Misplaced Pages

Talk:Keith Olbermann: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:16, 30 May 2012 editLoonymonkey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,149 edits →Liberal← Previous edit Revision as of 15:20, 30 May 2012 edit undoScjessey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,030 edits →Liberal: - reply (edit conflict with Loonymonkey)Next edit →
Line 40: Line 40:
::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 ]. It doesn't matter if some notable journalist has stated the ''opinion'' that Olbermann is liberal, we can't state it as fact. ::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 ]. 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 ] 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. --] (]) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC) ::This was an extensive argument on ] 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. --] (]) 15:16, 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. -- ] (]) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:20, 30 May 2012

Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
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 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.
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.
Article policies
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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism
WikiProject iconThis 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.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Keith Olbermann. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Keith Olbermann at the Reference desk.

Template:Pbneutral

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 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 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)
(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)
Categories:
Talk:Keith Olbermann: Difference between revisions Add topic