Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I am not a liberal; I'm an American

I think this quote is taken out of context. He was rejecting the use of labels, not the meaning of the label. 72.101.229.34 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In the source, he makes a point about not wishing to be pigeonholed, noting that he would've voted for Nixon if he'd been old enough. Our article states what he says, but correctly does not attempt to characterize his comment or attach additional meaning to it. I would argue that the last sentence (including the comment you are referring to) has no place in the article lede in the first place. Olbermann is noted for being a political commentator, not a "liberal". Details like that are best left to the body of the text where they can be properly explored. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Olbermann ISN'T noted among the politically aware population for being a "liberal"? Surely you jest! Badmintonhist (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comment. My point is that Olbermann is not notable for being "liberal". His notability is derived from being a political commentator. As a useful comparison, Bill O'Reilly is not notable for being "conservative" either. Like Olbermann, his notability is derived from being a political commentator. The political labels are unhelpful, quite frankly. Also "liberal" means different things to different people. Notably in the United States, the word has become something of a pejorative, but this is not the case elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead.

Hey guys. The lead has this sentence in it:

"Although many have described Olbermann as a liberal, he has said on at least one occasion "I'm not a liberal; I'm an American."

When I read that quote, I automatically thought of something a politician would say as promotion to gain voters during an election. I made a change that was worded incorrectly, and didn't want to make another without getting opinions. Does that sentence need to be changed, and to what can it be changed? Thanks!--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is worded the way it is b/c he does not self-describe as liberal. Soxwon (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today you (Gordonrox24) tried to change (and was reverted) that lede to remove that quote and put your own words in Olbermann's mouth by saying he does not have a political affiliation. I say when describing his political leanings, go with Olbermann's own words, an oft-repeated quote (wikipedia subsequently being quoted) which is sourced already. What is potentially objectionable is the beginning of the sentence "Although many have described Olbermann as a liberal" as the set up to the quote. That statement is not attributed or sourced. That is equivalent with WP:OR. I haven't been bold to remove it, but that might need more work. We have our what, but by who, when, where, why, how many? Trackinfo (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if the phrase "many have described" is not sourced, it should be removed per WP:BLP and WP:V. If someone can find a reliable source stating that "many" have referred to Olbermann as a liberal, then it can be restored. But simply citing three or four sources that describe him as liberal does not support the phrase. We could find a few sources to source almost any descriptor of a public person, but that doesn't mean we should say "many have described" that person as a liberal, conservative, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. Cresix (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...Did you all even look at the page? There are four reputable sources right there saying that he is liberal. And if that isn't enough here is what I found from the g-news search "olbermann liberal": UsMoneyTalk, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun Times. And that's only from this month. I'm sure you can find plenty of other sources saying the same thing. Soxwon (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the lede as written. Olbermann is widely thought of as liberal, and whether that's accurate or not, it is accurate to say that. His comeback to that label is appropriate. Dayewalker (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. If everybody thinks it is fine, then I see no reason to change it. However, I do still think that the quote is something that would be said as self promotion on the campaign trail by politicians. I know Olbermann isn't a politician, I just don't think the quote when used in that sentence comes across as completely neutral. I'm fine leaving it as is, I just wanted some opinions.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann's feud with Bill O'Reilly

Is there still a feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly? If there's not anymore, how did it end? I noticed that now Keith Olbermann rarely talks about Bill O'Reilly. Willminator (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion and degree. I've heard him comment recently about O'Reilly. How much is considered sufficient to call it a "feud"? Opinions vary. Anyway, if your question relates to ways to improve the article, you might wish to look for some reliable sources about this issue. If it's just a general question, that doesn't belong on this talk page; an internet forum or blog would be a better place to discuss. Cresix (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This article and several like it, suggest there was some sort of truce, even though it is obviously denied in the article. Even though it was denies, through actions, it seems obvious that somebody whispered in sombody's ear and the vehemence or frequency has been reduced. There are numerous reports of the feud in articles in the 2005-2006 range, its certainly a subject that needs to be addressed in the article, as opposed to something that should be considered irrelevant. Trackinfo (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is about 16 months old so probably doesn't mean much. In any event, it's still a matter of the writers' interpretations. I'm not sure about O'Reilly, but I suspect someone whispering in Olbermann's ear wouldn't stop it. If Olbermann has an issue with someone, he's not the kind of person to hold back. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For the last several years Olbermann's feud with O'Reilly has pretty much morphed into Olbermann's feud with everyone he sees as right-wing. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, without casting aspersions toward anyone and their particular point of view, I think this discussion is degenerating into a political commentary about Olbermann. Let's try to focus on improving the article. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My last statement was a suggestion about improving the article. While Olbermann focused primarily on O'Reilly for several years, he has since broadened his aim to include anyone on the political right. Nobody just starting to watch his program now would think that his feud was more with O'Reilly than it was with Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Palin, Boehner, McCain, et al. Assuming reliable sources, I see no reason why our article can't reflect this development. Badmintonhist (talk) 11:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of an editor espousing his personal beliefs, and then setting out to find sources that bolster a predetermined conclusion; exactly backwards from the proper way to research and write an article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. You, for example, never allow your own personal politics to affect the way you edit. People on this project are continually complimenting Blaxthos on his ability to edit according to the neutral dictates of reliable sources. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Badmintonhist's suggestion for a well sourced comment in the article about the change over the last year or so, although I think it should be stated that it reflects the source writer's opinion. This always comes down to a matter of interpretation, unless someone has gone to the trouble to compile some hard statistics on the number of comments Olbermann has made about O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Palin, et al. Cresix (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Keith Olbermann of before and after his suspension

I noticed that Keith Olbermann has brought his tone down significantly when he came back from his suspension. Before his suspension, he was louder, more boisterous, funnier, and more partisan. Today, it seems that he is a different Olbermann. Is their any reason for his change and how did his suspension contributed to this? Was their anything said or done to him during his suspension or right after it that caused him to change his tone? Willminator (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

He seems to be the same ol' Olbermann to me. He toned down (maybe eliminated, I can't remember) the Worst Person segment, but that's because some people thought he literally meant the worst person in the world. After the Arizona shootings, he called for dropping violence analogies in political rhetoric (e.g., Palin's use of a bull's eye) and criticized himself for being guilty of that rhetoric on at least one occasion; but that had nothing to do with his suspension. In any event, unless there's some really good sourcing, such a statement doesn't belong in the article. Cresix (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I typed the name Keith Olbermann on youtube and here is the featured video. This is what I mean. [2] His tone was always like this before his suspension, but when he came back from his suspension, he stopped being like that at least in my opinion. So far, I haven't found any good sourcing that confirms my observations, but I'll keep looking some more. Willminator (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've watched him from the beginning and don't see any difference. But regardless, this page is for discussing improvement of the article, not for you and me to express our opinions about Olbermann's tone. Cresix (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is officially out of MSNBC and MSNBC abruptly ended his contract. I guess my suspicions about Olbermann have been answered. I new something was being done to him (I'd like to find out exactly what) during his suspension and after he came back from his suspension because of his change in tone (in my opinion). Willminator (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming way too much in making a connection between "brought his tone down" (I still disagree) and his departure from MSNBC. He has a very long history of clashing with the brass at MSNBC. His suspension was a blip in that history. Olbermann was not the type of person to acquiesce, especially from a two-day suspension which never amounted to much and with which he basically agreed. MSNBC may have tried to tone him down, but I doubt that it had any effect, and that may very well be why he is gone. Cresix (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian UK and several other websites are reporting that Keith Olbermann was fired Friday night, Jan. 21, 2011. Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/jan/22/keith-olbermann-msnbc-nbc-terminated Neither Olbermann nor NBC have confirmed the report, which is attributed to unnamed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciotog17 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

He just resigned on the air

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/01/21/keith-olbermann-out-at-msnbc-contract-ended/79810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.58.137.241 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this sudden event could well dominate news coverage in the near future.[3] --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This does not relate to current news but the brief Bush criticisms section. Why is it deleted that the criticism of Bush giving up golf was also related to video proof Bush did not give up golf? I don't have an Olberman link but that was well covered in the liberal blog sphere. His special comment did use the word claimed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24632990/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/bush-lied-about-giving-up_n_102138.html Elemming (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SherlockHolmesOnTheRioGrande, 22 January 2011

In the article on Keith Olbermann, under the heading Early Life,

The final sentence reading, "Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts" is incomplete and misleading. The sentence would be more complete and accurate if it were replaced with the following sentence: "In 1979 Olbermann earned a B.S. degree with a major in communications from the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS)." While it is technically a part of the Cornell University system, CALS is in point of fact and more precisely a New York State statutory college administered by Cornell University, and should be distinguished from Cornell University proper (and in particular from the College of Arts and Sciences at Cornell University, the principal and largest undergraduate college of Cornell University). The actual, proper, and complete title of the institution Mr. Olbermann attended is "New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, at Cornell University" or Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" as evidenced by Wikipedia's own article on this institution - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_College_of_Agriculture_and_Life_Sciences

SherlockHolmesOnTheRioGrande (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use the search bar above to check the talk page archives about this. We have discussed this in the past and GREAT length. Henrymrx (t·c) 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"echo chamber"

"Olbermann has been criticized for only having guests that agree with his perspective." needs to be edited to read "... for allegedly only having..."; that's being neutral and unbiased.

Just off the top of my head, recent appearance of Howard Dean was to defend his off-show comments about relocating the Park51 Community Center with which Olbermann disagreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.195 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Senate race

While this may not materialize into an actual campaign, the national press is speculating that Olbermann will move to CT to run for the Senate seat vacated by Joe Lieberman. See , for example. This seems a significant enough matter to be addressed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.128.8 (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now it appears to be appears to be a handful of bloggers who admit that they "have no contact with Keith", with zero response from Olbermann. This can wait. It may fizzle within a day or two, and if it begins to grow or if Olbermann expresses interest, then something can be added. Remember, Wikipedia is an encylcopedia, not a newspaper. We don't have to report immediately on every remote possibility. I suspect Olbermann has no interest, but let's wait and see. Cresix (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

the efforts of bloggers etc could be noted, regardless of whether he does or doesn't run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.223.11.210 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is giving too much weight to a matter that may never amount to anything more than a few people's wishful thinking. If we added every idea proposed by a blogger on the internet, Wikipedia articles would be bloated with useless information. As I said, this can wait; it's too recent, and so far not notable. Cresix (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

Why is there no Criticism Section? BookishOwl (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections in biographies are discouraged on Wikipedia because they tend to attract excessive weight. The article currently includes criticism. Any criticisms should be placed in an appropriate section pertaining to the topic of criticisim, well sourced, in proportion to its importance, and take a long-term perspective (i.e., not overemphasizing recent events). Cresix (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chris1514, 11 February 2011

 Not done

{{edit semi-protected}} Olbermann graduated from Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts..[23]

Chris1514 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) This should replace "Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts..[23]" This is misleading since the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a land grant college totally separate from the Ivy League College of Arts and Sciences. Thank you.

Is there a source for this, per WP:PROVEIT? _WM^O 02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Already discussed and resolved, several times: Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 3#Cornell; Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 5#Cornell redux; and just three weeks ago on this very talk page (Talk:Keith Olbermann#Edit request from SherlockHolmesOnTheRioGrande). How many times do we have to reinvent the wheel? Leave it like it is unless there is a new consensus. Cresix (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are actually several others that weren't listed, and perhaps even an RFC. The burden for showing that consensus has changed is pretty high at this point. Time to move along... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ESPN section... "apparently burning his bridges"

Apparently not says the source material headline "Despite scorched bridges, Olbermann rejoins ESPN" This 2005 article also says "Soltys said Monday that Olbermann has expressed interest in recent years in working again, on TV or radio, for ESPN." controversy? yes. Feud between 1997 and 2007? Must have been over in 2005 is it not? "incidents between the two sides" is not written as incidents between the two sides. It only speaks of coming from one side, no mention of ESPN incidents. The part about burning bridges should go or be re-written and re-sourced. Same with the "feud". Feud is a derogatory word used mainly in tabloid press. Nobody should be written about as though they were the Hatfields or McCoys in a WP:BLP. Talk about what happened, source it or leave it out. The section is negative and inaccurate with sourcing that doesn't reflect what is written. First time on this page. I have looked for talk about this and didn't find any. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I truly don't mean this personally, but I understood very little between "Apparently not ..." and "... ESPN incidents". I'm not sure if your first language is not English, or if you wrote "telegraphically" in incomplete sentences for brevity, but maybe you could explain those parts of your comments more fully? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Shouldn't there be mention of the Julian Assange rape accusations? Olbermann got into a feud over twitter with bloggers who were upset that he didn't denounce Michael Moore's jokes and falsehoods at the expense of the alleged rape victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.70.31 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everything that happens on twitter is worth putting in an encyclopedic article. If you provide some sources, we can decide whether or not it merits inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange Opening-Paragraph Sentence

"Although he has said on at least one occasion "I'm not a liberal; I'm an American", many describe Olbermann as a liberal." This is the last sentence of the opening paragraphs. What does the quotation by Olbermann have to do with the declaration that "many" (whoever that might be) describe Olbermann as a liberal? I am sure that plenty of self-defined liberals would assert that you can be a liberal and an American concurrently. Olbermann's statement is akin to saying "I'm not a terrier; I'm a dog" in the context it was given. The sentence should either say that Olbermann describes himself as not a liberal, but an American (which would probably not contribute much to the quality of the paragraph), or it should just say that "many" (or, better, specific people or groups) describe him as a liberal. The two facts should not be conflated as if the quotation and the opinions of others are equally significant or as if the second fact depends on the first. 199.111.236.98 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been similar discussion, including by myself. Go back to Archive 7 to see that. Trackinfo (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

reference to a feud with "his rival" is an exaggeration to say the least. this is the equivalent of calling the kansas city royals a "rival" to the new york yankees, or maybe the gnat buzzing around the new york yankee centerfielder's visor is also a rival? maybe in their own minds but not to anyone else. look at the ratings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.214.149 (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A small matter, but

I don't see why/how Olbermann's new blog (FOK) can be a reliable source about itself. Wouldn't a reliable third party source be required to make it notable? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've watched the little quibbling about it. The editor who reverted your deletion of that mention of the blog DID include a Huffington Post source, in addition to a direct source to the blog. So you have a reliable source as a third party source attributing that Olbermann is responsible for this site. But that was in the early stages, before the website was developed. Maybe its still not developed Using the site itself is a source to indicate what the current content of the site IS, which is analyzed in the article. As to notability; you have popular television personality, a major contemporary voice as a political commentator, suddenly off the air. So you have a voice, the ratings indicated, many people listened to. This is his only real public presence . . . until the new show announced in the preceding paragraph, which doesn't start for several months. Of course its notable for mention within the article about the commentator. It will always be a notable episode in his already quirky career. Trackinfo (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is not an issue here. If you will examine WP:NOTE you'll see that notability is a guideline that applies to whether articles should exist or not, not what goes in them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Another factor here is that the paragraph mentioning Olbermann's website does not make any extraordinary claims. Instead, it just states rather ordinary facts (i.e. the website exists). The primary and secondary sources given are more than sufficient to verify the facts contained within the text. Other sources are available if necessary (example). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my mistake. I hadn't noticed that Scjessey had added the Huffington Post blurb. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun criticism

I think we should keep some of the content removed in this edit. Currently the Countdown section's only criticism is that he had too many like-minded guests, which I don't think fairly portrays how much controversy there was of the show in reliable sources. We don't necessarily have to use the full quotes, but I think at least some parts of them are appropriate. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there should be some inclusion in the article of criticism of Olbermann. In this case, this article in critique of Olbermann is clearly made by a heavily biased commentator from the other side and a former recipient of the "Worst Persons" award. There are probably plenty from that camp. I believe there is a whole website devoted to watching and critiquing Olbermann's daily content, be that organized an opposition group or just a single unemployed Right wing blogger masking as such. When the criticism is included, the affiliation of such sources should (NPOV) be fairly noted. Also, we should put criticism in a separate section from the various show elements, instead of in the main body of the show section--in just the same fashion as we put Olbermann's viewpoints and criticism's. In fact, the bottom of "Viewpoints" might be the appropriate place to mention clearly partisan critiques such as this, framed as such. Trackinfo (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are an example of poor writing and a bad idea. Legitimate, notable criticism should be woven into the article at the appropriate places, not shoved into a single section that will become a magnet for Olbermann-haters. See WP:CRITS. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. Criticism sections are the worst possible way to handle things. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Cornell Thing. Again.

Despite this recent discussion (and plenty of talk page discussion previously), Chris1514 has been adding (diff1, diff2) the non-notable college information into the article. It has twice been added, and twice reverted per the existing consensus. I would urge Chris1514 to engage in discussion here before trying to change it again. I would also urge all contributors to avoid turning this into a silly edit war. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The solution to this is to inform him that there's already a long-standing consensus on the issue and get the admins involved if he doesn't stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

keith olbermann page

No consensus for change -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment originally posted at the Help Desk, via this diff. Copied here for discussion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Mr Olbermann did not attend CORNELL UNIVERSITY, he studied at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, which is not the Ivy League institution we all think of when we hear Cornell University. By indicating Cornell University on his bio page on Wikipedia, you are allowing this to be misinterpreted as the Ivy League school. Please consider modifying the bio page to make it clear. It is common knowledge that Olbermann himself has often walked a fine line in interviews and such about his Ivy League education, but it's only fair to real Cornell U alumni to make it clear on your page. He did not graduate from Cornell University, period. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.227.191.76 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC) You're wrong. There's only one Cornell University and Olbermann went there. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is part of that University. Also, this discussion has been done to death and put to bed long ago. Here's a hint: if you want accurate, reliable information, find a better source for it than Ann Coulter. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC) See also Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and their website http://cals.cornell.edu/ which clearly show they are part of Cornell University. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC) So, he attended CALS at Cornell, or not? If he did, shouldn't his page mention that? Are we trying to provide the most accurate info, or help Olbermann massage his resume by omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC) "Then she goes into uncharted territory: Coulter, a graduate of Cornell, attacks Olbermann, a fellow graduate, for bragging about his education. See, Ann went to the College of Arts and Sciences, the part of the university that is part of the Ivy League. Keith went to the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, which is technically a state school. It's a dichotomy that Cornellians the world around are keenly aware of, but rarely use against one another." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/03/fellow_cornellians_anne_coulte.html So, in this case at least, it appears Ann Coulter was accurate and reliable, while Keith is guilty of embellishing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.196.80 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The person who wrote that was wrong. As has been explained to like-minded nincompoops at this talk page repeatedly, the Ivy League is an athletics league. All students at Cornell, including all the students at the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and all the students at the College of Arts and Sciences are equally eligible for participation in Ivy League athletic activities. No one college at Cornell is any more or less a part of the Ivy League than any other college. Assertions to the contrary are meritless idiocy of the lowest rank. We've even heard from members of the Cornell administration to this effect on this talk page. Furthermore, it's not usual practice on Wikipedia to designate the specific college within a university in which a bio subject was enrolled and there's no reason to do it here. This too has been explained ad nauseum. Now stop wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Whole Truth

No consensus for change -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am going to change the article to reflect the undisputed fact that Olbermann attended the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell. This is a simple factual matter and nothing to be embarrassed about (unless perhaps there's a false image conveyed by omitting all the details and one would prefer to protect that false image), but of course, such embarrassment would be irrelevant in any case (and protecting false images is dishonest, intellectually and otherwise). No political attack suggesting "it's not really an Ivy League school" will be included, but neither will any preemptive rebuttal to this unstated attack be presented: Interested parties can click through the link and see that, right there at the top of the page, it says it is an Ivy League school. How you feel about it, how Keith Olbermann feels about it, how any previous Wikipedia editor or editors felt about it, and how anyone else in the universe feels about it is irrelevant. The college's wiki page lists Olbermann "notable alumni," for crying out loud. I would have simply made the edit already but some special notes have been inserted into the article saying it should be discussed first, likely by Olbermann fans trying to protect an image instead of the facts. What, exactly is your objection to changing the article to more accurately and fully reflect the facts without any lies by omission? Heck, you can even add a description saying that it's "a statutory college at Cornell University." What's so controversial about the facts, anyway? -- Glynth (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC) This is really very simple. The preponderance of reliable sources indicate that Olbermann went to Cornell, and so that is what we say in the article. The specific college within Cornell is irrelevant, and insisting that it be included is non-neutral, agenda-driven editing. This matter has been discussed ad infinitum on this talk page, and editors have formed an overwhelming consensus (that has been repeatedly reconfirmed) that there is no need to included the specific college Olbermann attended. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) What "preponderance of reliable sources"? Olbermann attended CALS. That's an undisputed, well-sourced, and self-admitted (by Olbermann) fact. Look, the argument often used by you and yours is that someone who attented CALS can say they attended Cornell, that this is acceptable to say. Therefore, by that reasoning, all sources that say Olbermann attended Cornell do not contradict sources that say he attended CALS. Therefore, unless reliable sources specifically say he did not attend CALS, then reliable sources that say he did are all that's needed to make the case. Is this not a reliable source? This? (Forget what Coulter said; focus on the fact that it's presented as undisputed fact that Olbermann attended CALS and Olbermann's defense is not that he did not do so, but that it is still an Ivy League school, etc.) Is that not good enough? How about Olbermann saying he attended CALS on video. [4] Yet, somehow I suspect that, once again, the Olbermann Page Protectors will come up with some utterly ridiculous spin so they can "protect" this page from the ever-so-embarrassing (to you, yet not to Keith apparently, as he admits them) harsh realities of the unadulterated truth. -- Glynth (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Moreover, it is not non-neutral to push for the inclusion of a relevant and notable fact. What's non-neutral is insisting that it be omitted, and it's obvious just which agenda it is you're pushing. So what's mine? It's not promoting Coulter; she was wrong. The school's Ivy League and you can say so right on the page if you really need to do so. Heck, even my initial proposal was to say "at Cornell," not attempt to bury it under a false label. That is not misleading. If this is an encyclopedia designed for the information age, why do I have to know from other sources or from the CALS page (where he's listed) that Olbermann attended CALS instead of seeing that right on his own page? -- Glynth (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Let's save a little time here, Glynth, by assuming that you've already made that edit and it's been reverted to the consensus version. Now what? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not and say we didn't. In the meantime, everyone else, let's ignore the trolls and try to come to a conclusion based on facts, ugly or otherwise (despite this fact not even being ugly except to the overprotective), not the consensus of fanboys, shall we? Or is that too much to ask? Judging by the history of this page, I'm guessing it is. -- Glynth (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Do you understand what "preponderance" means? In this instance, it means the vast majority of reliable sources say that Olbermann went to Cornell, so we go with that. While it is technically correct that Olbermann attended CALS, it is not significant and most sources don't mention it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Better question: Did you even read my comments? Because that's more than addressed above. No source saying Keith went to Cornell contradicts any source that says he went to CALS, and the records of CALS, Cornell's own statements, and Keith himself say he went to CALS. If that's not good enough for you, you're intellectually dishonest. A far harsher term can also fairly be applied to you and yours, but we'll skip it. Or shall we apply your "logic" consistently throughout Wikipedia and edit the page for, say, Robin Williams so it says he was born in the United States instead of Chicago, Illinois? After all, you'll find far more sources saying he's American than that he was born in Chicago, and of what real "relevance" is it that he was born in Chicago, anyway? -- Glynth (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Here's another question for you. Do you understand what "consensus" means? If not, please peruse WP:CON. Here's an example: A consensus was reached long ago to omit this niggling detail from Olbermann's bio since it's of no interest to anyone but a small cadre of pathetic, unlettered losers whose only interest is in digging up insignificant trivia that in their fevered imaginations somehow impugn Olbermann's educational bona fides. It's out and it's staying out. Next? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC) That sounds like a personal attack to me. I've seen people scolded by admins for less (but of course, I've seen admins refuse to do anything about much worse; all depends on the mood of the admins, but of course, said mood isn't so much fickle as part of the stereotypical double standard one finds all over certain parts of the Internet). What you're implying is clear, but given my proposal mentioned in an earlier comment (which if anything makes Keith look better, as you can put "Ivy League" right there next to it), here's what I hear: Facts that are true but look bad to political hacks protecting an image are not "relevant" in their estimation, and said political hacks make up the majority of people Watching this page (no surprise given the proven population makeup of active editors of Wikipedia and their biases by nonpartisan 3rd party analysis plus the subject matter at hand). Do you want to know I'm here in the first place? It wasn't after reading some Coulter attack. I came here after finding a debate on PBS about the bias of Wikipedia. You're pretty much proving some of the points made there about page protectors, as well as some points about the site made by the people from Britannica. -- Glynth (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC) The purpose of this article is not to make its subject "look better" (or worse, for that matter); the purpose of this article is to provide an accurate documentation of its subject's notable life. Honestly, I am sure there is a perfectly acceptable way to mention the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, without any sort of negative implication. Unfortunately, this article has seen multiple editors attempting to add this information in a way that would imply that it is somehow negative. Given these previous attempts, a consensus was sought and reached--and has been reaffirmed, multiple times--that the distinction between "Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" and "Cornell University" is simply not one great enough to warrant its being made, here. I mean really, this is such a trivial gripe. Sometimes consensus disagrees with you, and it is okay that it does. If consensus was to say this subject attended Starfleet Academy, that would be one thing, but current consensus is not so egregious as to warrant such consternation.  Chickenmonkey  14:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC) As always, agree with Chickenmonkey. Move along... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC) "The purpose of this article is not to make its subject "look better" (or worse, for that matter); the purpose of this article is to provide an accurate documentation of its subject's notable life." Yet you want to omit accurate documentation, leaving a false impression. "Unfortunately, this article has seen multiple editors attempting to add this information in a way that would imply that it is somehow negative. Given these previous attempts [we decided to omit the facts]." And the page on Walt Disney has repeatedly called him a Nazi sympathizer and anti-Semite, yet this did not prevent editors from creating a more sensible section on the anti-Semitism allegation that does not call him either such thing and provides evidence to the contrary. So stop falling back on the crutch of a previous decision to hide confirmed and notable facts and tell me exactly what would be wrong with mentioning relevant facts that are needed to not leave a false impression given the information already on the page in a way that is completely neutral. You, yourself, said it could be done - the "consensus" just refuses to do it. Don't lecture me about how Wikipedia and its oh-so-great consensus system works; its fatal (to truth) flaws have been proven here and elsewhere many times. We can phrase it "New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University," or "Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences," or even "Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University," -- and since that's lengthy, use it just for the article body, not the little bio sidebar. You can even mention it's in the Ivy League. This is more than fair, but the question isn't whether it's fair, is it? The question is whether that's good enough for the special protection squad that has this page on its Watch lists, and sad experience has taught that logic, fairness, and relevancy are hardly their foremost concerns. Hiding the relevant and notable facts about a person is intellectually dishonest at best, and there is simply no other plausible explanation for your ilk's insistence that this detail be purged from the oh-so-"neutral" Wikipedia. Here's a challenge: Try to prove me wrong. Show me that Wikipedia's consensus system will actually work here because you've got the intellectual honesty to allow a neutral statement of relevant fact to stand. -- Glynth (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Uh, "work"? What do you mean by "work"? You mean give you what you want? No. It won't. Tough shit. "[R]elevant facts"? To what, exactly, are they relevant? "[T]hat are needed to not leave a false impression"? What false impression is left by not mentioning this piece of trivia? This was all settled by consensus some time ago. Your extended tirades have done nothing to alter that consensus. Do you have any desire to build an encyclopedia or are you only here to see how many people you can piss off? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC) We're definitely well into the realm of tendentious behavior here. Glynth, why don't you go and make a blog or something so that you can document the hell out of Olbermann's college? There's no place on Wikipedia for this kind of agenda-driven nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Recommend we archive this thread, as we're under no obligation to continue discussion ad infinitum with an editor who's entirety of edits seem crafted to push an agenda. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Olbermann fired from Fox by Rupert Murdoch himself

Due to the page being locked, I was not able to add this to the middle of the Post-_SportCenter_ paragraph:

On July 13, 2011, Olbermann reported that he had been blackmailed by Fox for reporting that Rupert Murdoch was trying to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers.

[I'd have used "extortion" instead of "blackmail", since no dirty secret's revelation was threatened.]

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-13/entertainment/30030574_1_keith-olbermann-work-schedule-lesser-figures

On August 1, 2011, Olbermann wrote that he was told that he had been fired from Fox by Rupert Murdoch himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/01/rupert-murdoch-keith-olbermann

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGavin (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The article already covers this point and even lists this source. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And what do you mean by the page being locked? The article is currently semi-protected. I can see from your edit history that you have more than enough edits and an old enough account to edit semi-protected pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the firing being already covered. I'll see about working in the "blackmail" issue, now that I've figured out my permissions upon login. (I was fooled by the lock icon still appearing even when _edit_ links were freshly offered.) Thanks.

JackGavin (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann released from Current TV and replaced with Eliot Spitzer.

To the Viewers of Current: We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.

Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.

{...}

We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Governor Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/keith-olbermann-out-current-eliot-spitzer_n_1392513.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavahead r (talk • contribs) 21:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

So did he leave current TV or was he terminated?? the article is unclear. 74.131.134.103 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

terminated--he is seeking legal action against them.Stopde (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 March 2012

Verb tense needs to be updated, particularly in section pertaining to Current TV.

Mbhebert (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mbhebert

Mbhebert (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I don't see any major problem with that section. What specific wording would you like implemented? Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Where can the Olbermann podcasts be viewed Currently?

Where can Olbermann's commentary be seen currently online?

Phil Donahue's 2002 program Donahue was canceled in late February 2003 during the lies of the buildup to the Iraq War. Despite earlier claims of cancellation because of low ratings, Donahue was MSNBC's highest rated show that month. A leaked NBC internal study revealed that the studio was concerned that Donahue would act as "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." A flag that had President Obama's face displayed where the stars typically are was displayed in front of the Florida Democratic party headquarters for several months. 'I can't describe how upset I was because you just don't do that to the American flag,' Korean War veteran Don Van Breck told WFTV. Veteran Jim Bradford, who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, shared his outrage. 'It's absolutely disrespectful. It's nauseating, it's a disgrace', to put his picture there, to me, it's a disgrace to do that,' Mr Bradford said. During the spring and early summer of 2003, MSNBC featured a weekend talk show hosted by conservative radio host Michael Savage. In July of that year, Savage responded to a prank caller on his show by calling him a "pig" and a "sodomite." No nappy headed hos were fired during the incident.

On November 5, 2010, MSNBC President Phil Griffin suspended Olbermann indefinitely without pay for contributing $2,400 (the maximum personal donation limit) to each of three Democratic candidates during the 2010 midterm election cycle. Contributions to political campaigns, under NBC News policy, are not allowed without prior permission. On November 7, 2010, Olbermann posted a thank you message to supporters via Twitter. That same day, MSNBC announced that he would be back on the air starting Tuesday, November 9. Two weeks later, Griffin announced the suspension of Joe Scarborough for the same offense, as the Morning Joe host had donated $4,000 to Republican candidates in Florida. Like Olbermann's suspension, Scarborough's suspension was brief, and he returned to the airwaves on November 24. On January 21, 2011 MSNBC announced that Olbermann would host his final show that same night. Pat Buchanan was also fired for the color of his skin.

Olbermann announced plans to launch his own podcast using a rack of Apple Xserves featuring Power RISC processors. This would take the BS out of NBC, according to Steve Jobs. MSNBC responded by forcing the Apple Xserve off the free market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.208.214 (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Height

This could be mildly relevant if... no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.39.150 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Liberal

Here [5] is a list of sources either saying that Olbermann is liberal, or using stronger language than that. Sources include the WaPo, NPR, PBS, USA Today, and CNN. Anybody want to argue that's not enough that it should go into the opening sentence? William Jockusch (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly argued, for years, that such labels are unnecessary. The term is used appropriately (instead of pejoratively) later in the lede, and that is sufficient. Please go back into the talk page archives and review the exhaustive discussions rather than relitigating it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know editors are suppose to operate in good faith and assume the best of other editors. However, I can't help but notice that after having my addition of 'liberal' deleted twice for 'unsourced', once it becomes clearly sourced then it is removed for other reasons.

Beck and others are identified as conservatives. To delete it, would be stupid, because that is what he is. This is an enclyclopedia giving explainations. Olberman is liberal. To not identify him as such, is to not fulfill our obligation as an encyclopedia. However I also know others may have an agenda other than giving factual information. Rodchen (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Scjessey: how ironic you criticize William for basing his editing on otherstuff--while you have the audacity to try to hold this article hostage to an old consensus--you know better than that.

Agree with William and Rodchen. "Liberal" is an important adjective to describe his obvious political ideology. It is sourced. And there is now consensus for this change. I'm going to be bold and implement the new consensus. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. Don't be ridiculous. Does this argument have to be repeated on every single biography of anyone even slightly political? Generally it's best to avoid spoon-feeding labels to the reader, or if necessary, rely on self-identity. This case is particularly egregious as he specifically says that he's not liberal (and he certainly doesn't fall in the traditional definition of American Liberalism). To state as fact what he specifically denies would be a violation of WP:BLP. It doesn't matter if some notable journalist has stated the opinion that Olbermann is liberal, we can't state it as fact.

This was an extensive argument on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because he identifies as "traditionalist" rather than conservative but many editors repeatedly sought to label him conservative anyway. (I argued strongly against it). In the end, it was decided it's best to just leave the label out and let the reader decide. It shouldn't be an issue at all, but it pops up on many pages. I've found that generally, it's the editors who hold opposing viewpoints who try to label people or things as liberal or conservative (and defend their attempts tooth and nail) because they're trying to "warn" readers about a subject they disagree with. That's no way to craft an encyclopedia. We discuss his political leanings and his own take on it in the article, that's enough. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to provide a link?William Jockusch (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, ironically Olbermann uses the "I am an American" because of BOR. I think, however, it is pretty clear that Olbermann is far more to the left than BOR is to the right. Arzel (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Look, this is pretty fucking straightforward. Calling someone a "liberal" is not the same as calling someone a "conservative". The former term has become a pejorative, but the latter means what it always has meant. This article already discusses Olbermann's relationship to the label in the lede in a responsible way. Attempts to shove the label in at the beginning betray an obvious desire to label Olbermann pejoratively. And arguments about sourcing are irrelevant because it is already exhaustively sourced when it appears later in the lede in its proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of language -- is there a policy about what is appropriate on talk pages?William Jockusch (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy concerning language is Wikipedia:Civility. Bad language like I used above is not prohibited because it isn't directed at a person or group. It would be entirely different, however, if I swore at someone. Do you have anything to say about the substance of my comment, rather than its profanity? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So Liberal = Moderate? And we cannot call liberal's liberal because it is a pejorative? Does that mean if I call you extrememly liberal that I am saying your are an extrememly [bad word]? What utterly inane arguments to make.

No. I'm not saying that because conservatives have moved to the right, so have liberals. They still occupy the same position they always have, it's just that there is a wider gap between the two groups. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is extremely liberal and 10 is extremely conservative, most liberals occupy the 3-5 range whereas most conservatives have shifted from the 5-8 range to the 8-10 range. But 5 is still the center, not 7. Do you get what I'm saying? There are very few moderate conservatives left. Check out this interesting commentary on the phenomenon of liberal as a pejorative from 2006. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you are saying. However, what you are saying has no basis in reality. You are claiming that Liberals have moved towards the middle, therefore they are now moderate, at least relatively speaking. A simply view of the current Blue-dog collection of Dems shows that this is clearly not true. There are hardly any moderate Dems, and the few that exist are getting kicked out of their own party (like Lieberman). In reality the left has moved so far to the left that anyone that is not on the far left is viewed as right, and anyone to the right of them is viewed as an extremist. The far left has taken over the Democratic party. That is why they are going to lose the Wisconsin recall. That is why Artur Davis switched parties. That is why Lieberman is not longer a Dem (even though he was the VP pick!) Arzel (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you don't get what I'm saying. I never said liberals have moved to the right. Looking at the first sentence of my previous comment, I can see it is possible to misread it as the opposite. Just to be clear, I do not think liberals have moved anywhere on the political spectrum. Lieberman left the party of his own accord after being dissatisfied with losing a primary. Artur Davis switched parties because he lost his primary and is a poor loser. I would prefer to see Scott Walker retain his position in Wisconsin because the people of Wisconsin elected him and so now they should suffer his full term. I hate recall elections. I also have no time for unions. You have me all wrong, but I'm not the least bit surprised. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems the objection some have is with the 'label', so I am trying a bit of a compromise, something similar used in O'Reiley article which hopefully will be acceptable. Rodchen (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your solution employs original research in that there are no sources to corroborate "widely described", even though it is pretty obvious. Simply saying he has been described as a liberal eliminates this problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That works. We're acknowledging the perception, while not getting into WP:WTA or WP:SYNTH by presenting his statement as false. And we're doing so in the lede, so I don't see how there could be any objections. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I used the phrase 'widely considered' because that was the same phrase used on O'Reilly's page to describe him being conservative. Since William gave us a list of sources from WaPo, NPR, PBS, USA Today, and CNN that describe him as liberal, using the adjective 'widely' seems appropriate, but I sure won't knit-pick as some do. Rodchen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Using "widely" because of lots of sources is synthesis (and perhaps a bit weasely). Also, articles are independent of one another so what happens in the Billo article is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand each article is independent, but if you feel that strongly about this issue, then me highlighting this same issue on the O'Reilly article, I assume would make you take action there. Rodchen (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that as an advocate of article independence, I should go to the Billo article and make that the same as this one. That makes absolutely no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times you use what is in another article to justify what you want to do here, Rodchen, you might want to reexamine your understanding of articles being independent. As for "feeling strongly about the issue", you seem to feel strongly about the O'Reilly issue. However, you've never edited that article with this user name. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, because I consider the word 'widely considered' to appropriate. That term in used in the O'Reiley, so from my vantage there is no need to edit it. However, I would think Scjessey want to be informed of other articles which are offensive to him, to allow him the opportunity to 'correct it'. Rodchen (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Scjessey considers it to be appropriate as well. The point here is that the label was challenged. The O'Reiley article has nothing to do with this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't give a frog's fat arse what is said in the Billo article. I have a finite amount of time to work on Wikipedia articles and I only roam outside my watchlist for non-controversial stuff like removing vandalism. "Widely considered" is SYNTHESIS, and is therefore against Wikipedia policy (including WP:BLP). "Has been described" just states a plain fact without using Wikipedia's voice to claim something that isn't directly sourced. This thread needs to be closed because it is going nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You would show some good faith and also save time by simply editing the O'Reiley article. That article was used as a model when debating how to include 'liberal' in this article. Given the long list of sources 'widely considered' surely seems appropriate. Rodchen (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:SYNTH, which I have now linked to several times for your benefit? Try to understand the enormous difference between "Olbermann is widely considered to be liberal.^[1][2][3]" and "Olbermann has been described as a liberal.^[1][2][3]" The former is Wikipedia calling Olbermann a liberal because lots of sources say so, but the latter is Wikipedia saying lots of sources call him a liberal. That's the difference between using Wikipedia's voice and not. Sources can call him a liberal, but Wikipedia cannot. Also, please don't accuse me of bad faith because I refuse to edit an article I don't know or care anything about. That sort of behavior will get you blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. No. Stating 'Olbermann is widely considered a liberal' is not calling him a liberal. It is simply stating that he is widely considered a liberal. It is not stating Wikipedia view of him. Finally, I did not accuse you of bad faith. I simply said editing the other article would express good faith. You can't argue the negative. One can say 'If he is the president then he is an american', without meaning 'If he is an American, then he is the president'. Finally I would appreciate not being threatened. Rodchen (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong about everything. Unless a source says "widely considered", you cannot use it. It is synthesis (a form of original research). Also, by suggesting I should "show some good faith" you imply I haven't thus far, which is a veiled accusation of bad faith. Finally, your behavior with respect to this article has been tendentious to the point of absurdity. You have failed utterly to establish any sort of consensus for your wording, but you continue to argue you case in the face of little support. What's more, you are are arguing about the content of a different article half the time. I shall waste no more time with you. -- 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for our spirited debate. Rodchen (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your consensus-busting, POV-pushing edit warring. Please self-revert immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's long enough. I have reverted the edit as seemingly against consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if two of three (of which one has bowed out of the conversation) can be considered consensus.

Using the same argument, it seems inappropriate to call McCain, Bush and O'Reiley 'right-leaning'. Seems like it should read 'politians and commentators who have been described as 'right-leaning'. Rodchen (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

What's going on at the articles of McCain, Bush and Billo would be a matter for their respective talk pages. Not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But it is this article that states 'right-leaning politicians and public figures such as Fox News Channel commentator Bill O'Reilly, Bush and McCain' Rodchen (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. While extensive sourcing is provided for that section (where the individuals are described in the sourcing as either "right-wing" or "conservative"), I would treat the word "mainly" with the same disdain as "considered". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But there has been objection to calling Olberman 'a liberal'. Hence in this article it states 'he has been described as a liberal'. If that is true, then these individuals likewise should not be called 'right-wing' or 'conservative', but instead 'described as right-wing or conservative'. Rodchen (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The sources specifically refer to these labels, and unlike "liberal" they are not used as pejorative. Calling someone a liberal is not the same as calling someone a conservative because conservatives use "liberal" as a pejorative. Do you understand? This has been discussed many times and it is become quite tiresome to rehash this again and again. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Some use "neoconservative" as a pejorative, but we use it for John Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and so on. Just because some use a word pejoratively does not mean it's not accurate or otherwise neutral. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's academic, however. There is a consensus (long established and often reconfirmed) to not use "liberal" as a label because of its pejorative nature, among other things. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is this consensus? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Scjessey to our discussion. There are lots of terms which are used by one party to be critical of another. If this truly is Wikipedia policy, then it is final proof of Wikipedia's bias if politians and people can be labeled 'conservatives' but not 'liberals'. I see no discussion of this here before. So lets try to reach some consensus. Rodchen (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando - If you scroll up to the top of this very page and use the archive search box to search for instances of the word "pejorative", you will find the previous discussions on this matter. @Rodchen - It's not a policy issue (although it used to come up at WP:LABEL). It's a consensus issue. And please don't be so disingenuous. Conservatives are happy to be labeled as such, but many liberals are uncomfortable with being called liberal because of how conservatives have turned it into a pejorative, often choosing to call themselves progressive instead. Don't insult my intelligence by pretending this is news to you. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change. It doesn't appear to be the consensus right now, which is why I'm asking. Just because liberals have decided to become put-upon by the label that they've got doesn't make it pejorative in reality. Like it or not, "liberal" is a widely-accepted, widely-understood descriptor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can indeed change; however, I find it rather unlikely in this case. I'm willing to bet if we had an RfC on this issue, the current approach would not be overturned. Given that this is a BLP, it would not be wise to open this up for a wider discussion before changing anything this controversial. Right now, the article clearly states Olbermann has been described as a liberal, with sources to this effect. But changing it so that Wikipedia describes him as a liberal, as has been proposed, would need the consent of more than just the few of us who have participated in this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that an RfC would consider this pejorative idea to be a bit much. I think wider discussion in the proper areas would be a good thing. We're supposed to go by the sources, after all, and if we're hedging things simply because a handful of editors believe "liberal" to be pejorative, we're doing a disservice to the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that some sources call him a liberal, some sources say that "some" call him a liberal and some sources call him "progressive" or nothing at all. Yes, you might find sources that say that Jane Smith is a "bitch", but you will not find sources that say Jane is "not a bitch". This does not establish that Jane is or is not a bitch, it establishes that "some" call Jane a bitch. Whether or not any individual editor believes it is a pejorative term or not is moot. We cannot adequately source that Olbermann is a (insert subjective term of your choosing here). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This again?? Nothing has changed since the last time (save Olbermann's salary *ba-dump-ching*), neither in fact nor in policy. There is no legitimate reason to include such terminology. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Being able to label somebody as a conservative and right-leaning, but not being able to label somebody as a liberal and left-leaning is final proof of wikepedia's bias. It is sad.Rodchen (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's just bullshit. The average conservative is proud to be given the conservative label, but many liberally-minding people dislike the liberal label because conservatives have used it as a pejorative. Listen to Sean Hannity using it and you'll get the idea. In fact, your insistence that it be used in the way you have suggested probably proves my point, otherwise you wouldn't be making such a fuss about it. If you want to whine about Wikipedia bias, go do it on a blog or something. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That you cannot use the word "liberal" to label a known "liberal" because "liberals" don't like the word has got to be the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Man up and be proud of who you are. Arzel (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Try substituting any pejorative term into that sentence, Arzel, and re-read it until you understand how broken your logic is. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one supposing that Liberal = some pejorative. I am simply stating that it is an absurd and biased argument to make, a reflection of the argument Scjessey was making. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what RSs say. And RSs describe him as liberal. It's important that we be consistent and not ignore RS just because we don't like what they say.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Arzel - I'm not a liberal, although I'm certainly more liberal than you are. I don't mind the term, but I understand that some people are uncomfortable with it. When it was discussed here, a great majority of editors decided its use as a pejorative was significant.

I know you don't think you are, but it is absurd to claim that it is a perjorative and equating it to some sort of attack. Most ironic is that if it truly is a perjorative it is the faul of the liberals themselves. If it is turly a perjoritive then liberals have adopted policies and positions which have insulted a majority of people to the point that calling them "liberal" is a statement against their policies. Also, by your logic, conservatives have no such connotation associated with the word conservative, which implies that conservaitive positions are desired by a majority. Your logic makes no sense and appears to be contrived to avoid the use of the word liberal. Arzel (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you bother to read my comments properly, Arzel. You're evidently so blinded by your conservatism all you can do is attack anything with a hint of liberal. I'm going to say this one more time for your benefit. The word "liberal" is in the damn article. I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just saying, and previous discussions have established a consensus for this, that using the word in Wikipedia's voice is unacceptable, especially when we don't have to. So cut out the battleground melodrama and find somewhere else to play. FFS! -- Scjessey (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lionelt - Sources have indeed described him as a liberal, and that is exactly what we say in the article. We aren't ignoring reliable sources at all. What we are doing is choosing by agreed consensus not to use Wikipedia's voice to describe him as a liberal. We don't use Wikipedia's voice to describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist, yet everyone knows he was a terrorist and countless reliable sources have described him as such. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet in this exact same article we do use 'Wikipedia's voice' to describe McCain, Bush and O'Reily as conservatives. Rodchen (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't label Bill O'Reilly as conservative! For the exact same reasons we can't label Olbermann as liberal. Good lord, this argument is like a Möbius strip. Please read what has already been written on that very subject directly above. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. That is because "conservative" does not have the pejorative problem and the labels are sourced and uncontroversial. We've debated this to death now, so if you insist on perpetuating it beyond this point I'm going to shift the conversation to WP:DR. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We've debated this to death because you're not making a coherent, evidence-based argument for the situation. This idea of "Wikipedia's voice" is silly - sources across the board call him liberal, so the article can and should do the same. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Go and read the very first section in the body of WP:NPOV (shortcut: WP:YESPOV). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Did so, referring to Olbermann as a liberal does not violate that: 1) It's not an opinion that Olbermann is a liberal, it's an established fact based on neutral, third party sources. 2) It's not seriously contested, as the evidence overwhelmingly supports his being a liberal. 3) As it's an uncontested assertion (according to the neutral, third party sources), presenting it as an opinion violates NPOV. 4) Calling him a liberal, regardless of your individual protest here, is not disparaging to Olbermann. 5) There is no prominent opposing viewpoint to suggest he's anything but a liberal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You read it but you didn't understand it and you're wrong about it not being opinion. It is impossible to fact check an ideological label, so the sources are clearly stating opinions. The key issue here is the use of Wikipedia's voice (which you called "silly"). The article currently states that reliable sources describe Olbermann as a liberal. That is more than sufficient. The fact that a few conservatively-minded editors have come to this article to insist we use Wikipedia's voice to label Olbermann as a liberal reinforces the assertion that the word is being used as a pejorative, or none of you would bother. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Your logic is extremely circular in those first three points, Thargor, but the fact remains that ideological labels are fluid opinions, not facts. It's unprovable and unverifiable, regardless of how many people have stated it. For it to be "established fact" we would have to first have a factual definition of what a "liberal" is. I doubt that very many here could even come up with a coherent definition, much less agree on a single definition. And why would we bother with that? This is a biography, not a poly-sci article. What is a provable fact (regarding your point #4) is that those on the political right in the United States have increasingly used the word "liberal" as an epithet for the last couple of decades. While still assuming good faith, I too couldn't help noticing that the ones who fight tooth and nail to label people as "Liberal" in wikipedia biographies generally fall to the right (and do not put an equivalent effort into labeling anyone conservative). And finally, #5 is just laughably absurd. Are you actually suggesting that Keith Olbermann's viewpoint is not prominent enough to appear in an article about Keith Olbermann? The mind reels. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you are now questioning my motives, I will share with you my motives and how I came here. A few weeks ago a female conservative political commentator was slandered - I forget her name. I didn't know who she was so I came to Wikepedia to find out who she was. Her article repeatedly stated that she was a conservative. While I couldn't not honestly object to it because she was a conservative, I was curious to see liberal political commentators would also be described that way. So I came to this article, and discovered he was not. While I know you correctly state what goes on in other articles should have no bearing in this article, it does correctly raise the issue of Wikepedia's bias if conservatives are labeled as such, but liberals are not. And by the way, when I use the term 'liberal', while I see it in a negative way because I am conservative, I don't see it as overly negative or in a derogatory way. Rodchen (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to take anything from that example because we don't know who you're talking about (and it's unlikely that any of us edit the article in question). But for an excellent example of the same situation in reverse, please read the the discussion above about the Bill O'Reilly article. While he's generally described as a conservative, he says that he's not. A very extensive discussion took place on that page and the community consensus was that contradicting his own self-identification with the opinion of others would violate a number of wikipedia principals including WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. That is why the lede of that article calls him a commentator, not a conservative commentator. The situation is exactly the same here. Yes, many have stated the opinion that Olbermann is "liberal" (which, like "conservative" is a vague and undefined term to begin with, especially from an international perspective). But Olbermann states that he is not a liberal (and there are several ideological points where he splits from so-called liberal orthodoxy) so we avoid labeling him as such, even while we do discuss his ideology in the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And the Bill O'Reilly article was the model I followed in this edit, but it was rejected because it was 'wikipedia voice'. Rodchen (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We've gone around in circles more times than a NASCAR race. "Has been described as a 'liberal'" is just fine. There's no consensus for using Wikipedia's voice to do it. It's time for this thread to end. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, we will use that phrase then for Bush, McCain and o'Reily then, too, though I think it is quite cumbersome for both. But if that is what you prefer, we can do it that way. Rodchen (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No. "Conservative" or "right-leaning" are not used as pejoratives. You have deliberately ignored this entire discussion and changed the article in a way contrary to consensus and common sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, just for your reference, the person was SE Cupp. 08:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodchen (talk • contribs)

Wow!! This is a lotta discussion for a subject who, I thought, had been very quickly and very mercifully forgotten. Perhaps future archaeologists of the Wikipedia project will read and wonder how so much effort could have been expended on describing such a fellow. As editor Blaxthos has suggested let's not beat a dead horse.Badmintonhist (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badmintonhist. Please avoid lacing your replies with your personal bias/ideology/opinions, as they are unhelpful and derisive (and against Wikipedia policy). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Size of article

It seems to me that the length of this article is now more reflective of the subject's ego, perhaps, than it is the subject's importance in the eternal fitness of things. I suggest a substantial pruning. A lot of of pretty trivial stuff could be removed which for some reason seemed important at the time. WP:RECENTISM. Also, at this juncture let me say hello to my old pal Blaxthos from whom I hadn't heard in a long time. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is an essay; are there any policies in support of your position to remove reliably sourced information? Also, in the interests of full disclosure, have you previously argued for exclusion of the information you wish to "prune" now (and, presumably, did not succeed)? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Citation?

I am deleting the first sentence of this paragraph:

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would "make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry."[26] Olbermann left MSNBC for Fox Sports Net shortly thereafter

Saying that his show "morphed into White House in Crisis" is opinion, not fact (unless he called his show by that phrase) and the language used is insinuating negative judgment of the show. Without more context, a reader in say, Australia, would have no idea what happened and might totally miss the insinuation that the show (in someone's opinion) had been acting as one would expect a part of the administration would act. In other words, the show became an apologist for the Clinton administration. If the insinuation was intended, it isn't conveyed in a manner that's understandable for readers who are not familiar with American politics. It would definitely need a citation and would have to be identified as coming from someone who is not writing an encyclopedia piece.

If I have misread what was meant in this first sentence and in fact The Big Show officially changed its format, that needs to be explained explicitly.68.50.227.52 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So it appears that Olbermann himself might agree with the view that The Big Show had become Clinton administration although these are the words used by the author of an article that also identifies Olbermann as the source of the quotes. I found where this sentence and its phrasing have been used. I renew my objections that this language needs to be identified as opinion and backed up with a citation. Like this one: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-28/features/0703260204_1_keith-olbermann-msnbc-nbc-news-senior-vice/2

Here's the actual language from the "featured article" in the Chicago Tribune:

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal exploded in '98, "Big Show" morphed into the all-Lewinsky-all-the-time White House in Crisis. Olbermann said it made him so ashamed and depressed, he bugged out.

The first two sentences of the Olbermann article track the language int the original source too closely and might be subject to claims of plagiarism. Ileanadu (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

This edit adds the following:

"He then doubled down on his criticism of Brown by first pretending to apologize, then stating the apology he was making was only an apology for not including the word "sexist" in his original description of Brown.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVLPqAZnhsw</ref><!-- Please do not delete this information about Olbermann claiming there is no citation. The citation is a fair use youtube clip of him doing EXACTLY what the portion about Olbermann doubling down alleges. If you dont believe it, then WATCH the youtube clip (you need to skip forward to 34 seconds into the clip to see it.It starts off with a Fox news clip announcing the Brown win, then switches to Olbermann after 34 seconds. The youtube clip is also fair use because the clip provides commentary on Olbermann based on his doubling down-->"

The addition is problematic for several reasons.

• For openers, the video, uploaded by "Spanky061970" is likely a copyright violation. It does not include a credible claim of permission. We do not link to probable copyright violations. I am removing the cite. I am leaving the rest up for a day or two for discussion.
• We have no indication that this is anything but trivial. If this were a significant event, independent reliable sources would discuss it.
• The description of the video is the editor's opinion. He "doubled down"? He "pretend(ed) to apologize"? Who says?

We have discussed this type of inclusion before, typically with editors wishing to cite newsbusters and copyright violations on youtube. Often, the editor in question does not discuss the topic on the talk page. I will give this a day or two, then remove it. Failing reasonable discussion to the contrary, repeated additions of this same material will be handled as we have handled it before. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(Previous discussions: Talk:Keith_Olbermann/Archive_1#Needs_a_criticism_section, Talk:Chris_Matthews/Archive_2#Trivia, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell/Archive_1#Conflict_of_interest, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell/Archive_1#SummerPhD.27s_Silly.2C_Biased_Vandalism, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell/Archive_1#SummerPhd.27s_Concerns_Resolved_by_Direct_Link_to_MSNBC_video, Talk:Kelly_O'Donnell/Archive_1#Controversy.3F. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC))

I went ahead and rewrote the information in question. I removed the Youtube link and utilized the already present reference from The Huffington Post. I credited the "double down" description to Danny Shea, the writer of the Huffington Post article.  Chickenmonkey  04:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So does that mean no new discussion is needed? I don't understand if it is or not, but what is wrong with saying he pretended to apologize. By saying it is possible he is not pretending you are saying it is possible that Olbermann was worried he offended Brown by not calling him a sexist. I think the youtube clip was fair use because it was short and it gave commentary based on the comments he made. Crd721 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with saying he pretended to apologize is that it is an original thought, which cannot be attributed to a third-party source, and it is editorial in nature. If you could find a reliable source which characterizes Olbermann's actions as "pretending to apologize", then I see no reason why that could not then be added to the article, with proper attribution to the person whose opinion it is. Frankly, however, I do not think it is of such a sufficiently non-trivial import to warrant that amount of weight. Perhaps that is a discussion which can be had, if and when such a need arises.

On the subject of the Youtube video, I am honestly unsure of whether or not that Youtube user's use of copyrighted material would constitute "fair use" or not, but I am leaning toward it not being "fair use". Nevertheless, all of the useful information that could be obtained from that Youtube video is also available from the aforementioned article on The Huffington Post, so we do not have to worry about whether or not the Youtube video is a copyright violation or not; we can simply eschew its use as a source and use the other source which is just as good, if not better.  Chickenmonkey  10:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't need the YouTube clip to cite his show and airdate directly. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but why would we need to cite his show for this? The only thing we would get from citing him and his show directly is a direct quote; the current source already directly quotes him and also offers critique of his actions, which is something we cannot do ourselves. The only way we can provide Wikipedia readers with any kind of editorial on Olbermann's words or actions (such as whether or not he "doubled down" or "pretended") is to rely on third-party sources to have already made that observation; we cannot make observations that are editorial in nature because that does not meet the Wikipedia standard of neutrality.  Chickenmonkey  22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Burning bridges

I included a statement in the lede about Olbermann burning bridges as an explanation for his frequent, high profile, network switching that the next three paragraphs then go on to explain in greater, reverse chronological, detail. I added two sources that refer to this history, one contemporary, one 4 years old. There are plenty of other reliable sources out there, all using that same phrase of "burning bridges." It is a notable personality trait of Olbermann.

Additionally, I removed the word "recently" as in an encyclopedic article we are not supposed to have a specific time range. We assume the longevity of the article. We are to avoid WP:Recentism. Removing the word makes the phrase much more specific, with the dates included. Its an unnecessary word. Both of those contributions were reverted with the statement "if this content belongs at all, it doesn't belong in the intro." OK, here is the place to discuss your reasoning. Trackinfo (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I axed your first round because of a lack of sourcing. That's all. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't you. @JamesLucas: should explain himself. Trackinfo (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Has a history of burning bridges" is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and should not be presented as more than an opinion. It also really isn't the sort of language you'd use in formal writing. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not my phrase, nor is it a made up opinion of just one person. See this blog that documents how often permutations of the phrase have been historically used in relation to Olbermann. Granted its a blog. To turn this blog item into actual reliable sources, all the information is there on where to look. As I said, its a notable personality trait that is necessary to explain why he has switched prominent jobs so often. Trackinfo (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110208211320/http://current.com/keith-olbermann/ to http://current.com/keith-olbermann/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123184627/http://voices.kansascity.com:80/node/7296 to http://voices.kansascity.com/node/7296
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081129115113/http://www.newsweek.com/id/167557 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/167557
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110328133737/http://foknewschannel.com/ to http://foknewschannel.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207121945/http://blogs.wsj.com:80/dnotebook/2008/05/29/murdoch-obamas-a-rock-star/?mod=blog to http://blogs.wsj.com/dnotebook/2008/05/29/murdoch-obamas-a-rock-star/?mod=blog

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110208211320/http://current.com/keith-olbermann/ to http://current.com/keith-olbermann/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110208211320/http://current.com/keith-olbermann/ to http://current.com/keith-olbermann/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914144705/http://www.chicagotribune.com:80/business/chi-080903paul-harvey-birthday,0,5643317.story to http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-080903paul-harvey-birthday,0,5643317.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110228210634/http://current.com//keith-olbermann// to http://current.com/keith-olbermann/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130814080827/http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=6116845 to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=6116845
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120513093821/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2002/01/04/2002-01-04_he_picks_up_cosell_torch__sp.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2002/01/04/2002-01-04_he_picks_up_cosell_torch__sp.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121006021833/http://www.newsweek.com/id/97106 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/97106

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110208211320/http://current.com/keith-olbermann/ to http://current.com/keith-olbermann/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New show

Since Donald Trump has won the U.S. election, Olbermann has discontinued the Closer, and replaced it with a new show, still on GQ, called "The Resistance with Keith Olbermann." It's easy not to notice, as it's basically the same format, but it should be mentioned nonetheless. --50.71.94.252 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit and source check become time-waste, and leads to a call for assistance

In the vein of no good deed goes unpunished:

On 22 January, a red-label User (Liamnotneeson), posted an edit that changed a lede sentence from past tense to present tense. The concomitant (mis)use of "Though" and the lack of an edit summary making clear that a tense chafe was justified led me to wonder if the edit was on a whim, or was an edit to make the sentence more accurate to source.

I addressed this in my edits today, but it presents the proverbial thread to unravel the knit cardigan. Here is the sentence, with the newly added emphasis on present tense, (inconstantly, only) in its opening:

Though he is frequently described as a liberal, he has resisted being labelled politically, stating, "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American."

The appended citation that appears is after cleanup and improvement; I converted it from a free-hand typed series of 4 references with several artificially added <br-type breaks, to the standard {{cite | markup. Note, I did not create, nor did I break up the series-of-four-citations-in-the-same-inline-citation, because the "ref name= "will use"" appears more than once. While checking whether past or present tense is justified in 1-2 cited articles is feasible, checking 4 is just silly, and checking 4 repeatedly is onerous, and against good form.

So, I ask that whoever edits regularly here—please, review this matter, and see which one or ones of these four citations are really needed here as a source or sources, and move the rest to Further reading. Then do the same wherever this silly foursome appears under the "ref name= "will use"" shorthand.

Meanwhile, since all citations appearing are from 8 years in the past (they span April 2007-April 2009), the past tense is returned to this sentence in the lede (and sentence opining is again consistent with later tenses appearing). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225150528/http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/keith-olbermann-benched-by-espn-for-comments-about-penn-state%2C1462946/ to http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/keith-olbermann-benched-by-espn-for-comments-about-penn-state%2C1462946/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226155525/http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/fallout-continues-to-pile-up-after-olbermann-rant-against-penn-state%2C1462951/ to http://www.statecollege.com/news/local-news/fallout-continues-to-pile-up-after-olbermann-rant-against-penn-state%2C1462951/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224235215/http://deadspin.com/espn-suspends-keith-olbermann-for-penn-state-tweets-1687751753 to http://deadspin.com/espn-suspends-keith-olbermann-for-penn-state-tweets-1687751753
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150224200249/http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/espn-keith-olbermann-penn-state-twitter-taken-off-air to http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/02/espn-keith-olbermann-penn-state-twitter-taken-off-air
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213104905/http://cornellsun.com/node/13424 to http://cornellsun.com/node/13424
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015151401/http://www.observer.com/2004/air-women-snub-mackris-olbermann-offers-cash to http://www.observer.com/2004/air-women-snub-mackris-olbermann-offers-cash
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/03/keith-olbermann.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929141406/http://dir.salon.com/topics/keith_olbermann/index.html?ti=27 to http://dir.salon.com/topics/keith_olbermann/index.html?ti=27
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-080903paul-harvey-birthday%2C0%2C5643317.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524064100/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermanns_deal_will_pay_30m_over_four_years_100173.asp?c=rss to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermanns_deal_will_pay_30m_over_four_years_100173.asp?c=rss
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201181155/http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx to http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Resistance

Olbermann boasts the number of views per episode is between three and four million . His work is online, where a “view” consists of three seconds on Twitter or Facebook, and 30" on YouTube. So, the sentence "it has nearly 170 million views on GQ’s YouTube and Facebook" is an inaccurate, misleading one. Please correct it. Thank you.85.3.217.83 (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913062303/http://www.thecolumnists.com/isaacs/isaacs74.html to http://www.thecolumnists.com/isaacs/isaacs74.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120515030952/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-13/entertainment/30030574_1_keith-olbermann-work-schedule-lesser-figures to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-13/entertainment/30030574_1_keith-olbermann-work-schedule-lesser-figures
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510084326/http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/ed/2011/04/26/833284.pdf to http://i2.crtcdn1.net/images/ed/2011/04/26/833284.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201181155/http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx to http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208142938/http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/05/keith-olbermann-blasts-hillary-000626.php to http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2008/05/keith-olbermann-blasts-hillary-000626.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Keith Olbermann-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2020

Why does a broadcaster and pundit have political affiliation on their page? Has this been done to Tucker Carlson, Anderson Cooper, Laura Ingraham, Rebecca Lowe, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Jon Scott, Katie Couric, Bill O'Rielly on their pages? 175.32.81.8 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Error

Keith does not live in Hastings-on-Hudson. He lives in New York City in a penthouse overlooking Central Park. Check his Twitter timeline. He often posts pics of the view from his balcony. 142.165.171.176 (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Perhaps he has more than one home - but the reference stating he lives there was not exactly a reliable source. I've removed it. Caidh (talk) 05:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

News articles

This was from last month https://www.foxnews.com/media/olbermann-barstool-trump.amp https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-barstool-sports-michigan-high-school-shooting-dave-portnoy.amp From the last 24 hours https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-mitt-romney-vasectomies.amp https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/587647-keith-olbermann-criticized-for-tweet-targeting-romney-family?amp https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/12/29/keith-olbermann-goes/ https://nypost.com/2021/12/29/keith-olbermann-blasted-for-making-fun-of-mitt-romneys-family/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:64CC:F7CE:2F62:D513 (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC) https://www.thedailybeast.com/michael-moore-and-keith-olbermann-call-for-texas-to-go-un-vaccinated https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-afraid-unvaccinated-americans-covid-snowflakes.amp https://www.foxnews.com/media/keith-olbermann-death-threat-soave.amp https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/04/07/a-fully-vaccinated-keith-olbermann-please-get-the-damn-shot-already/amp/ https://www.thewrap.com/keith-olbermann-candace-owens-olympics/amp/ https://www.thewrap.com/keith-olbermann-angers-everyone-by-saying-texas-shouldnt-get-vaccine/amp/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/covid-vaccine-keith-olbermann-texas-b1811931.html?amp https://www.newsweek.com/keith-olbermann-faces-backlash-telling-tim-scott-hes-victim-stockholm-syndrome-1587488?amp=1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2021/03/26/former-cdc-director-tells-cnn-he-believes-coronavirus-escaped-from-a-lab-in-wuhan/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:64CC:F7CE:2F62:D513 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Those stories from the last year or two and i completely forgot about this one https://nypost.com/2020/11/03/keith-olbermann-ripped-for-calling-trump-a-whiny-little-kunta-kinte/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:64CC:F7CE:2F62:D513 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not useful to dump a big long list of links to coverage of varying degrees of reliability. Select the most reliable of those sources, and propose specific changes to the article based on those sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I though I could help since it’s a lot information contained within them just go with the most recent with Mitt Romney then Barstool sports and go from there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:193:4103:FA40:64CC:F7CE:2F62:D513 (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

IP added links

Is someone going to add in the links that the IP user posted a while back? Persesus (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Controversy section

Olbermann as of late has been getting into some hot water This was from a couple days ago in which he called nba star catkin Clark an idiot and people condemning his behavior which included Samuel l Jackson and Shaq. He did apologize or at least walked back the comments https://www.mediaite.com/sports/keith-olbermann-walks-back-his-take-on-the-angel-reese-after-getting-pummeled-for-calling-her-a-fcking-idiot-by-taunting-caitlin-clark/ https://nypost.com/2023/04/03/shaq-slams-keith-olbermann-for-calling-angel-reese-a-f-king-idiot/ https://www.foxnews.com/sports/shaq-rips-keith-olbermann-over-angel-reese-tweet-shut-your-dumb-a-up https://deathvalleyvoice.com/2023/04/03/keith-olbermann-catches-social-media-slack-insults-toward-lsus-angel-reese/ https://uproxx.com/viral/keith-olbermann-ashley-reese-samuel-l-jackson/

There is also his comments about Edwin Ian after he got Injured https://www.foxnews.com/sports/keith-olbermann-draws-ire-calling-world-baseball-classic-meaningless-edwin-diaz-injury https://www.mediaite.com/sports/keith-olbermann-blasted-for-clown-post-about-world-baseball-classic-players-representing-teams-where-their-grandmothers-got-laid/ 2601:188:CA80:7060:B8D3:59F7:40B2:E479 (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION violates WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This content that I removed was a poorly formatted controversy section without the section header. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

All of the news articles are cited a d up to the standards of the site. You know you can’t just keep removing since you don’t like them and they fit the rules and articles are true. 2601:188:CA80:7060:C532:ACED:10EA:CB45 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t poorly formatted 2601:188:CA80:7060:C532:ACED:10EA:CB45 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Why did you lock the page that was unnecessary? 2601:188:CA80:7060:B8D3:59F7:40B2:E479 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a rouge [sic] editor, I'm an admin and I imagine that I know the rules here better than you do. This is a WP:BLP and any new addition that is objected to requires WP:CONSENSUS. I have protected the page for now to stop you from edit warring. Your disruptive editing made it necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Poor formatting is evident at the very beginning of the content where you start a sentence November 2020 after the 2020 election... In that paragraph, you then go on to make the comment Olbermann’s racially charged comment in Wikivoice. I see lots of poor sourcing from WP:NYPOST and WP:FOXNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It was very necessary. Muboshgu, is this the return of User:JohnPaos? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about who it is, I'm usually slow to connect it to sockpuppetry. It could well be. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I just checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JohnPaos, it checks out. It's the same content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)