Talk:Kelly O'Donnell/Archive 1

Search results

I have removed the link to search results at Media Matters' website. It violates our standards for external links, notably WP:ELNO #9. Please do not restore it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Several IP addresses are repeatedly readding material to this and numerous other articles citing a blog ("newsbusters") claims about various news personalities. The site is a blog, not a reliable source, so that site's claims about what O'Donnell's remarks mean are moot (and the interpretation is not clear). Additionally, ONE blog noting a particular statement does not make the material encyclopedic. It's trivial.

The IPs restoring the material repeatedly make mention of the site giving transcripts and/or video of the comments. The accuracy of the transcripts and/or video clips is immaterial. The transcripts may or may not be accurate. The video may or may not be accurate. The video, however, is a copyright violation as the site does not make a credible claim to have received permission to post the material.

In any case, I intend to follow this conflict of interest issue on this page before addressing it elsewhere. The IPs involved seem to be interested in promoting their blog and nothing else. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhD's Silly, Biased Vandalism

SummerPhD dishonestly states that "the accuracy of the transcripts and/or video clips is immaterial." Had he/she viewed the video, he/she would have no doubt. Because the video indisputably reflects exactly what O'Donnell said, it is verifiable, which is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.

What is immaterial is SummerPhD's speculation about Newsbuster's alleged copyright violation. He/she presents no evidence to back this up. In any event, the fact that information was obtained by a copyright violation (or even criminal activity) is immaterial. The Pentagon Papers, and Sarah Palin's private e-mails were illegally obtained, but published everywhere. And certainly Wikipedia has no standard prohibiting the linking to site that contain material which violates copyright.

Blogs are not automatically "unreliable sources" and many Wikipedia articles link to them. Indeed, the article on Mike Allen contains a "controversy" section which links to Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald and Media Matters (all far left-wing sources) in order to brand Allen as Dick Cheney's "Stenographer." The deletion of that section has been reversed by a series of Admins. There is no reason that a VIDEO of O'Donnell saying exactly what she is quoted in the article as saying should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy is immaterial: it does not matter whether they are accurate or not.

Yes, verifiability is a criterion for inclusion. It is not the only one. O'Donnell has said millions of things that we can verifiably cite. However, we do not include everything. Most of what she says is trivial. We include what reliable sources find notable.

Because so many sites routinely violate copyright, Wikipedia demand that a site post a credible claim of copyright waver before we will link to copyrighted material. Otherwise, we do, in fact, have a policy of not linking to such sites.

Blogs are generally not reliable sources. There are rare instances where we will accept them as sources: If we can establish that a website belongs to a particular individual, non-controversial claims about that person, from that person's site are generally acceptable. (For instance: If an actor's blog gives his birthdate.) That other artilces cite blogs does not mean that those articles are correct for doing so or that we should so it here.

Additionally, please note that you are not merely quoting O'Donnell as you claim. You are [posting the blog's (i.e. your) interpretation of what she said, followed by the text you claim says it.

As several editors are challenging your claims, please discuss the issue before restoring the material here or making similar additions elsewhere. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhd's Concerns Resolved by Direct Link to MSNBC video

SummerPhD's sole objections to the paragraph about O'Donnell's endorsement of Coakley were (1) the linked source was Newsbusters, allegedly not a reliable source, and (2) concerns over the authenticity of the video at Newsbusters and possible copyright violations. Both of these concerns have been fully addressed because:

(1) The paragraph no longer links to or even mentions Newsbusters. Instead, it links to the video posted at MSNBC's official site. MSNBC is certainly a reliable source. Indeed, an MSNBC video is linked to in the immediately preceding paragraph of the article. If, in fact, MSNBC is NOT a reliable source, I will promptly go about deleting links to MSNBC videos in ALL Wikipedia articles, including the immediately preceding paragraph in this article.

(2) Because the video is at MSNBC's official site, there can be no dispute over its authenticity or its contents. Nor can any copyright violation be alleged, because MSNBC certainly owns the copyrights to its own officially displayed videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.40.2 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MSNBC is a reliable source. However, not all of the material on MSNBC should be included. Imagine the length of Barack Obama (or any other notable individual) if we included every word that came out of there mouths on MSNBC. Instead, we include widely cited material. Material that you select is, essentially, trivial until you demonstrate otherwise. You demonstrate otherwise by citing independent reliable sources.

As previously noted, I am not claiming that there is any dispute about the accuracy of the video you linked to. This is a red herring. The blog in question is not a reliable source. The accuracy of their clip is [immaterial]. The blogs interpretation of anything anyone said is immaterial. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, basic journalistic ethics forbids reporters from advocacy on topics they cover, even advocacy performed during non working hours. A political reporter can vote for a candidate, but they cannot stump for one. If that is indeed what's happening here (if it can be verified with a WP:RS, of course), then it seems to pass the bar for notability. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

To add info that there was a "controversy" about O'Donnell's comments about X, Y or Z, you will need to document that there was substantial coverage of such in independent reliable sources, not mere blogs. Claiming there is a similar problem in a different article does not change this. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, SummerPhD, when the main stream media begins covering this, it can be included in Ms. O'Donnell's entry? That's your standard for merit? Define "substantial." Define "independent." Define "reliable." You are so typical of a liberal. How's that hope and change working out for you? Go ahead and censor my input; you'll still be an idiot. And by the way, I hold degrees in physics, engineering, and law. What's your "PhD" in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.134.247 (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for bringing this to the talk page for discussion. Please understand the need for caution regarding negative information on biographical articles on living people. There is no deadline; the correct approach is to discuss this in a civil manner. Please stick to discussing the subject matter, and do not comment on other editors.

The key policy is verifiability. A reliable source is one with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I do not personally believe that the Newsbusters blog is such a source, but you may disagree with that. I will ask on the reliable sources noticeboard to get more opinions, and will ask for replies here. Chzz ► 20:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have asked for input on the reliable sources noticeboard and on the BLP noticeboard. Chzz ► 20:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly have trouble using Newsbusters' analysis as a source for an independent fact, but if someone is trying to use their coverage just to show a controversy exists, I don't see a problem. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 20:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page being cited for the "controversy" is, in effect, a blog posting. One blogger does not a controversy make. This article is often hit with such postings, sourced to Newsbusters blogs. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the site itself was claiming a significant controversy existed, outside their own posting. If its just the user saying it, that's clearly disallowed WP:OR. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this that introduce a "Reporting Controversies" section are complete violations of WP:NOR since they involve an editor cherry picking items to suggest a particular POV. Events would need wide coverage in reliable sources (not blogs) to justify inclusion as a controversy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And this isn't a new approach: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, oh wise ones, what is not "reliable" about the realclearpolitics.com reference that only includes a video of Ms. O'Donnell's reporting? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/04/16/nbc_reporter_to_black_man_at_tea_party_have_you_ever_felt_uncomfortable.html Are you claiming that the video is forged? Doctored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.134.247 (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before with a different claim. The video does not demonstrate the claimed controversy. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck - Do not use Ad hominem arguments. Discuss the content, not the users. Chzz ► 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed it. There's no reason for that to be left on this talk page. AniMate 04:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now Wikipedia (and reading the author/editor's own words first hand for yourself) is/are an unreliable source(s) as well -what source is authentic and reliable ? None, I take it, for the obviously biased media monitors and sesnors with an agenda, I am sure.

Witness in the editing history of the following page(s):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelly_O%27Donnell#Controversy , and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SummerPhD#Work_in_progress ,

that SummerPhD is a plainly and clearly biased sensor with no regard for undeniable truth or (compellingly conclusive) facts which would otherwise be admissible and uncontrovertibe in courts of law and/or equity, should they be so offered (and yet they may). SummerPhD and his/her editorial co-conspirators have, in effect, undermined the credibility of wikipedia through use of circular nonsenical argument (if one can fairly even call it argument - it's more in the nature of a bi-polar / borderline personalty type rant, as aparent) and unbridaled use of the editors' pen, which power ought to be withdrawn or at least suspended , with public repremand , by officials of Wikipedia , if there are such persons.

If not, the intentional destruction of others' intellectual property rights , given unto the public domain , ought to be actionable under some legal writ , whether sounding in tort or criminal law.

Keep it up SummerPhD and win yourself a heaping helping of litigation , all over the world , starting in Dallas, Texas. As a result of SummerPhD's sensoring editorial practicies, SummerPhD has interjected him/herself into a growing controversy over what exactly it is that SummerPhD is trying to cover up , and why.

Unethical, self dealing hacks are all you and your little group are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.156.235 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you take issue with my editing, feel free to discuss it on my talk page. Not this talk page and not my user page, my talk page. Alternately, feel free to report me to any of various admins and/or intervention pages, outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_disputes. Please try to limit personal attacks and legal threats. Thanks! - SummerPhD (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has certainly crossed a line or two along the way. SummerPhD is not the only editor who opposes the proposed controversy section on the grounds that no notable sources exist to show that they are, in fact, controversies. Merely showing a video of someone saying you may find controversial (or showing a single blog posting) does not indicate that an actual controversy exists.

I would suggest that any further personal attacks from blocked editors be removed from this page as per WP:RBI. If the IP wants to actually discuss the matter, that's obviously fine, but the singular repeated edit of today doesn't even require a response. It seems a legal threat. Dayewalker (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weasles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.156.235 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP calling other users weasels. That's funny. :) P.S. Apparently they don't teach spelling in the state of Washington. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]