of comments here trying to be helpful but being shot down because they don't fully support Olbermann, why try? You guys a rock solid.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is quite obvious that a small handful of users here are "protecting" Olbermann's wikipage, under the guise of being un-biased. I have seen so many reverts and edits from NcSchu and Guettarda it is really starting to get old. The humorous aspect to it is, it's so evident! Seriously, get off your soapbox and let authors contribute a truly un-biased view of the chap! Anyone with a heartbeat can do a google search and find loads of credible information that is relvant or "notable" information that belongs here. Sorry, but you don't always get to decide what is "notable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.54 (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I don't recall ever trying to remove this information from the article...I merely toned it down. Yes, he and Matthews were removed from this coverage. No, they weren't 'demoted', this wasn't 'punishment', it's merely the conclusion of an experiment by MSNBC that didn't work. Olbermann's status at the network remains unchanged. I merely corrected the statement with what was explicitly stated in the source and removed sensationalist drama and POV statements added in by people with obvious biases in attempt to smear this person. NcSchu(Talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) By 'toning down', you mean removing any negativity from a fact that is inherently negative. For example, and I'm not sure if you played a part in this, there's a segment in the bio about Olbermanns association with the Daily Kos, the leftiest left that ever lefted website. Where they celebrate the deaths of Republicans, ban those who don't support Obama completely, ban members who mention the Edwards scandal, and get giddy at the mention of McCain's torture. From all that, you summed up his association with a single sentence, calling one of the most hateful websites on the web a site that... tends to be pro-Obama. What? If you want to be a News Anchor and play yourself off as unbiased, you don't blog for Daily Kos. It's a damaging fact hidden and, to someone unaware of Kos, without any impact. I'm sure you'll counter with a 'wikipedia has an article on Kos, anyone can look.' The comment is made and implied that it's about as bad as a Hello Kitty website - what urge would they have? Simply pointing of the negativity in a situation like that doesn't need to be 'toned down.'--DystopiaSticker (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) No, I mean removing information that's not inherently negative but was purposely written to make it seem like so. You're obviously biased given your little rant about the Daily Kos above so I don't really concern myself with your opinion. You're a new editor, and so I also doubt your knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. NcSchu(Talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [personal attack removed]. It's so convenient that you can hide YOUR biases under the claim "I'm just toning things down." How lucky. Everyone on this planet has a bias, but if Keith Olbermann murdered someone and someone like me, who is biased against him, pointed it out, will you discard it? No. You wouldn't. You'd tone it down so people would need to read twice before they realize it's about Olbermann murdering someone, but you'd put it in. What the hell is the difference with other controversies revolving around Olbermann? Does someone need to live it a grey house and say "Average-bye" when they leave a room for you to accept their citations? These are rhetorical, by the way. Your biased opinion doesn't really matter to me.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Some people are better at putting their biases at the door when they come to actually improve this encyclopedia, which given your edit history is contained to only this talk page, you are not very interested in doing. Instead you talk of liberal conspiracies and tell people to shove ideas up their asses. How nice. I don't think anyone, including me, has actually tried to remove the information off the page. There would be no reason to do so since it's significant. But when editors come here after seeing something remotely bad about somebody they dislike and add to their article with all their hatred and bias injected, it's the job of experienced editors to come and take that out. If the source actually used words like' demoted' then that should have been translated to the article. But that's not so. Wikipedia is based on the reliable sources that are included with information. NcSchu(Talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) How about we stop feeding the troll. It would appear that DyostopiaSticker is not willing to have a civil discussion on this topic and therefore it is a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have seen so many reverts and edits from NcSchu and Guettarda it is really starting to get old. Well, the simplest way to avoid that is for people to stop adding unsuitable material. The standards applied here are Wikipedia standards, not my standards or NcSchu's. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) This is to the point of absurdity. In my opinion it is quite evident to witness biased censorship in many areas of this discussion and the original page of Olbermann. This is what happens when you give some people "wiki-power" and they end up running away with it. This is a relative statement, keep in mind. Wikipedia is not the authority on Keith Olbermann, there is no shortage of anti/pro Olbermann pages out there. Bomb-bombwiki (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologize for mistaken deletion, I had a different version on my screen..Bomb-bombwiki (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you all can help me understand... Absolutely NO criticism of Mr. Olbermann is allowed, even by well sourced, credible news organizations, right? This prohibition also seems to extend to this talk page... Seems to me that Mr. Olbermann's removal as "anchor", and the reasons for his removal, might be notable. Can someone please tell me why the following edit, with proper citation, was deleted:

"A Philadelphia Enquirer editorial criticized MSNBC and the Olbermann-Matthews duo, saying "MSNBC went too far by putting blatantly biased commentators in the role of news anchors," [19] leaving the network open to "valid criticism of having a liberal bias." [19] The editorial also referred to David Gregory as a "legitimate news broadcaster"[19] and NBC anchor Brian Williams as a "serious news reader," [19] implying that Olberman and Matthews were neither. The two will remain as analysts during coverage of major political events.[18]"

Cheers y'all and enjoy the weekend!E2a2j (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an editorial, not a news article. The paper it's from is irrelevant, it's still an editorial, which means it's an opinion piece by the writer. This isn't a criticism article, so there's no reason to include criticisms by every single person that has ever criticized Olbermann. Even if the editorial was praising the duo I still wouldn't see reason for its inclusion, but I bet it would be rare for someone to add a positive item to this article, anyway. Olbermann being appointed and then removed from the anchor chair is important, that's why it's included under his history of being at MSNBC, but why does it matter that this person disliked the coverage? NcSchu_(Talk) 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus That Olbermann Is a News Anchor

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Since he has been a news anchor of sorts I don't object to that description appearing in the introduction. It should not, however, be the first job description listed after his name. If Olbermann were basically a news anchor in the way that term is ordinarily understood few would be making a fuss over him, pro or con. It is precisely because he has become a political commentator, an extremely polemical commentator I would add, that he has become something of a honcho on the political scene. Therefore I recommend that we change the job description order and list political commentator first. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Docku^Hi 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that he be labeled a polemical commentator or polemicist as a job description, Doc. I'm proposing that he be labeled a political commentator (which he already is) first, rather than second or third. Incidentally, "polemicist" is not ordinarily used as a derogatory term. It means someone who engages in, and is often skilled at, argumentation. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports Collectors Bible

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)

Hence the term "credited". Thanks for the legwork, NcSchu. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The credits at the end of a film, however, actually inform the viewer as to what someone involved in the film is being credited for. Let's face it, it was a crappy sentence and one borrowed almost verbatim without attribution. I've noticed a lot of this in Wikipedia and particularly in the Olbermann and Countdown articles. Lots of the copy, although less so now I suppose, came unattributed right out of the MSNBC web site and other sites with a pro-Olbermann slant, helping to explain the booster tone of the articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

No offense NcSchu, but isn't it a bit absent minded of you to enter copy about someone being credited or referenced without crediting or referencing your own source, especially since I brought up the topic in my previous comment. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Gradual?

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)

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)

Though I don't propose to add it right now, the adverb "increasingly" would probably state the matter most accurately. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First NBC stint

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)

Political positions

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)

Commentator first

I'm changing the order of Olbermann's job descriptions by putting political commentator first rather than second, and propose that this order should stand until circumstances substantially change. While Olbermann has done some anchoring of shows other than Countdown, his chief claim to fame is his commentary, not his presentation of news. Describing his role on Countdown as that of an anchor is a bit like describing his boyhood idols Bob and Ray as talk show hosts because they used to interview each other. The "news" format for Countdown is now basically a shtick. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel so clean now. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help you out, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that his official title at MSNBC is "MSNBC Anchor", I believe that you're trying to introduce your personal opinion into the article. The change isn't warranted or necessary, and certainly isn't supported by the primary source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a subtitle on a web page that hasn't been updated since 2007.. The description of what Olbermann does, based on the primary source, actually supports what Badmintonhist says, and it's not like he's trying to remove that description as anchor. Sounds like you're retaliating against him, reverted your edit per WP:DICK. Switzpaw (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Switzpaw, calling someone a dick is counter-productive. WP:DICK reminds us that it "does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." So, don't do it. You also don't undo someone's otherwise acceptable edits "per WP:DICK". We make judgements about the inclusion and ordering of content based on sources, notability, neutrality, and BLP requirements, not based on whether we think an editor is doing something we don't like.

The simple reality is this: Olbermann has for five years anchored a "news and commentary" show -- definitively in that order. He has also been a news anchor and sportscaster for far longer than he has been a political commentator. Accordingly, when we describe what his profession is, we start with the news bit. Actually, we should be mentioning both news and sports before the political stuff, because he has won a number of awards in both these areas. Even without his recent fame as a political commentator, he would easily meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for this reason. Nowadays, we have people pushing the "political commentator" aspect because that's what he has become known for in the last two years, and because these same people know him only for that aspect. Olbermann is almost 50; we don't diminish or sideline what he's been doing professionally for 25 years because you saw him on MSNBC (or Youtube) doing something else.

Please review Wikipedia:Recentism for further guidance and explanation as to why we try to avoid slanting things in favour of what's happened recently. Warren -talk- 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would've been funnier if you reverted my edit per WP:DOUCHE. ;) Switzpaw (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, Warren, there must be some reason for the WP:DICK designation. Perhaps it should be replaced by WP:EDDIEHASKELL. Less vulgar. As for the order of Olbie's job titles, it isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, but then, is there anything found in Wikipedia that is? For the sake of authenticity, however, calling him a a sportscaster first is ...well... lame; however Solomonic your intentions. Had Olbie remained a mere sportscaster his Wikipedia article, if it existed at all, would probably be a stub. Take a look at the size of his article before Countdown became overtly political and compare it to what it has been the last few years. Lots of people have achieved a moderate level of fame doing one thing before becoming a cause celebre for something else. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the issue is

Case 1:political commentator, news anchor, and sportscaster.

Case 2:news anchor,political commentator, and sportscaster.

Either way is ok. let us not waste our time over some non-issue. Docku:“what up?” 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to war over it. Warren has a decent point. Badmintonhist also has a decent point, and I don't think that his edit is injecting a personal opinion, contrary to Blaxthos' accusation. Switzpaw (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of something that might satisfy everyone and would certainly not offend the biggest Olbermann fan. I'll try it out in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty damn good, if I do say so, myself. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Warren, it's pretty hard for me to argue very enthusiastically that he is a journalist (and as Wikipedia defines the term he isn't one), but to call him a sportscaster first is a like calling the late Merv Griffin (if you're old enough to remember him) a singer first. Olbermann now dabbles in sportscasting. His real claim to fame, and I think you know this very well, is his political commentary. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are bordering laughable... do you know anything about Olbermann other than his recent political commentary? Isn't that the only reason you're here? To recap: "Olbermann now dabbles in sportscasting. His real claim to fame... is his political commentary." Credibility: zero. Let's examine:

1. Late 1980s, three time "Best Sportscaster" from the California Associated Press
2. 1992 - 1997, ESPN SportsCenter anchor
3. 1997, Hosted the 1997 World Series
4. 1998 - 2001, Fox Sports Net anchor & producer
5. 2000, Hosted the 2000 World Series
6. 2001, twice daily ABC Radio sports contributor
7. 2007, Cohost of Football Night in America

To try and say that he's "dabbled" in sportscasting is a severe misrepresentation of the facts, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Olbermann has been an award-winning sportscaster for longer than he's been doing commentary! Your blatant misunderstanding or misrepresentations make it seem like you're only here to try and inject a partisan point-of-view. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, just because /you/ don't know Olbermann as a sportscaster, doesn't mean he hasn't been one almost constantly since the early 1980s. I have friends who are heavy into American football, and most of them know Olbermann's name because of his prominence on ESPN; one was actually really surprised he had taken up criticising Republicans on a cable TV news show. It isn't very well covered here for the same reason that a lot of stuff prior to 2001 isn't covered very well in Wikipedia: Recentism.

(That, and Wikipedia's coverage of living people who work in television news is usually pretty poor. Consider for example what Tim Russert's article looked like in April, before he died, compared to now.)

I realise American politics is a hot subject right now because it's in the news a lot, and Youtube clips and the like get passed around with Olbermann's special comments etc., but the simple fact of the matter is this: Olbermann's relatively recent foray into political commentary does not invalidate or overshadow what he has been doing professionally for his entire career. Was he hired as a political commentator by MSNBC? No. Does he do political commentary in other places aside from his own television show, or in interviews? No, not really. Does some official source identify his position as such? No. On weekdays, he is a newscaster that does opinion & commentary, and on weekends, he is a sportscaster that does opinion & commentary. That's the reality. Any attempts to define Olbermann in another way is an attempt to inject bias into the biography of a living person.

Your attempts to emphasise the "political commentary" aspect of his work seem to me like you've only become aware of him through Countdown, and feel that the part that you, personally, are aware of are the only parts that are important. If you believe that Olbermann's primary notability is for political commentary, that's fine.... but it's wrong.

Further, I hate to have to call you out on this, but this, your most recent edit to the encyclopedia, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV policy, and your use of words like "prestigious" to describe things suggests that you need to get a firmer grasp on how to write in the encyclopedia without injecting your own opinions or WP:PEACOCK terms. You really need to avoid this kind of writing -- it adds problems to the encyclopedia that someone else will eventually have to fix.

One last thing: Lay off with the "biggest Olbermann fan" bullshit. My participation here is to prevent people from turning this article into something that doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines, and as my user page states, I have a keen interest in good lead sections. Warren -talk- 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Political commentator is a label placed by others unrelated to the subject. News anchor is the title bestowed by MSNBC and, presumably, Olbermann himself. We should always prefer official titles over subjective labeling.
2. I wouldn't categorize Olbermann as a journalist -- he is an anchor, a sportscaster, and a commentator; he doesn't routinely report any news himself.
3. I am occasionally a dick, to be sure. Sometimes it's warranted, though offense isn't intended.

-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what either Warren or Blaxthos have said here effects the rationale that I gave for my most recent Olbermann edit. Of the three job descriptions given in the lead, the longest and most substantive copy in the article relates to his role as a political commentator. That's how we know what his Political positions are. That is the job description that should be emphasized according to WP:LEAD. As for Warren's other points, most of which are assumptions, I'll eventually address them on his talk page where I think it more properly belongs. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One further note, there is a kind of "recentism" that is practiced in the article, but it isn't what Warren thinks it is. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, you're just plain wrong. Olbermann has been an award-winning sports journalist for twenty years, and only started doing political commentary in 2003 (closer to 2004, really). Given your edit history, it's clear that your interest isn't in improving the article, but rather pushing a POV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ARE you talking about the edits to the article for which you awarded me a barnstar, Blax?? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD doesn't prescribe ordering of professions in biography articles; it only addresses how the section as a whole should be written, proportional to the amount of dinformation in the remainder of the article. That's the accepted practice. I've done work on the WP:LEAD guideline itself, so I'm pretty sure I understand what the intention is. Warren -talk- 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It gives a general principle which I'm following and you are not. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. This is like arguing over who gets to be the lead name in a show, ie Siskel and Ebert. Here is a simple solution that should satisfy noone, therefore not be viewed as pushing any kind of POV. If the final digit of the NASDAQ today (3/10/2008) is 0-3 then use "Anchor", 4-6 use "Political Commentator", 7-9 use "Sportscaster". Simple and no edit warring. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's use our powers of reasoning instead of parody. If the criteria is "what is Olbermann best known for", then I suppose it's subjective, though it's easily demonstrable that Olbermann's aggregate audience reach during sports broadcasts far exceeds reach during his news career. If the criteria is his official title, it's easily demonstrable that his official titles have been anchor & sportscaster. If the criteria is length in service, his sports career exceeds news anchor, which exceeds political commentator. Any way you slice it, the commentator label is trumped by official titles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I now agree with Blaxthos and Warren on this, it's a pretty good argument for -- sportscaster, news anchor, political commentator. Switzpaw (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I'm disappointed in my colleague Switzpaw for siding with the McBeebe twins on this one. However, I promise not to hunt through his edits on subjects that I have no interest in, in order to find violations of the Wiki canon. Now, let us see if we can apply some reason to the issue at hand. Olbermann is effectively the subject of at least three lengthy articles now in Wikipedia (Keith Olbermann, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and List of Keith Olbermann's special comments) principally because of his decision to do political commentary on Countdown and the notoreity he has enjoyed as a result. Prior to Countdown he was the subject of no article in Wikipedia at all, and only a relatively brief one until he became overtly political on the show. That should really end the debate over which job title to stress in the main Wiki article about him; so why doesn't it?

It doesn't end the debate for some editors for the same reason they didn't want political commentator added to the mix a while back, and have always fought to maintain news anchor in the lead: Because referring to Olbermann as a news anchor (a la David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite) or as a sportscaster (a la Brent Musburger or Al Michaels) adds depth and gravitas to Olbermann's persona. In reality, Olbermann had very mixed success as a sportscaster despite some obvious abilities. He swam in a big pond, to be sure, but he was only a medium sized fish in it, largely because he could not get along with his co-workers and managers. But now editors like the McBeebe twins, who probably had zero interest in Olbermann's sportcasting career back when that was his main gig, suddenly discover that the man had greatness in that field and pretend that after languishing in third place, this should be the main reason for Wikipedia's article on him. That's the real recentism or revisionism that's at work here. File it under WP:NONSENSE. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We've humored your shameless personal attacks and incivility long enough, Badmintonhist. This isn't a battleground, there are no "sides". Your logic is flawed, your facts are dubious (at best), and your entire POV-pushing speech is irrelevant original research. The rest of us seem to have come to a compromise consensus; please step off your soapbox. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, please don't call people names, it's uncivil and distracts from the discussion. I've been MIA for a while, but what exactly is the issue here? Because, uh, it sounds like we're arguing over the wording, is that correct? Can we just put it alpha order and be happy? NcSchu_(Talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

About the lead

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)

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)

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)

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 Badmintonhist (talk · contribs), this seems more like a politically motivated effort. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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. Goodnightmush^Talk 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

In all due respect, Switzpaw, Simpson is only truly well known as a criminal defendant because of his football. Otherwise his murder trial wouldn't have been nearly as publicized as it was. There's much less connection between Olbermann.s fame from Countdown and his prominence as a sportscaster. Also, frankly, Simpson was a much bigger figure as an athlete than Olbermann was as someone who talked and wrote about athletes. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Criticism of Hillary Clinton

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? Goodnightmush^Talk 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess it needs to go. undue importance. Docku:“what up?” 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, seems WP:UNDUE. Dayewalker (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good example of WP:recentism when it really happened. Docku:“what up?” 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also think it's a good compromise. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wow, someone take a picture, we all agree on something.... Warren -talk- 01:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro Needs Work

"The show has since gained a significantly larger viewership amid Olbermann's feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and his harsh criticisms of the George W. Bush administration in particular and rightward leaning politics in general."

I would suggest something along the lines of:

Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a partisan commentator and critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's gained some notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic (sp?) attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show.

The current version is not encyclopedic. It doesn't focus on the most notable aspects of the show. It's also opinionated. And it certainly isn't appropriate for the Intro.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

That doesn't seem much different than what we are currently saying in the intro. We're not saying 'partisan' because Olbermann doesn't identify himself that way (and if you recall, he was highly critical of Senator Clinton). I think the current summary already covers the criticisms for which he's notable. Switzpaw (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"vitriolic" is a POV word, I think it should be avoided. We are using the word "harsh" because in the source for that statement, that was the word describing Olbermann's commentary in a question posed to him, and he took no issue with it. Switzpaw (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Politicized instead of partisan is good. I just think it's weird to have statements like "significantly higher". What does that mean? The source I found was from 2006 (and I had to dig for it). What are his ratings now? Are his ratings a key part of the article that belongs in the intro? If so how do his ratings compare to other news shows? Should it be noted that (for example) O'Reilly crushes him in the ratings? What about controversies and criticisms of Olbermann? Should there be mention of that in the intro? I'm not trying to make a fuss. You can leave it be if you want. I just think it's and a bit of a that could be greatly improved. I like my changes and would welcome the input of others. I agree with you that my changes end up saying much the same thing, but I think they do so in a more encyclopedic and neutral way. But maybe I'm wrong. Oh and you say he's not partisan and give the example of criticisms of Hillary... but that's not indicated from the Intro as is, which I guess goes back to the problems with it I'm trying to get at.  ;) Harsh seems POV and it isn't sourced in the Intro even if it is elsewhere. Would anyone argue that his attacks on Bush aren't vitriolic? Maybe there's a better word.(Wallamoose (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's another try. But if y'all think it's good as is I guess I'm wasting my time.

Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a political commentator and fierce critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's also gone after other political figures such as Hillary Clinton, and is seen as controversial for his vigorous expression of his viewpoints. He's gained notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic (sp?) attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Using a word as charged as "vitriolic" is foolish. Why don't we change the lead for the Bill O'Reilly article to talk about how much he loves shouting and cutting out microphones? Why do we have to talk about O'Reilly in the lead of Olbermann's article? We don't talk about O'Reilly's harsh criticisms in the lead of his article. Also, all cable spokespeople are "niches" compared to the traditional broadcast networks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

editor conflict unrelated to content of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RafaelRGarcia is being investigated by Admins for stalking me. I'm sorry to see that he's continued this activity on this board. If anyone has any suggestions on getting rid of a pest please let me know.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)) Wallamoose is complaining to admins about me, but I am not being investigated. In contrast, Wallamoose has a Wikiquette alert filed against him for insulting editors and administrators. If he is rude to you, don't hesitate to complain at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose .RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Established a niche" is interesting (and, I see, supported by a NYT article, at least going by its title). The thing is that the lead needs to reflect the article, so what you should do is try to figure out how we should express that idea in the body of the article. Then we can adjust the lead appropriately. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think the word niche is appropriate and supported by the rest of the article. It's also the most accurate term I could come up with. Is there a question of it being POV? From the article: "a time slot previously held by programs hosted by Phil Donahue and, briefly, Lester Holt". So the niche description to me better describes Olbermann's success in carving out a cable news audience in a competitive arena (where many have failed) and against a lot of competition from other channels and other news shows. Isn't that what the article is about? Anyway, just trying to help. It's not a big deal to me, but I think that portion about his recent career could be better phrased.

For what it's worth regarding Vitriolic:

"–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or resembling vitriol [1) Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc. 2. oil of vitriol; sulfuric acid. 3) something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism] 2. obtained from vitriol. 3. very caustic; scathing: vitriolic criticism. —Synonyms 3. acid, bitter.—Antonyms 3. bland, mild."

That's my vocabulary lesson for today.  :) Seems pretty on target to me, but I'm open on what kind of vocab is used to characterize Olbermann's attacks on Bush and O'Reilly. Harsh actually seems more POV to me, but its similar. I like vitriolic because it seems accurate to me and we might encourage someone to look up vitriolic and expand their vocab.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The word "vitriolic" is too charged, and POV. It paints a negative picture of the speaker. If you add it to this article, I will add it to Bill O'Reilly's, because he gets just as angry.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

editor conflict unrelated to content of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
RRG, don't make threats to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. You seem to have come here and plopped down in the middle of a productive discussion to continue jousting with Wallamoose, who has been pretty easy to work with on this article. Please remain civil. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) My coming here has nothing to do with Wallamoose. I came to read the article and then stumbled upon Wallamoose attempting to inject charged rhetoric into the article. I am not threatening to disrupt Wikipedia; but I am pointing out how neutral Bill O'Reilly's lead is, so why should Olbermann's not be? Wallamoose has been very uncivil to me; I'm not the one who merits warning. For more information, read the Wikiquette alert on him, as I'm not here to bring that up.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC) How are you not here to bring it up? You've already linked to it once and told people to go there to complain. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) You can clearly see that my comments were limited to the article until Wallamoose blundered in to accuse me of stalking him. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Well, responding to an accusation of stalking by linking to your own Wikkiquette alert and encouraging others to complain there isn't exactly the right way to deflect those criticisms. Dayewalker (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC) It's out of my hands at this point. I can't let a comment like that slide. Wallamoose is very rude in all situations. And he's been stalking me since last month; he keeps trying to revert edits I made to Supreme Court articles. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (OD)It's not out of your hands, but it is irrelevant to this article. You can't accuse him of stalking when you clearly came to this page following him. Please don't continue an argument onto an irrelvant page. Dayewalker (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I deny coming to this article because of Wallamoose. Olbermann is increasingly relevant to me with elections coming up, so I looked him up. Also, Wallamoose accused me of stalking him after stalking me himself. And again, I didn't bring it up. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder: the lead isn't a Keith Olbermann vs. Bill O'Reilly battleground. The current statement about Countdown's ratings increasing amidst the feud with Bill O'Reilly is to describe a turning point in the show. Mentioning Bill O'Reilly's ratings is unnecessary. Switzpaw (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of this Switz (notice there's nothing about O'Reilly spanking him in the ratings...):

"Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a political commentator and fierce critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's also gone after other political figures such as Hillary Clinton, and is seen as controversial for his vigorous expression of his viewpoints. He's gained notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show."

"Vitriolic" is not NPOV. Also, that lead will be outdated in a couple months when GWB leaves office. Best to be less specific. Also, don't use "he's." Also, Bill O'Reilly is not a "centerpiece;" that far overstates BOR's importance. Trying to characterize KO as nothing more than a critic of BOR and GWB weakens KO's significance unfairly. The lead is fine as is. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I support limiting the focus on Countdown and simply presenting a brief overview of Olbermann's accomplishments through the whole of his career. I don't think it's necessary to go into more detail about Countdown, which is what you're trying to do in your revision. Switzpaw (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think focusing on O'Reilly constitutes undue weight and borders on creating a coatrack. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Feud with O'Reilly

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)

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))

I agree with RRG's above comment. Switzpaw (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

It may not necessarily be notable enough for a separate article. Docku:“what up?” 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I certainly agree. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the citation still in the article and a sense of the content contained in the quote and the article? I hope so. It certainly seems like interesting and notable material. A pattern of breakdowns and feuds? He was feuding with his MSNBC cohosts not long ago as I recall. (Wallamoose (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

See Wikipedia's policy on scandal mongering. Switzpaw (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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))

Consensus seems to have formed despite your feelings on the matter, Wallamoose. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Post-Wallamoose Cleanup of Feud with Bill O'Reilly Section

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)

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))

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)

Let's leave analysis to independent reliable sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It was certainly a bit of a crew cut. I apologize if I took out anything I shouldn't have, that was not my intent. As I stated above, I am all for including more information on the feud that is notable and verifiable. I just didn't think Olbermann saying he had "bigger fish to fry", for example, was particulary notable or germaine to the feud itself. By all means add back a bit to flesh out the tenor of the Mackris related attacks on O'Reilly. All I ask is that the Fox news quote be left in. If you're going to have a feud, I think both sides ought to get a say. I look forward to reading more from Olbermann's side. After all, it's his biography.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

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)

It seems I'm already drifting over to the Hillary section... "condemn what he characterized as Senator Clinton's 'tepid response' to Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro's controversial remarks about Barack Obama". If this is notable I think it would be helpful to say what Ferraro said or at least describe it in some way so we know what the issue was. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

Okay, guys let's cool down. Let's not have another Blaxthos and me going at each other. I don't think the Moose was being malicious, just a bit insensitive. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bush administration

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)

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))

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)

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))

Left leaning

I propose including the term "left leaning" or similar to modify his title as "political commentator." Although he will not call himself as such, his reputation is evident at this point. For sources, any of the stories from the Olbermann-Matthews demotion or last year's New York magazine article qualify as outside sources. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we usually try to avoid use of such labels in the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Talk radio hosts are often characterized on Wiki as conservative or liberal political commentators. Bill O'Reilly is called a "self-described 'traditionalist'" on his page. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes have those qualifiers and when was the last time that Colmes called for Bush's resignation? There has to be a point where the mass of his actions make him appear objectively liberal, and I believe that point was reached at the time of the New York article. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is probably one of the things which dont need a reference unless someone here questions the claim he is left leaning. Docku^Hi 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do question the need for it. Do we really, really need to identify someone's political leanings in the very first sentence of the article? Are we really so fucking obsessed with a person's opinions that we need to state that before we state what they do for a living? Olbermann's notability isn't related to the fact that he's "liberal". It's related to the fact that he has been television broadcaster for a number of years. Words like "liberal" and "left leaning" are pretty murky terms, anyhow, since (and I know this is a really, really difficult concept for many partisan Americans to grasp) a person's collected opinions of things don't fall neatly into a bi-chromatic rainbow of "liberal" or "conservative". It's always more complex than that.

Wikipedia is best served by side-stepping this problem altogether, and just focusing on describing what the person does. Anyone who believes we need to say that someone is "left-leaning" or "liberal" before we actually describe who they are, is here to push an agenda not related to the improvement of the encyclopedia, and is kindly encouraged to sod off. Warren -talk- 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And anyone trying to paint Olbermann as neutral and without a party clearly doesn't have an agenda? It's so cute when you guys get upset over criticism of your idol.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, then. Carry on. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I disagree, and agree with Warren. We've been through this before on this page many times, if you guys will check the archives. Unlike the others, Olbermann doesn't identify himself as anything, and maintains that he appears liberal because of the current political climate. It's very similar to the con/neo-con debate that's gone on over at the Sean Hannity page. Generally, we identify people with what they claim to be and not what our own feelings are. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Warren. Labels inflame passions, are subjective in nature, and poison the well. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann's notability has increased due to the fact that he's "liberal" political commentator who sometimes acts as "neutral" news presenter. --CSvBibra (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's synthesis of thought based on a questionable premise -- certainly not justification for subjectively labels in the lead of a biography. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my two and a half cents here, I think that the dispute is something of a tempest in a teapot. The most important "fact" about Olbermann is surely not that he's a liberal; it's that he's a self-infatuated zealot getting worse by the day (and one that many liberals are now quite uncomfortable with). That can be demonstrated well enough by "describing what the person does" as Warren aptly puts it. On a related issue, I don't think that "news anchor" should be the very first description the reader sees of what this particular person does. Certainly Countdown, his "signature" claim to fame, is no longer a "newscast" in any way worthy of the name. It is now utterly dominated by anti-Republican polemics, often extremely vituperative polemics, without the merest fig leaf of even-handedness. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second here. When I proposed this change, I was advocating consistency, not political positioning. Most of Olbermann's commentator peers are, in fact, labeled. Olbermann has repeatedly criticized the ideology of the American right and the Bush administration in specific, while generally praising the policies of the left. So, if Olbermann's record and reputation can in fact outweigh his stated beliefs, then he should also be labeled (liberal, progressive, left-wing, or insert appropriate term here). On the other hand, if my argument is in error, then we should remove these labels from the pages of all American political commentators from Rush Limbaugh to Al Franken to Bill O'Reilly to Chris Matthews. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, the Chris Matthews page didn't have an ideological qualifier until you added it, which I took the liberty of reverting. To reply to your general comment, I think that consistency is very important. I get the sense that editors aren't patrolling a set of articles on news commentators as a whole but selecting choosing what articles they want to edit, and the end result is an inconsistency that is embarassingly apparent to the reader of a hyperlinked system. It would be great if this general issue would be addressed some how, maybe as a Wikipedia project. Switzpaw (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad behavior elsewhere is no excuse for it here (or anywhere else); the answer certainly isn't to ignore policy and replicate it. The single purpose of some of the proponents of ideological labeling gives credit to Switzpaw's concerns. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blaxthos here, which is why I also agree with using identifiers on the basis of self-identification. It's far easier for one side of the political landscape to use those terms than the other, and simply being against one side does not make you a member of the other. Dayewalker (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue gets muddled. This is a very simple question to me: Shall we be consistent in labeling a TV or radio commentator's ideology when he or she hosts a program mostly driven by his or her opinion, or not? If so, it has been made clear that Olbermann, on Countdown, operates far to the left of almost any show of its kind on radio or TV... although "liberal" may not be the correct word to describe him. (By contrast, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin host shows far to the right of most shows on radio or TV... and both are characterized on their Wikipedia pages as "conservative political commentators.") If not, then all of this arguing is moot and the job title of "political commentator" should not be qualified in any case. BTW, careful with your biting, Blaxthos. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Your simplification of the issue misses the point I was making. Limbaugh and Levin both self-identify as "conservative" for political reasons. Olbermann does not. There doesn't seem to be any NPOV need to identify him with political labels, as the majority of editors who have been in favor of marking his article have been from one side of the political landscape. As an aside, I see nothing wrong with what Blaxthos said, and conventional wisdom says if you've been here long enough to quote WP:BITE, you're not a newbie. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann has his own, wholly separate, reasons for dissembling when asked about his political affiliation. I can understand that there are opponents who want to paint him into a corner (and supporters also bending the rules in his defense), but eventually a duck has to quack. Through Olbermann's own words and actions, eventually it becomes neither biased nor controversial to describe him as left-leaning or liberal. My question remains: Has it not reached that point in Olbermann's case? (Once again, in response, I've only edited three or four articles. I just like to do my homework.) 68.204.214.55 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It has not reached the point where we, as an encyclopedia, would make a decision about what kind of political beliefs someone has, especially when that designation has actually been denied by the person on several occasions. Although you may personally refer to what you perceive Olbermann's beliefs to be, actually identifying him with your label in wikipedia is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not here to have people vote on where someone falls in the political spectrum. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is entering the arena of personal beliefs? I'm sure that Olbermann's own palate is quite mixed and complicated, but the debate here is whether he should be classified as simply a political commentator or as a "liberal" political commentator. He earns his living (according to his Wikipedia entry, $4m a year) by hosting a show virtually hinged on his public, stated opinions, which tilt a long way to the American left (there are several examples in his entry to support this, and none to refute it). In any event, we have again left the focus of the debate to entertain marginally noble arguments about political polarization that have no heads here. Does he need only identify himself as a "liberal," "progressive," or "what-have-you" once to end this debate either way? Wouldn't that cheapen the mass of human experience and factual history that an encyclopedia is meant to cover? (Put another way: If Bill O'Reilly announced tomorrow that he identified with the American left and was running for the Democratic nomination for Senator, would that change the general perception of him? Of course not... Wiki editors would go through fits trying to change the lead of his entry to get both conflicting stories in.) Back to Olbermann: It is the mass of experience he has built in five years as host of Countdown that determine his qualifications as political commentator, and it is his own words and actions as host that describe him in that role best of all. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As LBJ used to say, "Come, Let us reason together." While I don't think that Olbermann should be labeled as a liberal, even though he is one, self-identification is absolutely the worst standard that can be used in providing neat, little ideological adjectives for politicians and commentators. Under self-identification Hitler becomes a socialist, Mugabe becomes an agrarian reformer, McCain becomes a maverick ... get the point? Let's see if this works. Scrap the neat, little political adjectives for all of the commentators, whether self-identified or not (though stating that they have identified themselves in a certain way, if they have, is perfectly proper). Don't call Mark Levin "a conservative political commentator," call him "a political commentator," but accurately describe what he says and does. The same for Hannity, the same for Matthews, the same for Olbie, etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It should be all or none. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to sound presumptuous, does the recent lack of comment here indicate that the recommendation that we scrap the "canned" ideological qualifiers for all of the pundits, whether "self-confessed" or not, is now the "consensus" view, at least in this little circle? As I see it, this would mean that noting that pundit has explicitly identified himself or herself as "liberal," or "progressive," or "conservative," or "libertarian," etc. would be fine. Even noting that third parties have so identified him (her) would be fine. But assuming (i.e. giving the Wikipedia imprimatur to the idea) that either the self-description, or some third party's description, is accurate by simply referring to Keith Olbermann as a "liberal political commentator" or to Michelle Malkin as a "conservative political commentator" would not be fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Decisions on this page do not affect other articles. Such broad decisions must go through a Wikiproject or some other discussion. Anything decided on this page is for this page only and cannot reasonably be cited for changes to another page. NcSchu_(Talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I more or less understood your point Ncschu, which is why I said "in this little circle." I would reiterate that self-identification (unless it is an objective, verifiable one such as membership in a political party) is a terrible standard for Wikipedians to use in assigning "canned" political labels to people. Under self-identification Stalins and Maos are never dictators and Olbermanns are never liberals. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rather dislike any labels and I think with things like political affiliation it is a matter of opinion in many cases. You can source things that show that a person's show leans a certain way, yes, but I think when it comes to personal affiliation then it's different. And anyway, what is 'liberal' or 'left-leaning'? Those are like the vaguest possible terms ever. Yes, people identify themselves in particular ways and people you think are just 'liberal' might not like that label applied to them instead of 'progressive' or something like that. That's why I think self-identification is important in this case. I think comparing this situation to Stalin is a bit much. This isn't a leader of a country, it's a political commentator. But if you'd like, the article on George W. Bush doesn't have him labeled as the 'conservative forty-third President of the United States', merely, and a few paragraphs down in the lead, that he was on the Republican Party's ticket.NcSchu_(Talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Realizing that a general discussion doesn't really apply to this specific article, I'm going to throw in my opinion anyway. I think that a reasonable standard is self-identification + consensus. I'm fairly sure that people like President Bush and Sean Hannity self-identify as conservatives and I think we can agree that they are. The same would be true for someone like radio talk show host Stephanie Miller, who is a self-identified liberal. Someone like Bill Maher, on the other hand has self-identified as a libertarian; however many libertarians feel that he is not a "true" libertarian. Check out the talk archives at that article for the discussions on that one. Olbermann has not self-identified as a liberal and there may be aspects of his ideology that are not expressed on his show. In short, we don't know what his ideology because we don't really know how he thinks about every single issue. We only know about the ones he specifically expresses. We can't read the guy's mind and therefore cannot make a fair judgement. Henrymrx (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I work in the business, I've always seen people like Olbermann, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the like as entertainers first, political commentators second. They're there to entretain and draw ratings, not to run for office. If someone identifies themselves, I think that's plenty good enough for consensus. If Hannity says he's a conservative, then he should be shown as such, despite the people who make the case he's actually a neocon. Otherwise, trying to put them into a category is secondhand research. I'm fine with self ID+consensus, as Henry stated above. Dayewalker (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dayewalker -- Henrymrx's reasoning is compelling. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that formulation, too, Dayewalker. It's important to remember that, no matter how much any of us may like or dislike a particular person, Wikipedia's policies implore us to apply neutrality, verifiability, and fairness in our descriptions of people, especially if they are still alive. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is vital reading for anyone who wants to work on such articles.

The focus here shouldn't be to find a source that says "Olbermann is a liberal"; that's pretty pointless given the inherently murky definition of the word. If we stick to describing the significant aspects of what Olbermann has said and done that makes his political positions clear, and provide good and reliable sources for that, then we will have done our job well. Wikipedia policy also insists that we don't WP:MORALIZE. Warren -talk- 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is Keith Olbermann not described as a liberal whereas ill O'Reilly is described as a conservative? Surely Mr. Olbermann is as liberal as Mr. O'Reilly is conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.201.68 (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion, or any of the ones in the archives for the current consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the remaining points about Olberman's criticism of the Bush administration was the attack on Bush saying he was giving up golfing. Shouldn't it be mentioned that there was proof that Bush did not give up golfing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/bush-lied-about-giving-up_n_102138.html Elemming (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On a less serious note,

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)

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)

Brief mention seems okay with me. Might be one of his bigger accomplishments...  :)(Wallamoose (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Dare I ask how you stumbled upon this article? NcSchu_(Talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

We should put this in the intro. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error

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

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

Posted on Youtube is a clip of a Countdown Special Comment of Olbermann... blasting California's Prop 8. I think it's significant, since I have *never* seen him this angry. Ever. And that's saying something. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.111.60 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Beyond listing it on List of Keith Olbermann's Special Comments (which I'll try to get to tonight), I don't know that there are any reliable sources that give this particular Comment any special weight. Also, it's better to use the link on MSNBC.com than it is to use YouTube. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source is needed to say that this special comment is significant in any way. Right now there's no evidence to say that this will be remembered as one of the most unusual special comments past next week and I support its removal from this article as of now. It's really unnecessary to record every single thing that a person says or does in his/her article unless it has stood out. NcSchu_(Talk) 13:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't list everything a tv personality does. this one may generate some buzz, but could take a couple days. i'm noticing some buzz, e.g. on onecity but then where do we draw the line to determine that a specific broadcast is notable? are significant numbers of high profile blogs enough or does it have to get a mention in the NYT? just thinking out loud here, not sure the notability guidelines speak well to individual components of an article. maybe just a consensus issue among editors? - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's starting to get discussed. I also noticed at this very moment that special comment now holds four of the top twenty viral videos according to viralvideochart.com, including the top spot. so it seems to be striking a nerve: possibly his most popular and viral special comment to date. Here are some news items about that particular clip however:

• tvguide
• the nation
• the money times
• blackbook magazine

and then many other smaller magazines or gay interest publications with articles or mentions in articles about it at: feministing magazine, the advocate, southern voice, 365gay, after elton, proud parenting, gay NL (in dutch), and after ellen.

Hm, it probably would be worthwhile to mention somewhere, but I looked at a few of the more reliable sources there and all of them just say that he made the comment or that it was 'passionate' or 'emotional', but don't talk about its significance or put it in any context of other ones. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your research work is commendable. Unfortunately, most of those links are to blog postings, which is generally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, unless the person writing the blog post is a recognized expert in the subject matter. Warren -talk- 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya, maybe second tier. Better coverage in the gay press it looks like. Warren, careful with the blog characterization, though. It's getting harder to tell what's a blog and what's a magazine these days. A few of those sites that just look like blogs that I linked to have many persons listed on an editorial staff. harder to tell now I think. For example: about feministing, advocate staff page, southern voice parent company about, etc. proudparenting does look like a blog though, nothing about them posted. I can't read dutch to confirm the other. Hmm, looks like 365gay, afterellen, and afterelton are all owned by logo online which is owned by MTV! who knew?! I don't generally read gay press so i'm not sure what's considered mainstream there, but since those are part of MTV perhaps those might be considered the most mainstream sources actually. Then again, I am part of the MTV generation so I'm biased? :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Blog buzz not withstanding, I just don't see how this comment (mundane or extraordinary) is suitable content for inclusion in Olbermann's biography. It could be slightly more germane to Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but I'm still unconvinced that there is enough context or analysis to justify its inclusion over/beyond the other Special Comments. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

True it's already mentioned on List of Keith Olbermann's special comments as well, so perhaps any additional noteworthiness should bubble up from there. I think it would make sense to include here if it proves to be a part of why he's notable over time but I'm not pulling hard for that. I didn't add the mention originally, just decided to research it some more. But just speaking for myself, I never heard the man's name before and came to his article specifically because of that special comment clip. Don't own a TV. And I agree buzz is certainly not a measure we can use here.

Then how to determine what is most noteworthy about a person? I think there's no rush and no deadline in doing so, and we can just keep an eye out. Today's additions: mentioned by reuters, the clarksville tennessee newspaper, an editor at the dallas morning news penned a short op-ed, gothamist covered it in their la site and ny site. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article, in the Special Comments section, because it is the first non-political Special Comment that he's done. I think this is important in describing what the Special Comments segment is about; he's only done 40 of them (if you don't count the Campaign Comments), so any significant deviation from the standard of criticizing the Bush administration is worth noting.

Whether we go beyond simply mentioning it is a harder call, though. It's clear that this comment is generating a lot of talk, but that's actually kinda typical for him these days. His show has millions of viewers now, so almost anything he says on an issue is going to be discussed on the Internet. Warren -talk- 18:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs a criticism section

Resolved

 – Poster has been indef-blocked as being part of a Fox in Socks farm

discussion stemming from editor likely disrupting to make a point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) That is not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form. NcSchu(Talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Baseball bugs, assume good faith. Fru23 (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC) He made no personal attack, Fru. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Please tell me where in the article the criticism section should be placed. Fru23 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) That is for criticism regarding his show, not criticism directly relating to him. Fru23 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) More of his WP:POINT game. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) Here's an example of what is either bad faith on his part, or a clear lack of understanding, this from a comment he left on my talk page: what he sees as proof he's allowed to use Newsbusters as a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC) If newsbusters covered it, then it is notable and deserves mention in this article. Fru23 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) The topic being the target of their attack, right? Good luck. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) That, from you? Tell us another one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) Fru23, please leave all talk related to article content on the article talk page. Newsbusters, Media Matters and the like do not fit guidelines for reliable sources since they have agendas that align pretty clearly to certain views. Whether they push a conservative or a liberal agenda, they don't have neutrality. Just because you agree with the views doesn't mean they're relevant. Wikipedia isn't a place to put every single mention of every single topic, only the ones that are relevant to mention. A conservative watchdog group hates Keith Olbermann, wow, that's surprising and interesting. Next. NcSchu(Talk) 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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)

I never said I agreed or disagreed with either Media Matters or Newsbusters, but it's clear the way you seem to be pushing opposite agendas on pages regarding people of opposite political affiliations that you do agree with certain ones. I think they're both rubbish and for the same reason we don't include a website like Keitholbermannsucks.com as a source don't think they deserve to be on the same level as respectable news organizations. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Have I mentioned I got socks for Christmas? Coincidences never cease, it seems. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I got a guy making odd assumptions for Christmas. Now THAT is a coincidence.--Dsticker (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also agree with fru23, I think that the sources should be added. JcLiner (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

JcLiner was a sock of KingsOfHearts / Fru23 and has been indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

At least he agrees with himself. Imagine the confusion if he didn't?! —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)