Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 6 March 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Olbermann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Olbermann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Keith Olbermann received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Spelling error

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

Keith Olbermann on Prop 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Needs a criticism section

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

Okay, this seems to be a spill over from another article, but it should be noted that criticism sections/articles in general should be avoided wherever possible. In general criticisms should be interleaved into the appropriate sections of the article. So if there are criticisms of Olbermann in relation to Countdown, then those criticisms should be included as appropriate in the Return to MSNBC section or in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article. Criticisms of Olbermann as a person can be included in the Personal life section, etc. Criticism sections often become a dumping ground for every trivial gripe that anyone has about the person and often result in the creation of content forks. Seriously, if Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies can be merged into existing articles about her, it can be done with any article.;) Would anyone be happy with a "Praises" section? --Bobblehead 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although this is indeed a bad faith spillover from another article, I actually think that "criticism sections" have more value than the current consensus gives them. Especially when some individuals court controversy, it is often the case that much of the coverage they receive from reliable sources describes criticism, and there is not a better way to present the information. I don't think that's the case here or with Hillary Clinton, but it probably is for, say, Michael Moore. It would create a choppy presentation to try to "weave in" criticism. Croctotheface (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think criticism sections themselves are bad, I only think ones fueled by organizations who are extremely and obviously biased are. Educational and well thought out criticisms are more than welcome. In voting there is a type of bias associated most commonly with Internet polls that results in a majority of votes from individuals who are more emotionally (usually negatively) connected towards a subject, therefore skewing the results. I don't think Misplaced Pages should become a place in which the negative things about people are splattered against a wall in an article since they just happen to be things that are more likely to be written about on the Internet. I don't think I've seen any article with a section labeled 'praises' as User:Bobblehead describes, so there is some kind of aura in many articles that suggests the subject is universally hated. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb to follow for criticism sections is this -- if there is nowhere else in the article that a piece of criticism can be placed (ie. the subject isn't covered elsewhere), and the criticism is significant enough to warrant widespread media attention, and there is no significant aspect to the story aside from the criticism, then you can place it in a criticism section. If all three of these conditions cannot be met (especially on a BLP article), then the criticism doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 19:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu, is it impossible for the negatives of Olbermann to be large in number, or are you really going to rationalize ignoring/denying criticism because you want to avoid sounding like a meany? Follow up question: could you possibly make your biases toward Olbermann any more obvious? --Dsticker (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I got a troll for Christmas. If you have evidence of me being biased then good for you, however my dislike of criticism sections goes well beyond this article; I have simply decided to make my feelings evident on this specific talk page given the timing. Anyone trying to get a criticism section for this article while trying to remove those for conservative pundits must not claim others are being obviously biased. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And anyone denying a criticism section when the conservative counterpart has an entire page dedicated to criticism is what? Where have I ever tried to remove criticism from conservative pundits? I've only made any edits on the fine, right down the middle journalist Keith Olbermann's page. You're obviously biased. Period. I say that as someone that has only read this page. That's it. Not as someone defending conservatives. Why it's impossible to slightly agree with fru without actually BEING Fru is beyond me. --Dsticker (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you either a sockpuppet, in which case go away, or you're a brand new user and you have only come here to make a point and not contribute in a constructive manner, in which case also go away. The criticism sections that are entire pages have been put through many deletion sequences only to escape unscathed. Why am I concentrating here? Because it's easier to kill the beast before it's born. NcSchu_(Talk) 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this isn't really about Olbermann, it's about Fru23's frustration at not being allowed to unilaterally delete stuff from Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because consensus is against him. That separate article was spun off because it was getting so big in the main article. Baseball Bugs 19:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fru23's edit history doesn't give much hope that he's come to this article in a selfless attempt to improve its informative value. That said, the interplay between WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY and WP:BLP, as well as the ground rules adding criticism to articles that actually works, can be a bit difficult for newcomers to understand. Editors will make mistakes in this area, and that's okay. Warren -talk- 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

JcLiner was a sock of KingsOfHearts / Fru23 and has been indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Criticism

Labeling one as either a conservative or liberal

Keith Olberman himself makes no qualms that he hates evrything Republican (GOP) or conservative. His worst persons of the world are almost always conservatives or right-leaning people. Keith himself has no problem being labeled a liberal himself, he cherishes in it. His rants nightly are anti-conservative and pro-liberal, every night. I agree we shouldn't label people as either conservative or liberal but since the majority of conservatives are labled that way, then so should liberals to balance it out. When you leave the label liberal out and keep conservative in, when one reads entries like Olbermans, Madow's, or Mathews, then ones must think that to be mainstream and only people like conservatives think differently. I don't think anyone should be labeled one or the other, but if you keep one label in, so should the other. Hence, Keith O;berman should be considered a liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.112.222 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No offense IP, but we've been through this before a number of times. Olbermann has never described himself as a Liberal, so we don't try and make that decision for him. Hannity describes himself as a conservative, so that's how we label him. Note here that we also don't label Hannity a neocon, which has been tried several times before as well. As for Olbermann's alleged liberal nature, it's WP:OR. I've gone on the record on this page before as saying that Olbermann, Hannity, etc. are entertainers first and not political commentators, so establishing them with any kind of political leanings is only valid if they describe themselves as such. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker's point makes little sense. Does the sky need to say that it's blue for us to know it's so? Has Brett Favre ever told us he's an NFL QB or do we know it because we see it? If Olbermann's an entertainer first and not a political commentator (as you say), then why is he still listed as a 'political commentator?' Given how obvious this is to everyone but you, perhaps you should step aside and let people describe it as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonroot (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, Brett Favre's job is "quarterback." Keith Olbermann's job is not "liberal." It's not wikipedia's position to decide what to call someone, especially when that person has denied the label you want to apply. Dayewalker (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do Favre's paychecks, tax returns, etc. say "quarterback"? No, they probably say "football player." I'll admit it's a bad analogy, but your logic is much weaker. And if personal denial is the standard for labels, then you better start clearing out the word "dictator" from every entry, I doubt anyone has ever embraced that label... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonroot (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Prominent politicians and public figures"

The sources cited at the end of the lead (the Kurtz and Koppelman articles) don't refer to Olbermann criticizing prominent politicians and public figures in general. Rather, they specifically refer to him criticizing the Bush Administration, John McCain, and Republicans. I would submit that the modification I made at 16:33 on Jan. 16 is right on the mark and should stand. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Your edit is supported by the sources. Switzpaw (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but cherry picking sources in the lead to try and flavor the presentation and then saying "the is edit supported by sources" simply doesn't wash. Gamaliel's reversion is more appropriate than Badmintonhist's. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you support the idea that a wide survey of mainstream, secondary sources comment on Olbermann's critical content from a perspective that does not highlight his criticism of right-ward leaning figures and the Bush administration, I invite you to present those sources. Otherwise, drop it. Switzpaw (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When googling for Olbermann, beyond hits for the Countdown website, the Misplaced Pages page, and Olbermann watch, you'll find the following articles in the top twenty:

• Volokh Conspiracy article focusing on Olbermann's criticism of McCain.
• Rolling Stone article focusing on Olbermann's criticism of the Bush Administration and Bill O'Reilly/Fox News.
• Washington Post article on Olbermann/Matthews being dropped as news anchors following complaints "complaints about Olbermann's anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his "Countdown" program".
• Huffington Post article: "Olbermann Slams Clinton in Special Comment: "You Are Campaigning As If Barack Obama Were The Democrat And You Were The Republican"
• New York Magazine article: "MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Finds His Niche as a Bush-Bashing Hero"
• Salon article leading with: "On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment.."

Seriously, the lead does not need sanitizing and the text from Badmintonhist's revision is hardly cherry picking. Please follow up with your own survey of articles commenting on why Olbermann's commentaries have gained notoriety. Switzpaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out the unexplained revert here. I must've hacked Google to spit out cherry picked sources. Switzpaw (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was explained, Switz. Blaxthos was trying to restore sanity to the wording. That's what you do when don't have any relevant argument to make. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT Badmintonhist (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is laugh, guys -- he isn't famous because he "feuds" with Bill O'Reilly. The intro shouldn't try to color this issue. Reverted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MORE WP:IDON'TLIKEIT Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Having phrasing that focuses on conservative political figures completely discounts the fact that he did gain notoriety for his attacks on Wal-mart and Hillary Clinton. That's why I support the more politically neutral phrasing. Warren -talk- 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to join the fray, Warren. You happen to be wrong, though. WALMART, and you really should know this, is one of the leading hobby-horses of the American left. Pretending that a criticism of Wall-Mart has nothing to do with politics is like saying that an O'Reilly criticism of George Soros has nothing to do with politics. Besides, Olbermann's criticisms of WALMART came long after he had established his bona fides as an icon for the more in-your-face types on the left. As for his attacks on Hillary Clinton ... P-L-E-A-S-E. They fit perfectly into the rubric of criticizing "right-leaning politics". By his specific words Olbermann attacked her because she was behaving as if she were the Republican in her contest with the now President Obama. REVERTED! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WalMart is a store, not a politician, and let's leave that with the facts. The source with the O'Reilly stuff talks more about the general hatred between the two and it doesn't pinpoint politics as being the reason. And can everyone just stop responding and then reverting? I don't think we should generalize what comes down to three or four examples that are put up there. Olbermann does focus his attacks on a few individuals quite pointedly, and yes, during the primary Hillary Clinton was one of those, even though Olbermann was attacking her for 'acting like she was the republican', so take that as you wish I guess. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating politics and social issues -- these aren't like things. Anyways, whether or not you agree with me, you should at least be able to agree that the sentence form I prefer is neutral -- and that's what we set out to do here on Misplaced Pages, especially as it relates to biographies of living people.

At this point I'm pretty sure that we're not going to be able to resolve this incredibly stupid debate over a few words on our own. I recommend outside mediation. Agreed? Warren -talk- 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well since it's escalated to blatant edit warring and edit comment shouts, I'd say something along those lines would be acceptable. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend going easy with the freely-thrown accusations, guys. RFC initiated below. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" in the "Political positions" section?

Well? The feud is clearly not based entirely on differing political positions of the two men. Warren -talk- 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was originally its own section and was merged into the "Political positions" section for lack of a better place. Maybe including it as a subsection of "Return to MSNBC" would be more appropriate? Switzpaw (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To respond in a timely fashion (rather than waiting until an edit that was recommended on a talk page three days earlier is actually put in place, and then deleting it), I agree with Warren on this one. The feud with O'Reilly section was separate at one time and still should be, even though there is a political dimension to it. Their feud isn't really a "political position". It is clearly a big enough part of Olbermann's life to warrant its own section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it under the "Return to MSNBC" section, since the feud is pretty much entirely confined to his television career. Warren -talk- 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Introduction

As with any article of this nature, a dispute has arisen regarding the phrasing of the introduction. The original introduction:

After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and rightward leaning politics in general.

. Two editors have insisted on the following change:

After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and for his pointed criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and of rightward leaning politics in general.

The proposed change (second example) violates several Misplaced Pages policies. The biggest problem is that it is synthesis of thought, in that it specifically states that "Olbermann gained notoriety for his feud with Bill O'Reilly". This is most certainly opinion at best -- said editors have insisted that this is appropriate due to a sampling of google hits, however it is still original research, as there is no definitive claim made in the source material (nor can there be). Likewise, the proposed change violates the neutral point of view by giving those few examples undue weight as "the" reason Olbermann has established a niche. Though they may be contributing factors, we must be very careful not to establish or imply a causal relationship. Thus, the original wording (which lists examples, but does not make definitive claims) is appropriate. At first glance it may feel like splitting hairs, but the subtle change has a serious impact on the meaning of the phrase (especially in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the RfC. It seems to me that the differences between the versions are not matters to become too upset about, but I do think that Blaxthos has a point. Now I have to say that, on first reading, I thought the second version was better, in that it is more concise, but on closer reading, I think that the logic of attributing notoriety more broadly is, in a strictly logical sense, correct. As for the discussion above about sources, let's just say, for discussion's sake, that in fact the notoriety does just come from the feud etc. -- if that's the case, then that understanding is still not in any way diminished by using the first version. I don't see how anything (other than a very small amount of conciseness) is lost by using the first version, whereas there is a (small) loss of logic using the second. That said, I want to add that where the second version uses the phrase "and of rightward leaning politics" near the end, that is better than "and rightward leaning politics." Also, although it's not part of the question, what really sticks out to me in the lead is "cloud of controversy" in the second paragraph. I think it would be much better to just say "controversy." My suggestions, I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a fairly limited amount of time to contribute to this discussion due to both the range of other things I want to work on in the encyclopedia, as well as off-Wiki activities ... but I'd just like to make a short statement of support for the wording that Blaxthos feels is the best answer. Not all of Olbermann's increased fame and notoriety comes from attacking right-leaning politicians. In addition to having gained attention for his camapaign against Wal-mart last year, as well as criticism of Hillary Clinton, he has also been criticized for how he conducts himself on football broadcasts. I believe that if we keep the language free of observations as to political leanings, and simply present a few examples of targets of his criticism, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. WP:NPOV encourages us to do that exactly that: "Let the facts speak for themselves ... Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think//". Warren -talk- 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell with a nicely worded argument. I'd have given it an A minus were I still teaching. Not an A plus however.

If it is "synthesis of thought", "original research", and a "non-neutral point of view" to assume that Olbermann's now not-so-recent "notoreity" ("fame" would actually be a more neutral word) has come from his attacks on the political right then it is also "original research" et. al. to assume that this fame has been gained by attacking "prominent politicians and public figures" in general. Maybe it is the result of a belated public recognition of his sportscasting prowess, or of his impressive baseball card collection, or of his staunch defense of Fred "Bonehead" Merkle. Maybe he actually hasn't become more famous over the last five or so years. Even using Google, fame isn't that easy to quantify.

The sources, however, from the most to the least reliable, assume that Olbermann has become more famous, and that this rise in fame has come from his attacks on folks such as O'Reilly, the Bush administration, John McCain, and other rightward leaning people and institutions. As the formidable Switzpaw has invited Blaxthos to do: Find reliable sources that link Olby's rising fame to his criticism of prominent politicians and public figures in general rather than just rightward leaning ones. By the way, Blaxthos is correct in saying that this tempest in a teapot has a larger significance and I will eventually explain what that is on Blax's talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

After coming here in response to the RfC, I'm a little disappointed to see that. I think that attributing notoriety to criticisms of prominent people in general is not nearly as much a synthesis as is attributing it to criticisms of specific people, and I said above that, regardless of sources, the slightly longer version in no way negates the conclusions that might be drawn from those sources. I don't want to get in the middle of personal arguments among other editors, but an RfC should not be used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(A quick clarification, in case I was unclear. I meant my comment immediately above to be a response to the comment directly before it, not to the RfC as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Badmintonhist, I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting and the snarky comments -- I went out of my way to present the case neutrally and avoided calling out other editors by name at all. Snark doesn't move us forward, and certainly doesn't advance your viewpoint. It's well to note that other editors have disagreed with the proposal as well, both in this RFC and above. I also note some contributions that could be characterized as votestacking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Both versions of the lead would be "original research", "synthesis of thought", and even "non-neutral point of view" if they were merely the unsourced prose of a Misplaced Pages editor. However, they are not the unsourced prose of a Misplaced Pages editor. They are based on reliable sources which clearly say that Olbermann has gained notoreity (beyond what he had before) because of his attacks on folks such as Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush and his administration, John McCain, and others to his political right. Though pretty much any fair-minded Wiki editor would concur with this, one could claim that the sources themselves were making non-objective assumptions. I therefore propose a construction something like this:

According to the Washington Post and Salon.com among other sources, Olbermann has carved out a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoreity for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and for his criticisms of the George W. Bush presidency and John McCain in particular, and of rightward leaning politics in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, do you have specific links to citations that back up your verbage above? Sorry if I missed them. This might help with reliably sourced portion vs original research aurgument --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elevating any sources for outright mention in the lead section gives them undue weight, and you still fail to recognize your synthesis of thought created by saying "gaining notoreity for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly" (the whole point of this RFC). You may believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so, and stating it as concrete fact is contrary to Misplaced Pages's core policies. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the careless misspelling of notoriety. As for more substantive matters, there is nothing in WP:LEADCITE or WP:UNDUE that says that specific sources should not be cited by name in the lead. On the contrary, LEADCITE suggests that this should be done when appropriate. One might consult Warren for an opinion on this point. As for the objection about the assumed causal relationship between Olbermann's "pointed criticisms" of Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc. (why dwell just on O'Reilly?) and his rising fame, the same objection would also obtain in assuming a causal relationship between his "pointed criticisms" of politicians and public figures in general and his rising fame (as I have previously pointed out). My proposed modification above, however, does not present this causal relationship as an absolute fact. Rather, it presents as a fact that highly respectable sources (The New York Times could also be added) have assumed it to be true. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The content of the lead needs to reflect the content of the article. That's the main thing a lead section sets out to do. (Well, that, and making the rest of the article sound like it could be an interesting read!) Statements surely need to be sourced, no matter where they appear, but there should never be things in the lead that aren't properly described elsewhere.

A good rule of thumb, I think, is to be extremely specific when stating where critical and potentially controversial assertions come from. For example, instead of saying, "(Subject) has become notorious for engaging in (Activity)", we would write something like, "(SubjectExpert) has described the show as being notorious for engaging in (Activity)". In this fashion, we identify the source of the idea that the show has gained notoriety. When I was dealing with this on Top Gear (2002 TV series) for example, I found a TV critic and an environmental activist group (both of which have Misplaced Pages articles of their own) to provide a balance of positive and negative commentary about that show. I think it reads very nicely, if I may say so. Maybe that's the sort of formulation we need to follow here as well... Warren -talk- 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One, that assumes that "(Subject)" did become famous for "(Activity)" -- a tenuous assertion at best, in this case. Two, I stand by my assertion that cherry picking sources to use in the lead absolutely gives them undue weight. Statements in the lead must be supported by the article content & references, but don't have to be sourced in the lead itself; selecting particular viewpoints to include in the lead (especially on matters of opinion) elevates them beyond due weight. I fail to see how any of the proposals thus far are more compliant with policies and guidelines than the one originally in place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But see, this is why my proposed approach tends to work -- instead of trying to decide whether what some random person's opinion is, you have to find high-quality, credible, reliable sources. With this article, we want to find professional television critics, especially those that cover the field of American news and commentary shows. This is precisely the same as looking to Roger Ebert when in need of an expert film critic; someone like Sydney Pokorny for GLBT media criticism; William Grimes (of the NY Times) for book reviews; and so forth. The Countdown with Keith Olbermann article has a paragraph with criticism of the show from Howard Rosenberg, who is a veteran TV critic. That's the sort of thing that builds a good encyclopedia. You don't have to (nor would you be expected to) agree with what the critics say; the fact that they're reputable career critics is good enough to meet all of Misplaced Pages's content policies.

As for sourcing in the lead, it absolutely is required if any of the statements made are contentious. Warren -talk- 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the push to make contentious statements in the lead at all? There is no requirement to speculate on why he's famous, and the original wording avoids these problems entirely. Not to mention the (forgotten?) problem with due weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Blax, at this point I think you're trying to be difficult. The proposed construction is about as contentious as saying that some historians believe that Charles Lindbergh became more famous as a result of crossing the Atlantic in a plane. There isn't a question of undue weight because all the sources (except the Misplaced Pages editor Blaxthos) say the same thing. The "original wording" (if its the one I think you mean) also makes an assumption about the cause of Olbermann's rising notoriety. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren's suggestion is fine with me so long as the increase in fame (notoriety and notorious were once often used pejoratively) is linked to what the reliable sources say it is linked to: biting criticisms of targets to Olbermann's political right. If one editor thinks that the sources are being cherry picked the I gotta tell him that the cherry picking has never been easier because all of the sources, left, right, and center, reliable and dubious, basically say the same thing: Olbermann became better known and his show more widely viewed as he attacked the targets mentioned in my edit. Just where are this editor's non-cherry picked sources? This editor also seems oblivious to a reality that I have pointed out on multiple occasions now, that his objection to the subjectivity of the assumptions made by those sources also applies to his own preferred construction. Strike that, actually. His objection now applies more strongly to his own construction. That's because Warren's construction and my construction openly state that our sources are making the assumption, not some Misplaced Pages editor on his (her) own. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me step back in here, very cautiously, with two points. First, my understanding of Warren's suggestion is that it would attribute the statement to credible authorities (a la Roger Ebert). Therefore, rather than referring to the Post and Salon (particularly as links to their pages here), might it be better to leave them out of the sentence, and instead, put inline, numbered references to specific articles from such sources at the end of the sentence, citing them as sources of the statement about the cause of notoriety/fame? My second point is to suggest another way of constructing it, that might, perhaps, be a useful way to reconcile the views here: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety (fame?) for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.ref/ref He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain." That treats O'Reilly et al. as important examples, while attributing notoriety in a way that acknowledges Badmintonhist's views about the specific role of criticisms of the right, while also acknowledging Blaxthos' view that it might not entirely be due to that. Just some suggestions, just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally prefer that we identify the reliable sources by name, right in the main article text. That way the article doesn'r read like we're trying to present "our" point of view -- this is still a concern even if we provide sources that back up the assertions. The main downside to this approach is that it weighs down the point being made with a bunch of extra words. Some people disagree with this approach, too -- the Misplaced Pages:Embrace weasel words essay explains the counter-argument pretty nicely, IMO. Warren -talk- 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Per Typtofish's proposed wording, and Warren's reference concerns, I propose the following:

Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain."

There are no weasel words, no synthesis of thought or conclusions, and still references specific examples. Of course, the s will need to be supplied where noted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Blaxthos' version here is an improvement over mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This construction isn't exactly my cup of cocoa (rather timid and stilted sounding) but in the interest of compromise and comity I'll accept it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent -- progress is a wonderful thing.  :) On to citations... does anyone have suggestions of secondary sources to be used for the s above? I added numbers to make discussion easier. We could add another reference after the word administration if doesn't cover both Bush and McCain criticisms. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The new proposal doesn't address a single thing I said. Whatever... Warren -talk- 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

True, it certainly doesn't address Warren's main point which is that the reliable source(es) should be directly credited for whatever assumptions are being made. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a proposed construction:

Observers such as have credited Olbermannn with carving a niche in cable news commentary by directing his fire principally on rightward leaning politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and pointedly criticized the George W. Bush Presidency, and the 2008 Presidential Candidacy of Senator John McCain.

One could stick in "gained notoriety" somewhere but I don't think it's necessary. Establishing a "niche in cable news commentary" suggests that one's fame is probably growing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take another tentative stab at trying to reconcile the ideas raised here. First, I want to say -- to all! -- that it looks to me like the various possible versions are getting closer and closer together, and that the remaining differences really, truly, are, to an outside visitor, quite small, and all involved editors ought to feel pleased with how this discussion is progressing. As to the most recent points brought up by Warren and Badmintonhist, it strikes me that it may be putting the mention of observers in the wrong place, to attribute the carving of a niche to them. In other words, it is really self-evident that Olbermann has a niche, and no one would argue that he does not have any niche, and therefore it may make better sense to locate the observers closer to where the political right is mentioned. Also, I do appreciate Warren's concern that his suggestions may have been given too little weight, but I also note that he said that there are what he considers to be valid arguments for using the other construction. It seems to me that, while it is strictly true that the use of numbered references does not say, literally, that it is observers rather than WP that have made this interpretation, it is also true that readers generally understand a cited reference at the end of the sentence to mean that the interpretations in that sentence arise from the cited reference, and therefore are not OR or synthesis by editors. (In my opinion, and this is incredibly subjective, it's better to name the observers mainly when they are actually being quoted verbatim.) That said, let me suggest this hybrid version, and let's see where we can go from there:

Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining prominence for his pointed criticism of major politicians and public figures, directed particularly at the political right. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and strongly criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain's 2008 Presidential candidacy.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Again, this doesn't address what I said. While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections. Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to , blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My reading of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, where it uses the example of the baseball player and advocates a version that states facts, such as the years when the baseball player had certain statistics, is that it actually is in agreement with what we have here: it says that Olbermann has criticized certain kinds of people, then gives specific factual examples that substantiate that statement. I also continue to believe that the presence of citations at the end of the sentence is understood by readers to mean that the sentence is derived from information in those references, not simply created by editors, and therefore is not an assertion of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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

In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Misplaced Pages is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu. Let's get the citations in place and call this one done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been quiet here for a few days, which I hope is a good sign. As an editor who was not originally a party to the debates preceding the RfC, I'm going to be bold and make edits to the lead in accordance with what I understand of this talk. I'm going to leave it to others to provide the references. Please understand that I'm attempting to reflect the talk here and there is nothing etched-in-stone about my edit, so please no one feel unhappy if you would prefer to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary

NYTimes say's its 4 mil. a year

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After the 2008 Election, NBC Uni and Keith Olbermann has been agreed to have a new-contract which his salary is 30,000,000 US$ in over 4 years (that makes 7.5 million per year). Thus, the info which mentioned at the box is correct. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Saving the trivia section as historical. Though it was (properly) removed at least some of it should be integrated into the article (prose please).

This article contains a list of miscellaneous information. Please relocate any relevant information into other sections or articles.

• He appeared in a cameo as himself in an episode of NBC's Surface.
  • Sassone, Bob (2006-01-02). "Surface: Episode 11". TV Squad. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
• He appeared in a series of television commercials for the Boston Market restaurant chain in 1997, in which he tells a bunch of Calvin-Klein type models to "eat something".
• While at Fox Sports, he briefly appeared in an episode of Arli$$ as himself.
• A self-described fan of the Fox animated television sitcom Family Guy, he announced in June 2006 on the Dan Patrick Show that he had recorded some voice tracks to be used in an upcoming episode of the series. ("It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One", featuring Olbermann as a character named Bob Grossbeard, aired on May 13, 2007.)
  • "Family Guy - It Takes a Village Idiot, and I Married One - Synopsis, Credits, Companies - Variety Profiles". Variety. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
  • "COUNTDOWN THURSDAY: THE MOD PROD". MSNBC. 2007-05-10. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
• Olbermann has lent his voice for The Simpsons 2007-2008 season episode "Funeral for a Fiend." The episode featured Sideshow Bob, whom Olbermann had previously compared to Bill O'Reilly.
• Olbermann appears, with Dan Patrick, in the opening segment of the Hootie & the Blowfish music video "Only Wanna Be with You".
• On the HBO series Big Love, Olbermann appeared in Season 2, Episode 9 ("Swing Vote Margene") as himself during a fictitious newscast.
• Olbermann performed a comedic walk-on cameo on E! Network's The Soup, a show which has occasionally riffed on Olbermann's performance on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
• On a January 27, 2009 broadcast of Countdown, he mentioned that he had covered the Super Bowl 23 times, including 15 times on a national tv or radio network, four times in person, and 3 where he has been part of the pre-game show.
  • Media Blitz, (1st story of) Countdown with Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Accessed on January 28, 2009

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I, the very-first creator of Mr.Olbermann's Korean language wikipage, cited these figures under the name of 'Other major broadcasting appearances'(그 외 주요 방송출연 경력, in Korean), not as 'trivia'. You may find the solution from it(I hope, personally). Cheers. Thanks. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachelor of Arts?

The article erroneously states that he received a Bachelor of Arts at Cornell in Communications. Cornell offers only a Bachelor of Science in Communications through the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as the Ag School. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the second largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third largest college of its kind in the United States. This is where Mr. Olbermann recieved his degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilly77c (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The "About the Department" page from the Department of Communications website specifically states that it is proud to be part of Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This is not the same as graduating from the ivy league College of Arts and Science which most people think of when one states they are a Cornell graduate. Mr. Olbermann's bio is misleading. Fizix137 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The college is a statutory college meaning it is given money by the state to operate as a public school. It is not the same as the private University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk • contribs) 15:56, March 5, 2009 (UTC)

I have already changed this according to the refs. Thank you. --Ali'i 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell

Since it's widely accepted that Olbermann went to Cornell, we'll need a reliable source saying he went somewhere else. It seems like there must have been a column or meme somewhere spurring IPs and SPAs into action, so this should serve as a reminder wikipedia is based on verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What we need is a reliable source that says he went to Cornell University. The Cornell school paper says that he went to the ag school. I've added dubious tags. THF (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct... there is a recent Ann Coulter column deriding Olbermann's use of "Cornell" where she says he went to a different college within the overall Cornell system. I think. Until we can find a different source, it should remain as is. Thanks. --Ali'i 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be a full moon :) Whereever he graduated from, can we please have a citation and list the institution by its proper name either way and then move on. Thank you, --Tom 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell seems to think he's an alumni of Cornell. They don't specify which college within the Cornell umbrella he got his degree from though. --Bobblehead 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to reference number 20 (http://cornellsun.com/node/13424), he went to New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article for Statutory college. This school's web address ends in "cornell.edu" and in order to apply, you apply to Cornell. It looks like this is a component college of Cornell, just as any other University is composed of colleges. Does this statutory college issue degrees on its own or do the degrees come from Cornell? Henrymrx (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, now that that question has been resolved (apparently). Cornell runs and operates CALS. Is there a functional difference between saying he got is degree from Cornell University and he got his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? Or is it more inline with a person saying they got a degree from Harvard University when the degree they got actually says Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? --Bobblehead 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In just doing rummaging around the two websites (cornell.edu and cals.cornell.edu) it appears the current relationship is more inline with a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard University relationship than say a University of California, Santa Barbara and University of California, Los Angeles relationship. Cornell lists CALS as being the second largest college at Cornell University and the list of departments at Cornell University and programs at CALS seem to point at the same locations. --Bobblehead 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this being said, I don't see a problem with refining his degree as being from CALS versus Cornell, but then, I also don't see a problem with saying his degree is from Cornell. It is common within Ivy League universities to have their degrees not actually come from the university, but rather from the "college" that a person's degree program falls under. --Bobblehead 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A university consists of one or more colleges. It's more like the difference between ] and ] -- they're both part of the same ] (the diploma looks the same)/ WindyCityRider (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CALS website say that it was in fact the New York State College of Agriculture before 1971 when the name changed to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Olbermann graduated in 1979, so it would have had the CU name for his entire tenure there. The Communications Department is also listed as the Cornell University Department of Communications. DG7812 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More information is better than less, so long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source. From what I have seen, I agree that he attended the Cornell University that has Ivy League sports teams, but it is equally true that he received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the school. Both versions are accurate and both should be included.Tommylotto (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think less information is better. The last thing we want to do is confuse folks, cheers! --Tom 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More information is better, unless it clutters up the article needlessly and is indicative of somebody pushing an agenda. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We have 2 reliable sources pertaining to Olbermann's education. 1) http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/6.4.98/convocation.html wherein Cornell University newspaper regards him as "Cornell alumnus". And 2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/ which is a bio listed on the website of a major news network. We don't really have any more specific information from reliabe WP:RS and verifiable WP:V sources (blogosphere is not widely regarded as reliable). We should probably just list it as "Cornell University" and not attempt to be any more specific than that unless we find a valid, reliable source. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the bio box it says that Olbermann has a B.S. degree, but in the body it says he has a Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.149 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed the redundancy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education: B.S. Communication Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education section is incorrect.

Keith Olbermann received a B.S. in Communications from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The article mentions the Ivy League Cornell University. Mr. Olbermann did not attend that university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above section. As with many things, Coulter is wrong. ;) --Bobblehead 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily "wrong"... just has a "different viewpoint". :-) --Ali'i 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to O'Reilly's Levitown/Westbury issue. That's all I'm saying. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Except in this case the entirety of CALS is encompassed by Cornell, so Coulter's declaration that she attended the "Ivy League" Cornell while Olbermann attended the "Old MacDonald Cornell" is wrong.;) The O'Reilly kerfuffle seems to be more due to some fuzzy lines between Levittown, New York and Westbury, New York. Coulter's claim is more like someone claiming O'Reilly wasn't born in New York because he was born in the "uncool" part of New York, so it shouldn't count. --Bobblehead 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the education information is incorrect. It is incomplete or at least can be made to be more complete. The wiki bio should not descend into the Olby / Coulter Ivy League war, but should honestly lay out the facts so that the reader can decide. He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the university.Tommylotto (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And is still part of the "school" so what is the point exactly? Its like some schmuck who went to Penn, but wasn't an engineer or business "tool" as we called em and ONLY graduated from the lowly "college"/CAS with a Folklore and Folklife degree, he still is a Penn grad and alumni.--Tom 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just provide accurate information and let the reader decide the controversy, if there is one. More information is better. Both facts are true Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. If there is a distinction, or even a perceived distinction, more information is better as it lets the reader decide. By not disclosing accurate information that could be the basis of a distinction, the wiki editors are trying the determine the controversy or distinction for the reader, which is not the purpose of a wiki article.Tommylotto (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

huh?--Tom 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not your job as a wiki editor to determine which controversial view point the reader should learn about. Both facts are true. He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. We are only talking about adding 6 words that are unarguably accurate, and the controversy raised by the recent edits and associated discussion make the distinction sufficiently notable to warrant the addition of six words that are unquestionably accurate.Tommylotto (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The College Olbermann attended is, in fact, part of Cornell University. Universities are comprised of colleges, and colleges are comprised of departments. To be most specific, Olbermann attended the Department of Communications at Cornell University. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No you are attempting to conceal accurate information. The Department of Communication is part of the Ag School. See here http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." We are not here to decide the perceived distinction asserted by Coulter. We are here to accurately report the facts and let the reader decide.Tommylotto (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual. If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters. If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it. Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This information is accurate and uncontroversial. The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide. The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information. He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication. Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Windy City, you are in violation of the three revert rule. Please hash this out on the discussion page and avoid an edit war. Are you disputing that the Communication Department is in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? If not, this accurate distinction is certainly notable given today's dust up. What justification do you have for withholding accurate information from the reader?Tommylotto (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual. If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters. If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it. Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This information is accurate and uncontroversial. The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide. The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information. He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication. Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

Please do not remove properly sourced material without first discussing it on the talk page. His credits in his last semester are as appropriate as him skipping two grades at the Hackley School. One demonstrates early brilliance, the other demonstrates a time when he was a slacker. We want to be fair and balanced, don't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the Hackley school per the citions provided. The slacker theory is interesting but not notable. --Tom 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Old requests for peer review