Talk:Erin Burnett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Personal Comments from Fans

I have taken the liberty to remove some personal comments that were posted here by a fan of Erin Burnett. I need NOT remind you all of the warning above. So please try to refrain from all the personal commentary. - ICarriere 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Coward from IRS

The anoymous coward with IP: 170.63.96.108 vandalized the Erin Burnett page. Among other things, the coward wrote:

Erin Burnett is a enjoying undeserved success after being continually hyped on MSNBC by Joe Scarborough.

The vandalism was reversed and the vandal's identity has been noted:

Reference: http://www.arin.net/whois/ the internet address 170.63.96.108 traces to the following physical location:

Massachusetts Department of Revenue 200 Arlington St. Chelsea, MA 02150

Apparently it's not enough to steal from the pockets of hard working Americans; the MDOR employee feels the need to vandalize our free encyclopedia also. - ICarriere 15:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote on MSNBC TV

I placed a quote from her she made on the show Hardball in the main article. I don't know if a mention should be made in the article or wait until there is a follow up to the comments. statsone 05:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution; I almost added the quote myself. However, after a thorough review of the transcript, I realized that the comment was simply an error in speaking. I have removed the quote as it doesn't include the proper context to be fair to what the person was attempting to convey. Moreover, even with the context, the quote doesn't have any relevance to the article. In the end, that is the measure that must be used. Without which, we would be adding every word that a person ever said to the quote section. - ICarriere 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi ICarriere, I disagree and feel it does convey some of her opinions and biases (or at least the quote that I'm thinking of does). If it was a mistake, then she can take some time to correct it on air -- however, she didn't. TV personalities who make ridiculous statements need to be held accountable for them. I'm going to add it again. Right now that's 2 against 1. - OptimistBen

Few things. I think the quote needs to be place in a separate area with its own heading since this quote and video is now making the rounds. With the recalls now going on, seems appropriate.

Also, the way to sign is to use 4 "`". This will leave a time stamp and your name.

To indent text in the comment areas, use : and as many as needed.statsone 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, never gotten too into Wikipedia editing, thanks for the tips. I think it's fair to letting anyone who's interested in learning about her know these comments. If I was looking her up hoping to learn something about her opinions, I would want to know this one. I made a new section called Controversies and I put the quote under it. I couldn't tell if she was being sarcastic or whatever. 206.223.219.31 07:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OptimistBen

Non-Existent Controversy

(OptimistBen, Statsone)

First, I count as 3; so your comment, “2 against 1” doesn't hold water. Second, I have no bias for or against the person on this page. As such, I am acting as a mediator between the mindless idiots who advertise their undying love, and the angry fools who clearly hate Erin Burnett.

Finally, a transcript from Chris Matthew’s website, does not count as a source for a controversy. If however, the statement becomes a controversy (causing commentary from someone in the mainstream media, i.e. Television, Talk Radio, New Paper), then by all means add the comment.

Reference: The Wikipedia policy on the “biographies of living persons”

We do not create controversies, we document them. So, until a controversy arises, do not add this comment to the page. - ICarriere 13:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Until other people comment that what she said was inappropriate or some other kind of response to it, it seems not to add to the article. --Rocksanddirt) 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Part of her Biography and what she has said. Statsone 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You count as 3, eh? Wisecracker? You assume that we both have personal biases? I have no such thing. I have a bias for a position, which I am advocating; you have a bias towards a different position. For all I know you are a fan and have a website devoted to her, and for all you know I am her angry ex-boyfriend. Claims of bias at this point are specious at best and incendiary at worst. I agree that it is premature to list it as a controversy, and think it be left best as a quote. 206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OptimistBen

Request for Admin Intervention

To prevent a violation of the WP:3RR rule, I have asked for intervention by Admins. statsone 19:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will mark the intervention resolved, for now. statsone 12:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedia Admin

I am an admin. I'm not sure what you want me to do here. The person who is removing the part you added appears to be making a valid point above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at your talk page but w.r.t. controversy, if it exists then you can post a link to people discussing in the papers etc? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the incivilty on your talk page. Being firm is not the same as being incivil. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Uncivil Behavior

"I am acting as a mediator between the mindless idiots who advertise their undying love, and the angry fools who clearly hate Erin Burnett..." - ICarriere

Insults and assumptions are not a great way to have a civil conversation. Clearly there's a disagreement here, although I am somewhat on the fence at this point. Ironically, ICarriere said that she very nearly did the same thing that we did. The idea that this becomes a real controversy only when a mainstream news organization covers it but not when a few nonmainstream groups reach twice, thrice, or even ten times as many people seems very strange. The line between old and new media will continue to merge, especially since most mainstream news is no more credible when it is doing straight commentary work, as this story is. The primary source is credible and verifiable (we generally shouldn't go so far in our skepticism as to say that this clip never really aired, although Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theorists).

For me this statement was significant enough to be put down as a quotation. Generally quotes in the Quotes section are outstanding comments which have drawn attention -- this quote clearly did that. 206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OptimistBen

Rebuttal to Admin Decision

For me this statement was significant enough to be put down as a quotation. Generally quotes in the Quotes section are outstanding comments which have drawn attention -- this quote clearly did that.206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OptimistBen

Comments and links on the controversy on

• Opednews
• Crooks and Liars
• Consumerist
• Youtube.com
• Blogspot

Many others. Search of "Burnett China" or "Burnett Hardball" will show many, in addition to others.

On my talk page, somehow please refrain your edits to the Wikipedia Sandbox doesn't appear firm.

And the comments on this page Anonymous Coward from IRS are also not civil. statsone 20:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of New Sources

1. OpedNews - Blogger Submitted Article
2. Crooks And Liars - Political Blog
3. Consumerist - Political Blog
4. Blogspot - Political Blog

I have reviewed the sources you cited and determined that they are not worth considering. Anyone can add a comment on a blog, this simply does not meet the qualification of a valid source for a controversy. I would strongly encourage you to review the warning above:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

When you get on a major news network, you can expect people to pay attention to what you say. There is no breach of privacy here -- this was a public statement freely given. 206.223.219.31 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) OptimistBen

The source includes a video clip of the subject clearly stating the quote in question on television. This is not unsourced nor poorly sourced. If not this, what would meet your criteria for a valid source, ICarriere? I second the call to have an admin make a determination on this as I don't see the justification for having this removed from the article. Aquavit 17:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquavit, I have already made and remade the case for the quote being unnessary so please read the above arguments before making a comment.

1. The quote does not warrant an add to the Controversy section because it has not yet become a bonified controversy.

2. The quote does not warrant an add to the Quote section for two reasons. First, it lacks the necessary context to make it's placement unbias. Second, the quote is irrelevant to the article.

3. I have suggested adding the quote to the Controversy section, if and when it becomes a controversy. That would be the correct way to add the item to the page. Again, Wikipedia does not create controversies we document them - ICarriere 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere, I read your arguments and I still disagree.

1. The quote itself is very controversial. I would argue that it's an opinion that the vast majority of people would disagree with and find controversy in. This is supported by the fact that this quote (including video clip of the subject stating it) has been posted on some of the most widely read blogs on the internet. As noted by others above, try a google search.

2. How is this quote irrelevant to the article? Again, it's a quote by the subject that has received significant mention. Much more mention than the other quotes, that you don't seem to have a problem with, that remain in the article. One that includes a citation (with no audio or video, mind you) to an obscure blog.

Looking at your overall editing history and the editing history of this talk page, I question if you are associated with NBC and/or have a personal interest in keeping this controversial quote off this subjects page. It's clearly relevant. Aquavit 18:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquavit, thank you for the comment. I have NO personal interest other than I created the article as it stands today. I'm not even a fan of Erin Burnett. I'm just a Wikipedian who doesn't like seeing 'special interest groups' vandalizing Wikipedia. As to the other comment, I do not work for NBC or any affiliated of NBC. I am not paid by, nor do I know anyone who works for NBC. - ICarriere 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Review of Google Search

I did a search on Google as requested and found the following:

RealGM.com, 3 people, only 1 discusses quote.
Time-Blog.com, 0 people
Correntewire.com, 3 people
Digg.com, 1 person
CrooksandLiars.com, 1 person
mefeedia.com, 0 people
edschultz.invisionzone.com, 2 people
leftword.blogdig.net, 0 people
Consumerist.com, 2 people
OpedNews.com, 2 people
democraticunderground.com, 14 people
BlogRunner.com, REPEAT PORTAL
blogspot.com, REPEAT PORTAL
buzztracker.com, REPEAT PORTAL
blogjunkies.com, REPEAT PORTAL

I must admit, I would give an A- for effort. After all, it was a very nice try. However, I'm sorry to inform that a very persistent person who wishes to slander another does not make for a controversy. But I do thank you as it was very interesting to see how you people work.

First, you setup a network of blog accounts. Second, you slander a person whom you dislike on the blog. Third, you add the blogs to repeat portals so that the Google rating increases (very smart), propelling your page to the top. And finally, you try to add your comments to Wikipedia (somewhat stupid).

Unfortunately for you, that's where I come into the picture. Wikipedia is not your person rumor mill. And by attempting to make it so, you undermine the integrity of what we are trying to accomplish here. - ICarriere 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/13/14039/0932 (#8 most popular blog, currently 417 comments on the story)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/08/quote_of_the_da_1.php#ch01 (#18 most popular blog, currently 10 comments on the story)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/12/cnbcs-erin-burnett-we-need-chinas-toxic-food-and-lead-coated-toys-to-keep-economy-strong/ (#23 most popular blog, currently 187 comments on the story)

http://consumerist.com/consumer/honey,-where.s-the-remote%3F/cnbcs-erin-burnett-tells-you-why-china-is-our-greatest-friend-289515.php (#24 most popular blog, currently over 50 comments on the story (didn't see exact number) )

Source of rankings: http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/

I don't understand why you think this is a conspiracy. These blogs have hundreds of thousands of readers each day. I mean there is video of the quote clear as day on the Consumerist link that people originally used to cite this which you repeatedly deleted. This isn't a rumor, it's right there for you to see if you click the link. It's a very controversial opinion by a financial news anchor about the economic relationship between the US and China. I fail to see how this is irrelevant, especially when you consider the other quotes on the page that you seem to have no problem with. Aquavit 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquavit, thank you for the comment. But unlike the political blogs you've inspired, Wikipedia has policies regarding the biographies of living persons. Statements which are slanderous, poorly sourced, or clearly bias are not allowed. Again, Wikipedia does not create controversies, we document them.

You really do intrigue me. So much bile, so much hatred. And for what, a girl who mis-spoke on a television program? I think it's time you look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really like the person you see.

Finally, I would suggest that you take your multiple usernames (Aquavit, Statsone, OptimistBen) elsewhere. Because as long as I'm around, you are NOT going to make a rumor mill out of this page. - ICarriere 23:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Please cite the bile or hatred you claim or how you know she misspoke. Like it or not, the statement is hers as represented on video in the link above and there is no reason why it should not be included in the article. Aquavit 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are really off your rocker, ICarriere. I suggest you take your insults, mispellings, and Talk page censorship elsewhere, heh. OptimistBen 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Page

If you haven't noticed by now, the Admins have setup the auto revert rule. So the changes you make are not taking hold. Among the fly-by-night edits being made here are the following IP addresses:

1.) 64.180.8.165
2.) 68.63.187.12
3.) 24.131.127.14
4.) 209.160.104.203

Those of you who are not anonymous cowards use newly created monikers, where your only edit on Wikipedia is to this page.
Since most of these are likely duplicates of the same IP, I was wondering which is one of you is actually 'Maria Bartiromo' and which one is 'Becky Quick'? Seriously, which one is which? - ICarriere 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You quoted 'If you haven't noticed by now, the Admins have setup the auto revert rule'. Where? User:Brusegadi used WP:TW once. You have made all other revisions. You have even deleted content from this page for no reason - which amounts to vandalism.

I have made a request to User:Theresa knott on her talk page to finish the review. If she doesn't in the next 24hours, I will ask for another admin. statsone 19:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

statsone, if I deleted anything, I am not aware of this. I did re-organize this page because it was not very well defined. Some users were inserting their comments anywhere they pleased, rather than following a defined progression.

As to your comment about the auto revert, perhaps, I'm mistaken, but Admins have reverted more than 1 of your edits to the page.

I find it very interesting that you ask for Admin intervention, then when they respond with an unfavorable result, you demand the Admin, reconsider. Meanwhile, you vandalize the page by re-inserting the controversial material using multiple usernames.

You definately have an agenda which begs the question, who are you working on behalf of?

I gave a reasonable solution, which Theresa Knott agreed with. That is to say, if a controversy does arise, and a good source (i.e., TV, Radio, Print) can be found, then we should add the quote to the page under the controversy section.

Your actions since that time have been very telling and lead me to believe you don't respect the authority of Wikipedia Admins. - ICarriere 19:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My IP is the 24.131 one. I created a wikipedia account because I wanted to respond to what I felt were your improper edits on this page. Aquavit 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You also made edits even though you were aware of the Admin ruling. - ICarriere 19:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on wikipedia and came to this page because I read about the quote in question and wanted to find out about the subject. I was surprised that the quote wasn't listed so I was going to add it but then I saw that it was added repeatedly by various people and always removed by one person who I figured had an agenda. So I included someone else's edit which was swiftly redacted by you. It wasn't then until I saw the discussion tab and read your varying justifications for removing it and the admin ruling so I then created an account so that I could add my two cents and I stopped making edits on the article page. Apologies to the admins for not following protocol. Aquavit 20:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No ruling was made. ICarriere reverted edits assuming so. statsone 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk Comments of OptimistBen Being Edited By ICarriere *ADMIN FEEDBACK REQUESTED*

ICarriere has been cutting out many of my comments on the Talk page, which were completely civil and pointed out some of his misconceptions and incivilities. This consitutes a major breach of conduct in my opinion and should be noted. I'm unsure of how we deal with deceptive vandalism/censorship such as this. I've reversed the changes, and you can see exactly what was taken out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erin_Burnett&diff=151633282&oldid=151506736

I think this warrants some sort of official citation and ideally would be put down on ICarriere's record so that others know to beware of it. Note also that statsone reverted it back, then ICarriere undid it again, displaying a persistent and malicious interest in subduing discussion. No doubt this will be wiped away as soon as ICarriere notices it. OptimistBen 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I appologize for removing the comments. I was organizing the page and noticed that you don't follow progression. Instead you prefer to insert your comments into the comments of others. So as I was organizing the statements, I must have inadvertantly removed your comments.

Instead of taking the time of an Admin, you might have simply added them back in. If I had removed them again, I would say you'd be correct to accuse me of censorship. - ICarriere 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary and Response

As there have been many edits, I will try to summarize them and respond to them here.

It is best to keep the comments here and not on the talk pages of others (admin's).

Unless Theresa knott responses in the next little while, I will ask for another admin to look at this.

Civility

ICarriere has shown very poor civility with regards to comments and edits. Examples include:

• calling a user a coward [1]
• Anonymous coward [2]
• again at [3]
• refrain to sandbox [4]
• threatening to report for non-existant abuse [5]
• cowards again [6]
• accusing me of an agenda [7]
• accusing me of being members of political blogs [8]
• accussations of being a sockpuppet [9]
• again [10]
• being somewhat stupid [11]
• sockpuppet again [12]
• again [13]] ( sorry if there are duplicate entries)

Deletions - Vandalism by ICarriere

Deletions by [User:ICarriere | ICarriere]] include [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18].

Some of these have been corrected only after they were pointed out to ICarriere.

Consensus

Wikipedia is built on Consensus. It is not built on ICarriere making final decisions [19]. It is done with all information and talking with others.

Topic at hand

The point being made is Erin Burnett made comments that are simply unbeliveable. There has been no follow up statement from her or the network ( or they would have been included ) and the topic may be needed in the future to show poor tast, poor judgement, or being too arrogrant. At this point is it something that happened and should be a part of her page, especially in light of the product recalls from China and monetary crisis happening today. The best edit to use would be [20] as it shows the link and source to the show she made it on. Additionally, a link to a Youtube [21] video should be added. As pointed out, this edit was deleted by ICarriere

Addition Controversy

In addition to the point being made above, there is also the other segment in the same show which Chris Mattews is being unprofessional [22]. This also needs to be talked about and should also be part of the page. The source would be the Hardball transcript above and a Youtube link would need to be found.

News Source

ICarriere has the impression that unless a print newspaper or TV news program carries the story, it is not relevent. This is a mistake. The controversy has been repeated many times and is the talk on many sites not mentioned.

This story is a part of her career and should be included. statsone 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I could respond to the false charges about deletions, but there's really no need. The record when examined carefully, will show that I never deleted any information on purpose. I was merely re-organizing the page when an update conflict occurred.

On the other hand, I will respond to inference that civility and consensus are somehow the core principles of Wikipedia.

First, I admit the tone of this conversation has become somewhat harsh. That said, the foremost goal of the Wikipedia community is to create articles that conform to the WP:NPOV standard.

Wikipedia:Civility

"Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view."

A second goal of the Wikipedia community is to create articles that conform to the WP:V standard.

Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles."

Attempting to add a comment that was clearly mis-spoken to a person's biography, without providing proper context, clearly shows a lack of neutrality. The result is we violate the NPOV policy.

While Erin Burnett has not addressed the quote directly, she has since made statements of concern regarding China's poor standards in manufacturing. I would assume these were made to clearify her position on the issue.

Which brings us to my original argument; we should NOT add a quote to the biography of a living person, when the quote conveys a view contrary to the person's belief. To do so is bias at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

Finally, in an attempt be fair to the issue, I offered a compromise that I believe to be fair. I stated that if the mis-spoken words of Erin Burnett become a controversy, we should add the quote to the page. This would typically occur when commentary about the quote occurs in television, radio, news paper, or some other form of peer media. In this way, the controversy can be documented with 'good source' material, while meeting the requirement of verifiability. - ICarriere 04:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication that it was a misstatement, and Burnett had plenty of time to clear it up if it was -- she didn't. Stop making things up. OptimistBen 07:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere - As for the record of deletions, I have listed them above. Another reason why there are a lot of signing missing on this page.

As for violating the NPOV, there is none. The facts, and that is what they are, show she made those comments while discussing the problem of recalls and dangerous goods. Failing to state the obvious would be censorship on its own. statsone 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Clip Airs in The Daily Show August 16th

Well, today I was watching my Daily Show and I saw the clip of Erin Burnett's quote followed by a sarcastic discussion. While I don't think this is necessarily all that more noteworthy than sites with such huge readerships as DailyKos covering it, it does satisfy ICarriere's condition. When the clip is put up on indecision2008.com I'll be linking to it and putting it up. Where would you guys prefer that I put it -- under Popular Culture, perhaps? It seems fitting wit what's in there now, the praise of Rush Limbaugh. OptimistBen 07:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Show is confirmed. statsone 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If The Daily Show provides a source for the airing, then the article may need to be updated. statsone 12:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow I'm offline for one day and I miss all this

OK I've got a few things I need to say here.

1. On civilty.Please could everyone make a special effort to be as civil as possible. There has been some mild incivilty which could be taken the wrong way. OTOH please could everyone not take offence too readily. As an admin I've seen so much worse, and we need to be a little bit thick skinned to edit on wikipedia. If someone is a bit rude to you the best thing to do is here is just ignore it.

1. On admin review.I have absolutley no authority whatsoever to decide who is right and who is wrong here. That is not what admins do. I can advise, I can warn people for bad behaviour, I can even block people for behaviour that is bad enough that they disrupt the writing of an encylopedia (which hasn't happened here, and looks unlikely to) But I cannot force my opinion on the matter.

1. On sockpuppets. I'm not accusing anyone here, but some accounts look suspicious. If anyone is using multiple accounts they need to stop immediately. Using a sock loses you all credibilty and devalues your argument rather than strengthens it.

1. On WP:BLP. Wikipedia is strict on the quality of all sources and is getting stricter by the day. But when the person is alive then the strictness goes through the roof. We have to be really careful to be super neutral and our sources must be top notch.

1. On what makes a credible source.What makes a reliable source has been discussed extensivly already. So much so that we have a guidline on it here. Wikipedia:Reliable sources the BLP page also has a word to say on sources here.

Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am confused here. It seemed the discussion was about if it was a controversy (which is now is) and not if it was sourced properly. As it was sourced properly ( video and on the transcript of Hardball where she appeared ) then the sourcing is valid and confirmed. On both counts, the standards are met, and the page will be updated. statsone 12:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information Theresa Knott. I now see that I was wrong to suggest/offer a compromise, where non exists. I wasn't aware the WP:BLP was that strict. But it's now very clear to see the quote/controversy would violate the WP:BLP even when cited by peer media such as Jon Stewart. The policy specifically state,

"Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful about perpetuating a vicious feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. Editors who suspect that this sort of feedback loop has occurred should be especially careful to see if there are other independent, reliable, sources -- outside the loop itself -- for the contentious claim."

I don't agree with that level of censorship, as I feel it may prevent some free speech. But I do understand Wikipedia's need to protect itself; and so I will work to ensure the policy is upheld on this page. - ICarriere 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what part of source do you not understand? The source is both a video of her speaking and from the a transcript of the show she appeared on. The source is valid. statsone 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to speak out of turn here, but it's pretty clear what WP states,

"Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)" that your favorite blog cannot be used as a source. Furthermore, the argument has always been about the publishing of a mistatement as though it were a true statement, when we both know from watching her program that she does not believe nor agree with the mis-statement.

Furthermore, the argument is not about sourcing. As I previously wrote, "We should NOT add a quote to the biography of a living person, when the quote conveys a view contrary to the person's belief. To do so is bias at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst."

WP:BLP states,

"Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

I would encourage statsone to spend half the time reading the policy that he spends writing his rebuttal. - ICarriere 12:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To note, I'm responding to the comment above by ICarriere which wasn't signed.

Of course it's not about sourcing because it's a video of her saying the quote from national television. Thanks for getting past that point that you seemed to belabor endlessly. We can all agree the source is fine.

You next point, you repeatedly say that it was a misstatement but you have no evidence of that what so ever. That's complete conjecture on your part. The quote and her opinion are completely valid opinions, they are just controversial and obviously you personally don't like them.

There is no reason this quote should not be included that I can see according to the Wikipedia standards. If she were to come out later and deny that's what she meant I think that should be included as well as it's a controversy. Right now it's the quote that she is best known for, why should it not be included over the other quotes that you added to the article?

I ask the admin, if you do not make a decision then what is the next step? ICarriere will continue to censor the page in my eyes and in his eyes I will continue to vandalize the page and nothing will be resolved. Aquavit 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

We invite the community to air their views on the matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that she actually said those things. Where there is doubt is whether her comments caused any real controversy and are therefore worthy of adding to the article. How good are the sotces for the controversy (not the quote). Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The featured video on the webpage of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is from yesterday's show which includes (The Daily Show's... unique) commentary. The video is titled "The Great Recall of China", skip forward to where there is one minute left in the video to see it and watch it until the end.

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

Also the hundreds of comments on some of the most-widely read blogs that I cited above. None of the references to the quote on the internet are without discussing the controversial nature of it.

While I think it's clear that there is controversy over the quote, why does that matter if it should be included or not on the page? It's her most notable quote, more than the others that are currently included. The only argument that has been made to keep it off is that ICarriere believes that it misrepresents her but there is no evidence of that being true. Aquavit 13:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to petition MSNBC for the video clip that I had previously mentioned, however, the video does exists. Anyone who watches her program knows that she does not hold the viewpoint of the misspoken comment.

WP:BLV policy clearly states,

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject."

Both Aquavit and statsone have attempted to mis-represent the 'quote' of Erin Burnett as being her true position on the subject. This is absolutely false and clearly bias. If you read the blogs which they offer as sources, you'll see that these blogs are made up of defamatory statements about Erin Burnett.

On August 14, 2007, in a MSNBC video clip, Erin Burnett refers to a broadcast with the CEO of Mattel Corporation, where she made the clarifying statements in question. Specifically, she addressed the 'problem with poor standards in manufacturing of Chinese imports', and the issue with regard to 'lead paint' in Mattel toys. - ICarriere 14:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott , good question. The question now deals if there was a controversy or not. The sources for the controversy ( as the source has been verified ) are listed at [23] and [24] statsone 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The source is reliable, I have to take the material as it is and it's certainly relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject because it's a very notable and controversial position that I think is supported by the evidence cited throughout this talk page.

That is unfair. How have I or anyone other than yourself tried to represent the quote at all other than at face value? Which is, btw, the same way that was taken on The Daily Show and other outlets.

Lastly, at what time marker in the video you've cited should I be looking for evidence that she is retracting her quote or that she has changed her position from what she originally stated in the quote? Aquavit 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere, a few comments.

I also reviewed the video and there is nothing on it in regards to this topic. If Burnett wanted to make a correction or apology, she didn't. Even if she did, it could still be included in the article as the topic fits. WP is not a place where we write press releases about stars and famous people. It is an enclyclopedia where all information is valid. Mistakes are include on WP. There is no grounds for excluding them when they are true and revelant.

It is now established the video is true and real.

The sources are reliable.

As for your comment "...have attempted to mis-represent the 'quote' of Erin Burnett as being her true position on the subject. This is absolutely false and clearly bias...", she did say it and has not had the responsiblilty of a professional news anchor to correct and or clarify her statments. The topic, is not if the statements are her true position, but if they are worthy of this article. They are. Just because they make her look bad do not mean they are to be excluded.

ICarriere, please sign your post with 4 ~ at the end of the post as this will put in your name and a time stamp. I have also put in an edit you took out earlier. statsone 16:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The page has been protected due to the ongoing dispute and edit warring. Discuss and resolve the problem here with civility. Vsmith 03:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. statsone 04:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the call for civility, but believe this dispute is in need of arbitration. With that said, I am willing to make my argument one last time. I would ask that Statsone/OptimistBen follow my argument with a rebuttal. - ICarriere 08:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Argument for Removal of Quote

I have spent considerable time and effort to create a well sourced article about the person in question. To that end, my primary interest is the preservation of the article's integrity. I welcome the contributions of others as long as these contributions adhere to WP:BLP.

Statsone/OptimistBen has argued to add the 'China Quote' to the article. The dispute is whether the comment was spoken with a hint of irony or whether it is indeed a statement which conveys the opinion of Erin Burnett.

I believe the quote is unfairly being portrayed as her opinion, when she has clearly made contrary statements in regard to the subject. Moreover, I believe the repeated placement of the quote is an attempt to intentionally cause harm to Ms. Burnett.

First, I would direct your attention to the above warning,

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

The biographies of living persons states,

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

The definition of a 'reliable source' states,

"Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?"

As I said before, my concern about the quote is that it was spoken with a hint of irony. And to portray the quote as her opinion seems both deceptive and potentially harmful.

The policy statements that addresss the issue directly would include the following:

1) An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. - WP:BLP

2) Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. - WP:BLP

The second problem I see is whether the quote created a controversy worth mention. Statsone/OptimistBen has argued this point by citing several political blogs and a mention on the Comedy Central's Daily Show.

However, when I reviewed the Erin Burnett fan club on Yahoo * [25] I couldn't so much as find a mention of the quote.

What I find even more troubling though, is the source of the so-called controversy. When I did a Google search of the Internet, I found the original post was made on a political blog called the democraticunderground.

Fortunately, this problem is also addressed by the WP:BLP. I would direct your attention to the following policy statement:

1) Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. - WP:BLP

2) Editors should also be careful about perpetuating a vicious feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. - WP:BLP - ICarriere 08:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Argument for Addition of Quote

Comments by OptimistBen

When the guidelines say that no self-published information should be submitted, it is specifically referring to information which has no other source and is "unverifiable". The key here is verifiability -- that is, whether we can check a reliable, credible source to see if the information is true. We know that this information is verifiable and true, as you yourself have admitted. (Or you trying to argue that the clip was fabricated?) Furthermore, the Daily Show is one of the most widely-watched news shows in the world right now. Verifiability and credibility are unquestionable. We can even use the transcript from the official website of the network if we want. The point is that we know the statement was made. You're really not winning points with anyone by trying to deny that.

As someone noted previously, the question now comes down to significance, and if the majority of the Wikipedia users believe that this is significant, then you alone have no right to stop it. OptimistBen 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Aquavit

To summarize what I stated previously on the talk page. The source is a video clip of the subject saying the quote on national television. The quote is controversial and created controversy as it was discussed on many major blogs and shown in its entirety on the Daily Show including commentary on the quote as cited in the link above. It's certainly relevant to the article, I can't find a quote by the subject that is referenced more. ICarriere says either that the subject misspoke or it was ironic. If the subject misspoke, I don't know how ICarriere knows this as he hasn't cited anything where the subject states that. If the subject does clarify the quote then I would certainly think that it would be relevant to the article and should be included as well. As for irony, ICarriere might have detected it but the vast majority clearly took the quote at face value. I think that a citation of the quote that included the actual video of the subject saying it would be ideal (as it was before it was removed by ICarriere) so that the reader could come to their own conclusions.

Second, ICarriere continuously questions the sources of the quote and controversy. Yet, in the following revision titled "major rework of article"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erin_Burnett&diff=145984910&oldid=145953933

...ICarriere adds a quote to the page from a fairly obscure blog called jossip.com which is currently ranked #1406 of popularity by the blog aggregator Technorati.

Source: http://technorati.com/blogs/www.jossip.com

The China quote though which has been posted and discussed on multiple blogs in the top #25 of popularity as I have cited above in the talk page yet those are either "slanderous, poorly sourced, or clearly bias(ed)" according to ICarriere's post. The same post which he asks why I'm so full of bile and hatred (for arguing the addition of a quote to WP???) among other baseless attacks. Point being, I think it's a double standard and the constant demonization of those who disagree with him makes me question ICarriere's motives. Aquavit 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Aquavit, I'm sorry to see you've returned to the personal attack montra. That kind of debate is not constructive to the discussion and even less helpful to your case.

Now, as to your argument. You've made some interesting points. While I would agree, the citation of the article on Jossip is not a very good source; I disagree with the defacto notion that we should allow one violation because another exists.

Instead, you've made a good argument for the removal of that quote citation. This is a small problem as the quote can be found in other reliable sources. I refer you back to WP:BLP - ICarriere 22:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi this is DaveFromQueens. I want to put in my arguments as to why the quote MUST be included.

1. It's her most notable quote. 2. It's controversial. 3. It's clearly well sourced and so obviously and 100% fits within Wiki's rules for biographies of living persons.

The source is HER. It played on CNBC and the clip has shown up all over the Internet. All that needs to be done here and the way to resolve the dispute is to simply put up the quote. While I have many adjectives for what she said, the only thing that needs to be resolved is the introductory sentence to the quote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.231.233.164 (talk) 17:28, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Statsone

Good time to get yourself a cup of coffee or tea as this is a long post. It may be in more than one post so please check the history of this page.

I, along with others, have already summarized the reasons to place the Controversy on the main page so there is no need to do so again. My reasons are in the main section entitled Summary and Response [26]. Please reread them so as to not waste time.

As for the rebuttal to the post by ICarriere [27], I will comment on the section line by line if needed. I have tried to put the quotes are written by ICarriere in blue and the WP quotes in red.

ICarriere wrote I have spent considerable .... Wikipedia belongs to noone. Please do not assume you own the page or any parts thereof. You can even look at the comments on your talk page and the comments you leave others. You are one editor and not 3 [28] as you have claimed.

ICarriere wrote Statsone/OptimistBen has argued to add the 'China Quote' to the article. The dispute is whether the comment was spoken with a hint of irony or whether it is indeed a statement which conveys the opinion of Erin Burnett. This is simply incorrect. I do not know the views of others, but to say I want the comments included as the comments convey the opinion of Erin Burnett is simply wrong. I want the comments included as they were spoken by her, are still being talked about, are revelant to the story, and with the current crisises in the stock market, defective Chinese goods, and currency manipulation, it belongs in the story as it is now a part of her life. If she since has made comments that she was either misunderstood, misunderstood the question, or was wrong, then the followup comments belong in the article also.

ICarriere wrote ...quote is an attempt to intentionally cause harm to Ms. Burnett. is worng. reasons above.

ICarriere quoted This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This quote has been repeated many times and has been refuted. The source is a transcript of her from the show she appeared on and an additionally a video of her making the statements. She made the statements. Please do not bring the subject of source up again.

ICarriere quoted Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Same as above.

ICarriere quoted An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'... not a tabloid ...must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. She made the statement on TV under no stress or threat. She was working at the time and was receiving payment as it was her job. There are no privacy matters to deal with here. She did the harm herself. Wikipedia is not spreading any false rumours.

ICarriere wrote The definition of a reliable source states... ...original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we The source is not being discussed here. It has verified. Move on please.

ICarriere wrote As I said before, my concern about the quote is that it was spoken with a hint of irony. And to portray the quote as her opinion seems both deceptive and potentially harmful Irony? She said the quote. She is the owner and needs to deal with the consequences. Is was her opinion when she made them. Please see above.

ICarriere quoted ...do not harm... repeated again.

ICarriere quoted ...even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia... Yes. Discussed above.

ICarriere wrote The second problem I see is whether the quote created a controversy worth mention. Statsone/OptimistBen has argued this point by citing several political blogs and a mention on the Comedy Central's Daily Show. Please state the facts clearly. The source is the Hardball transcipt. Verified. As for the controversy, there is one. The quote is now part of Erin Burnett's life. The sources quotes were in response by a request by Admin Theresa Knott where she asked w.r.t. controversy, if it exists then you can post a link to people discussing in the papers etc? [29] .

As for the Yahoo Groups ICarriere wrote ...fan club... [30], I am surprised you bought that up. It was you that removed a post regarding a fan club [31] and left the comment Please do not add so called fan clubs that are nothing more than a borage of advertisement on a user's page [32].

As for the group itself, it is interesting to note they feel the other incident on the same show where Chris Matthews showed a lack of professionalism and even harrassment [33]. It is a controversy that belongs on the Chris Matthews page and maybe even on the Erin Burnett page as it has received more attention than this quote.

ICarriere wrote What I find even more troubling though, is the source of the so-called controversy. When I did a Google search of the Internet, I found the original post was made on a political blog called the democraticunderground. Again the source is not a blog. It is the transcipt itself. As for the post on the blog, you are confirming it is a controvesy and belongs on this page.

ICarriere quoted ...source... and ...feedback loop in which an unsourced... has been discussed many times and does not need repeating. Please read above.

This has been discussed too long and the obvious diecision is to allow the quote to be entered. I think Controversy was not the best title for the section so I had changed it Controversy dangerous Chinese goods but if anyone has a better suggestion, please put it forward. [34]

Please be civil as discussed before. [35]

Let's reach a concensus, place the quote in the article, and move om.

statsone 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy, sources, etc

I think the only disputable thing here is whether or not this qualifies as a controversy or not, which, in turn, probably depends on whether or not the comment was made in jest. However, I think including the comment seems the safer route as the comment has gathered considerable attention, even getting mention on the Dail Show (which is why I'm even reading this talk page, for instance) and seems to have been said seriously.

The argument on sources is laughable. She said the thing on TV, which can be confirmed through the Hardball transcripts, as many people have pointed out. It was shown on the Daily Show, gathered attention at Digg and Reddit, etc. The fact that the clip was linked to by a blog doesn't mean anything. The fact that ICarriere thinks repeating this argument over and over again makes it right shouldn't sway anyone else. That and posting logged-out and then logging in to thank himself/herself makes it all the more suspicious. 70.112.187.10 05:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This has NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER been an issue of whether a sentence was spoken. I reverted your edits on the simply rationale that you cannot source a controversy by linking to your favorite blog.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

The policy is spelled out with BOLD letters,

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used

Try reading Wikipedia policy before presuming to know something. - ICarriere 16:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem quite rabid about all this, which makes me believe all the more that you should step away from this particular dispute. You clearly are biased and irrational, certainly a bit too invested in something like this. Despite your allegations, I haven't actually edited this entry at all, so you haven't actually reverted anything of mine. You also seem to pull out policy without an understanding of it. The material was not FROM the blog, it was linked TO by the blog. A political blog, of any leaning, linking to clips of, say, the State of the Union Address does not mean referencing the address violates the policy. Besides, plenty of people have made attempts to circumnavigate this trivial concern of yours by, for instance, pointing out that the clip can now be found on the Daily Show's website, which does not fit in any of the categories of the (here inapplicable) policy you keep pasting. It can also be found on the transcript of the show itself.

You keep referring to what Burnett said as a "sentence", which again is also quite telling. Watching the clip, she went on for quite a bit about requirements of safety reducing the capacity to produce the cheapest goods. It's not exactly a novel idea and she isn't the first to profess such things, so it's more than possible that she actually does believe that. What is controversial is that she argued, for instance, that lead remain in children's toys. How you plan to spin this to not be controversial, whether or not it was a slip, is beyond me.

As for it being an error, you claim you have sources but have given none. She hasn't apologized or corrected for it, and even if she did, there is no memory hole in Wikipedia. Don Imus has since apologized several times for his comments, and yet a quick glance at his entry reveals that there it still remains, as it should. Similarily, Trent Lott's comments on Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign, which were far less direct than Burnett's, still remain on Lott's entry page despite his exhaustive efforts to argue that he was not referring to Thurmond's segregationist platform. This said, I would be hard pressed to judge one way or the other if these last two examples were actually errors or simply unintentional candid moments, but it is not our job to take such speculative stances. We have neither the perspective (especially if, as you claim, you are not associated with Erin Burnett) nor the investment to do so. Perhaps you yourself should try reading Wikipedia policy.

Perhaps a fair compromise would be to include a brief sentence after the quote pointing out that she has not, one way or the other, clarified her statement to be a joke, an error or a serious stance. But supressing the information outright seems extreme and, given your behavior and your insistence, suspicious as well. You have already attempted to masquerade as two seperate people (going so far as to thank yourself), efforts which either betray a bias of your own (while you conveniently accuse everyone else of bias) or, worse yet, just way to much time on your hands. 70.112.187.10 21:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

When I considering the number of apparent sock puppets being used on this page it amuses me to see yet another anonymous IP address.

And when I see that anonymous user rehashing the same identical arguments, using the same prose in their writing style, I can't help but laugh.

Do you think that you are building consensus? And no, repeating the lie that I have used a sockpuppet will not fly. Anyone can read my talk page for an explanation of my 1 edit using my IP address.

As to the sources where she clarifies her position, I will provide them when I take the issue at hand to arbitration. But if I'm correct, you and all your user accounts will be disable by then. - ICarriere 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, lo and behold, I haven't been disabled, which must mean you're incorrect (not really a surprise here). I'm not really sure what "prose" you're referring to that is so apparently identical as to illicit laughter, but I can assure everyone (and I'm sure a brief look at the locales of the various IPs can back this up) I'm not posting as anyone else on this discussion page. It's a useful accusation, I'm sure, to avoid the actual content of my arguments, but need I remind you that it's not against the rule to edit anonymously. I simply don't want to register, and perhaps that will change later, but for now that is not the case. Unfortunately for you, this is wholly allowed and therefore doesn't discredit me at all, accusations of sock-puppetry aside.

Anyway, all this said, again: you still haven't addressed my arguments, only claimed (incorrectly) that they're identical to everyone else's. I'm sure they're similar to arguments a lot of people have been making (though I did happen to like my point about Don Imus, for instance), but that might seem to just bolster the fact that you seem to be wrong about all this.

Also, not sure if you've seen it, but Erin Burnett appeared on Joe Scarborough's (August 17) show to try to water down her remarks, though she ultimately made much of the same point ("if you wanted increased safety and quality from China...that might mean you had to pay a little more for it"), this time, however, insisting that she wants safe toys ("we want to have safe toys and safe food but nonetheless, I just wanted to make everyone aware about how cheap China is as a production center"). She also commented that she had been trying to "explain this throughout the week", which makes me think it was perhaps a more serious comment that you're making it out to be.

Isn't it about time we unlocked this article and added the comment back? To date, it's now been referenced by Jon Stewart, appeared on some blogs, been questioned by Joe Scarborough and even Burnett herself admits she's been dealing with explaining this apparent gaff. Seems pretty controversial and note worthy to me, and by the looks of the new posters on this page, most everyone is in agreement with the acception of Icarriere. 70.112.187.10 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: And by the way, ICarriere, despite your accusations or sockpuppetry and insisting that you've explained your own incident, I just read your talk page and your explanation makes no sense. You logged out and posted by accident, and then replied and thanked yourself for what reason exactly? 70.112.187.10 05:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere Wrote This has NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER been an issue of whether a sentence was spoken. I reverted your edits on the simply rationale that you cannot source a controversy by linking to your favorite blog.

Uh? You have been saying this from the beginning. Only after everyone has confirmed the comment has been made, did you start saying there was no controversy. If you read the policy, source is with regards to the original comment. Confirmation of the original source may not come from blogs, etc. The policy doesn't say anything about the controversy can not be on blogs. They are not being repeated here, in fact. --statsone 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This "dispute"

We have reliable sources establishing that Ms. Burnett made the remarks on national television, and there is ample evidence that the incident generated significant attention and controversy. There is nothing beyond sheer speculation to substantiate ICarriere's assertion that she misspoke (though as correctly noted above, if Burnett issues a public statement to this effect, it certainly should be quoted in the article).
ICarriere is attempting to manipulate the article's content to reflect his personal bias (and accusing others of "vandalism" for adding the verifiable and notable information that he seeks to suppress). —David Levy 10:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate your comments David, but you are simply repeated the false argument that was made by statsone.

Q&A:

1) Was the sentence in question spoken by Erin Burnett? Yes.

2) Was the sentence a slip in speaking? Yes.

3) Is this why the Daily Show made fun of the comment? Yes

4) Should it be considered a personal quote then? No

5) Why not? Because the words were spoken in error and since corrected.

6) Do I have citations for this? Yes, I now have 3.

7) Did the mispoken words draw any media attention? Yes

8) Did it draw enough to be considered a bonified 'Controversy'? No

9) Why not? Because we don't hold errors in speaking against a person.

You have to understand that people in the media, become tongue tied all the time. And programs like the Daily Show make fun of these slip ups all the time. That doesn't make it a controversy. And we should not take part in viscious feedback loops.

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention. - WP:BLP

As to my personal bias, I have none. I don't even consider myself a fan of Erin Burnett. I saw her for the first time several weeks ago and heard that fans had created a Wikipedia page for her.

When I went to the page, I saw that it had been vandalized. So it was then that I decided I would make an effort to combat 'special interest' groups from vandalizing Wikipedia.

I hope that an Administrator like yourself David Levy, can set aside your own person 'political' bias and join me in combating vandalism to any page on Wikipedia. - ICarriere 16:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting your numbering. (You had two items numbered "5.")

1. Obviously.

2. What evidence of this is there (beyond your assertion)? Burnett may have misspoken, and it certainly isn't our job to declare that she didn't. It also isn't our job to declare that she did. If this is what she claims, it's our job to mention that in the article.

3. The Daily Show aired (and mocked) Burnett's remarks because of their unusual and controversial nature. This has absolutely no bearing on whether they were spoken intentionally or unintentionally. The program frequently includes comments of both varieties.

4. False. We mustn't pass judgement on Burnett (or claim that the quote definitely represents her actual stance on the issue), but we can and must present the undisputed facts in a neutral manner. For some reason, you wish to shield her from a controversy of her own creation (not ours).

5. If Burnett has issued such a statement, we can quote it in the article.

6. Great! We can include them in the article.

7. Yes, Burnett's remarks (whether or not she misspoke) have drawn considerable media attention (probably more than anything else that she's ever done).

8. That's your opinion.

9. It isn't our place to hold anything against anyone. We simply convey notable facts from a neutral viewpoint. It's very important that we not author biased commentary about statements (such as the aforementioned claim that the quote definitely represents Burnett's actual stance on the issue), but we cite instances in which people obviously misspoke. Such an error can be notable (and is in this case, assuming that Burnett misspoke).

10. Your policy quote is inapplicable to the situation. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "an unsourced and speculative contention." That passage refers to an instance in which someone adds such text to Wikipedia, someone in the media picks it up, and Wikipedia then cites that entity as a source.

11. I can't comment on your opinion of Erin Burnett, but you clearly favor the suppression of information that damages her credibility. This may stem from a notion that such measures should be applied to celebrities in general, but that's beside the point.

I first heard of Erin Burnett yesterday, incidentally.

12. "Vandalism" ≠ "edits of which ICarriere disapproves."

13. What "political bias" are you accusing me of acting on? —David Levy 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Yes, Burnett's remarks (whether or not she misspoke) have drawn considerable media attention (probably more than anything else that she's ever done)."

I hate to say it David, but you claim to know a great deal about Erin Burnett for someone who admits he only heard about her from the Daily Show (shows bias). The other topics on the page have multiple sources from newspaper articles. The 8 second commentary that was made on the Daily Show has not even been written about. Oh wait, it has on the left-wing Blogs.

Next, you claim the policy is inapplicable. Take a look at the page for Jimmy Whales, founder of Wikipedia. Note that his birthday previously show August 8, and now shows only August, 1966; when everyone knows he was born on August 7. Read over the discussion page and you'll see why. It's because the only available sources for citing his birthday as August 7, 1966 are Blogs. Again, Wikipedia WP:BLP policy forbids the use of Blogs as sources.

So my reverts were well within Wikipedia policy. As I have maintained, we document controversy, we don't create it. I was perfectly content to add the quote myself if it had caused considerable controversy.

But as is, the only controversy is right here on the Erin Burnett talk page. And I don't think that counts as we cannot cite Wikipedia as a source either. I refer you back to the WP:BLP.

Seriously, it's good reading, you all should try it sometime. =) - ICarriere 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'd never heard of Erin Burnett until yesterday because she'd never (to the best of my knowledge) done anything that attracted this much attention. I came to the article expecting a neutral write-up, and I was surprised to find that there wasn't one. Then I read this talk page and discovered why.

2. You posted the assumption (on my talk page and yours) that I learned of this incident from The Daily Show (while labeling me a "left-wing Democrat" and accusing me of reading a website that I've never heard of). I explained to you that none of this is true, so I don't know why you're claiming that I "[admit I] only heard about her from the Daily Show." Either you're lying or you failed to comprehend what I wrote. I choose to assume the latter, which goes hand-in-hand with your apparent inability to comprehend the policies that you continually cite.

3. It's been explained to you that the blogs in question are not our sources to verify that the incident occurred. You acknowledge that it did, so what point are you trying to argue? Some sort of technicality?

Incidentally, his name is Jimmy Wales.

4. Your definition of "controversy" clearly doesn't jibe with that of the community. The inclusion of this sort of information is routine. —David Levy 01:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because everyone's doing it, doesn't make it right. Adherence to policy is how you build a world class encyclopedia. This is something that you obviously have not learned. see WP:CIVILITY (Examples) - ICarriere 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You either deliberately misrepresent our policies or you simply don't understand them. Again, I choose to assume the latter. I must say, however, that your comments elsewhere on this page (such as those about left-wing "bile and hate") are making this increasingly difficult. —David Levy 03:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

David Levy THANK YOU. You have said it well. No need to expand. --statsone 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. But I am well verse in corporate policy law and contract law; and these policies are easy to read. They are clear and concise; which means that if you don't understand them, it's your own bias that you can't see past. As for me, I've already said, I don't get a penny for my arguments here. And I don't know, nor am I even a fan of Ms. Burnett.

I only want to build a world class encyclopedia that is free from bias. We do that by adhering to the policies. - ICarriere 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Burnett's "China is our best friend" quote

Any claim that Burnett's comments haven't generated controversy is bizarre in the extreme. Burnett's quotes have been cited and reader-discussed on the most-widely-viewed political blogs and web-sites on the web. That translates to hundreds-of-thousands of web readers at a minimum, and untold-millions of web readers at a maximum. Add to that the tens-of-millions of Daily Show viewers who saw Jon Stewart's piece on the Burnett/China comments, and it's an open-and-shut case: Burnett's 'China' quote clearly belongs in the article (and under the 'Controversy' section). The one editor here who has apparently made it his mission in life to hide knowledge of Burnett's quote from the general public (i.e., by deleting mention of it within this article) should not be allowed to shape the 'Controversy' section to his personal liking. -- J.R. Hercules 01:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. But, several hundred blog entries on left-wing websites does not equal a controversy.

As I said, if it where a bonified controversy (drawing attention for those in the media), I would have added the quote myself. So it's not a question of me trying to hide the comment.

I do think a mention in the Popular Culture section may be appropriate. Something to the effect that she received critism from Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.

But if that were the case, we would have to follow the rules. First, we follow WP:BLP. That is to say we dont' cite BLOGS. Second, we follow WP:NPOV and we don't show bias. That would require a source for the Daily Show and a source for the clarifying statements. But when you've noted (as you must) that she spoke in error, and that she immediately corrected her statement with a clarification, the whole thing becomes pretty damn silly.

That is why I have argued for the exclusion. Celebrity types become tongue tied all the time. The fact that leftwing politics has become so full of bile and hate these days is the real controversy in my mind. - ICarriere 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere wrote ...if it where a bonified controversy... It is. Consensus on this page is such. No need for bile and hate . As stated many time, WP:BLP deals with the initial source of the comment, not the followup. Let us move on. This has been repeated way too many times. --statsone 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by You Idiot Kid

ICarriere - I do not know who you are, but that quotation needs to be on her page. When I edited the page to add it, I did not express any bias and left the quote in full. Regardless of what your opinions obviously are you cannot change what she said in her own words. She did not misspeak, she clearly stated her opinion. Furthermore, I have yet to hear her say anything to the contrary. For you to say she "misspoke" is your own opinion and should not be expressed on this page.

I did not read about this from any "left-wing blog" nor watch it on the Daily Show, I actually watched it on Hardball. I agree that I shouldn't have used the blog as my source, but I do not mind going back and changing my reference to be the actual show. A source does not have to be another internet site - I was merely trying to link to the video.

I think you are out of line here.

Additionally and for the record, I recently created a Wiki account and I am a new user. I have no other accounts. You idiot kid 04:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments by DaveFromQueens

Once again there are still major problems with the wording of the controversy section which shows a tremendous bias toward Ms. Burnett by those eager to protect her from embarrassment.

One - the labeling of Burnett's critics as "liberal" should be removed. I personally think Burnett is an inhuman right wing piece of garbage but that assessment does not belong on Wikipedia's page for her, it belongs here.

Second - the word "misinterpreted" should also be removed. She wasn't misinterpreted. Personally I feel she was trying to backtrack from her comments. Nevertheless, my personal opinion of backtracking is just as inappropriate as the word misinterpreted. The fair way to do this is simply show her quote and then show her followup. Ex - "Burnett later claims she was misinterpreted and said, --------------" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davefromqueens (talk • contribs) 03:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Sock Puppet

For the record:

ICarriere has accussed me of having Sockpuppets [36]. Even though there are more IP addresses he could of put down, he didn't. The case will be rejected as I don't have nor do I need sockpuppets.

ICarriere on the other hand, has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar [37] [38] with full details there. This deserve no further comment. statsone 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

^ You wrote, this deserves no further comment. You say that because, as with the 'Erin Burnett' page, you wish to present only one side-YOURS.

The truth is that the 1 time, and the only time, I edited a page using my IP address was a mistake on my part. I explained here *[39]

When you examine the Wikipiedia policy on Sock Puppetry [WP:SOCK], you will see, using your IP address does not fall into that category. What I was amazed to learn is how a Wikipedia Administrator did not know this.

Finally, since you statsone decided to bring up the complaint I filed against you for violation of WP:3RR and WP:SOCK, you have now made that complaint relevant to this conversation.

For the record, here is the complaint I filed against statsone as a result of repeated attempts to thwart Wikipedia Policy on the Erin Burnett page:

The most recent vandalism was made in violation of WP:BLP on the Erin Burnett page. A controversial quote, under discussion was continually added to the page in violation of WP:3RR by statsone through use of multiple IP addresses.

1) Revert of unsourced school name when sourced school name is already provided:*[40]

+ 23:29, 16 August 2007 - Jafogle

2) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'youtube' as source:*[41]

+ 12:08, 17 August 2007 - statsone

3) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'youtube' as source:*[42]

+ 12:44, 17 August 2007 - statsone

4) Revert to so-called controversy citing 'Political blog' consumerist as source:*[43]

+ 17:19, 17 August 2007 - statsone sock [User:You_idiot_kid|You idiot kid]]

5) Revert to controversial quote citing NO source*[44]

+ 19:02, 17 August 2007 - statsone proxy 4.231.238.99

6) Revert to defamatory statement, "Proving That She Is A Quasi-Fascist"* [45]

+ 20:41, 17 August 2007 - 72.70.224.38

7) Revert to controversy now citing 'Daily Show' as source *[46]

+ 21:20, 17 August 2007 - Ckiddicus

8) Removal of picture from main which violated GNU.*[47]

+ 21:25, 17 August 2007 - Ckiddicus

9) Revert to edit, citing the 'Crooks and Liars' political blog as source*[48]

+ 22:24, 17 August 2007 - statsone proxy 4.231.233.88

10) Revert to edit, citing the 'Crooks and Liars' political blog as source *[49]

+ 03:01, 18 August 2007 - statsone proxy 4.236.222.149

Both OptimistBen and Aquavit are new accounts being used by Statsone via proxy IP addresses. I also believe that Ckiddicus, You idiot kid, and Jafogle are the same person. At the time of my filing this request, their edits were confined to the Erin Burnett page.

Your record statsone by itself speaks volumes. You think that you own Wikipedia and can subvert it's policies. - ICarriere 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this is the place to respond to this allegation nor do I know if I even need to. It certainly won't change ICarriere's mind but for the record I'm no one's sockpuppet just a dude in Pittsburgh, PA USA who came upon this page after seeing a video of the China quote on a blog and was surprised it wasn't included on the page and concurrently waded hip deep into this. I thank ICarriere though, it's been really interesting to see what goes on behind the article page at WP. I've learned a lot! Aquavit 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the request was not because I was certain, but rather to have you verified. Oddly, you accuse me of sock puppetry, when you already admitted to using 24.131.127.14 to make edits on the Erin Burnett page. Now you claim above ^ that you have not made any edits to her page?

The Administrator, Theresa Knott has already stated the entries looked very suspicious. She took no action so I did.

The users in question are Aquavit, OptimistBen, statsone, Ckiddicus, Jafogle, and You idiot kid.

The reason I believe one or more of you are sockpuppets is simple.

1) You have all tried to add similar sources to the page.

- WP:BLP policy clearly states no blogs as sources, so you all have an inability to read the rules.

2) The edits of one account has not occurred at the same time as any of the others.

- You could prove yourself innocent by making an edit at the same time. =)

3) You all write in similar prose.

- A Linguistic Analysis of the page would clearly show this.

4) With the exception of 1-2, the accounts were created after August 15, 2007. And the only contributions have been to the Erin Burnett page.

5) Although each of you are supposedly new to Wikipedia, you are knowledgeable enough to monitor my contribution page. When you find I've made an edit to another user's private talk page, you add your own comment; even though you were not part of the original discussion. (shows paranoia)

You all have read my user page, so you know I'm a Network Administrator. Do you really think you could pull the old Anonymizer proxy trick on me? The fact is that you are either the same person or two people who are very intent on trying to defame someone who has done nothing to you. That's doesn't speak well of your character. - ICarriere 23:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere, I've never accused you of sock puppetry. Though I did read the page where an admin admonished you for thanking yourself for your own support.

I've also never claimed that I've never made edits to the page. As you know, in a previous post, I pointed out my IP address so you would know which edits were mine before you inspired me (let the pride wash over you) to register a WP account.

In response:

1. I haven't looked at the sources that others have tried to include but if they are the Consumerist site or any of the others from major blogs or the Daily Show that I have listed I imagine that they have been seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

2. I don't see how that would provide evidence either way.

3. Really? I ran my own Linguistic Analysis on the page and it said that WE have a similar style of prose. Maybe I'm your sockpuppet... wait, maybe you're MY sockpuppet! :O I think we should try posting at the same time just to double check.

4. Maybe it's because that's immediately after her quote caused so much controversy which drew people to her WP page to learn more only to find... this.

5. Once you've found the history page of edits it's not hard to click the contrib link next to your name. It's there quite a few times.

Actually, I didn't know you were a Network Admin. Happy belated Network Admin day! Aquavit 01:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere wrote shows paranoia . Really? I am trying to edit an article. Nothing more. --statsone 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

..The truth is that the 1 time, and the only time, I edited a page using my IP address ... is not true. You have many edits with the IP address and as far back as July 20, 2007 [50] and the first edits were to the Erin Burnett page.

As for the complaint, I did place a link in my comments so there was no need to place a copy of the link on this page. As for the allegations themselves, I am surprised you even bothered. I am in Canada - as per my user page, and you accussed me of using IP addresses in Broomfield, CO [51] (4.*.*.*) and Reston, VA [52] (72.70.224.38). A waste of time for the admins who are looking after the page. --statsone 07:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The way sock puppetry works (I'm sure you know this despite playing innocent), is that you can be anywhere in the world and use a proxy IP address, which looks like you are somewhere else.

So you can be in Canada and look like you are in Broomfield, CO, or Reston, VA. But you know all of this, don't you? - ICarriere 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Theresa Knott, on what grounds did you block the 2 accounts? 

An request for checkuser has been made [53] and it a very weak one. Please explain as you are essentially accussing me of having sockpuppets. --statsone 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I blocked a couple of obvious sockspuppets that's all. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why obvious? They both contributed to the story and had different style. Aquavit even said he registered an account [54] to participate. It looks like ICarriere is having his way when there is a discussion gong on. He has made a request for checkuser and seem he knows he will not like the results so he is bringing up the possibility of an Anonymizer with no proof whatsoever. I do not know the two individuals you blocked nor did I communicate with them through email. Please review your actions and the actions of ICarriere|ICarriere . --statsone 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Statstone please do me a favour. Either comment here or on my talk page. I've unblocked Aquavit as I'm not 100% sure on that one. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How are they obviously sockpuppets? Please cite your evidence before making a move like this: do they have the same IPs? Are the IPs even based in the same area? The insouciance with which you block people is worrying. OptimistBen 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know from experience. Same reasons I'm suspicious of you. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Actually, turns out I'm a complete twat. I've undone all blocks and hope that the user's involved will forgive my stupidity. I'm sorry. What I think is really happening is that we are getting newbies coming here form forums such as here where they are linking to this very talk page. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the Erin Burnett link as you've indicated, Theresa Knott . I could be wrong, but the only link I see on that page is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

Next, I realize that Admins don't have the ability to detect a sock puppet and that is why I submitted the WP:CHECKUSER request.

Finally, as to the question of whether or not this person is using multiple accounts, I think it's clear. We will just have to wait and see. - ICarriere 22:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Look further down the page. The poster's name is romaitaf. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I see it now. I have to hand it to you, you have very good eyes. - ICarriere 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is it "clear"? The only thing that is clear is your refusal to accept these changes, ICarriere. While I do not feel the need to prove anything to you - please let me know how I can show you that i am a completely independent party and I will. You idiot kid 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only apologise for my unfair block. There is no need for you to prove anything. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The main reason new people are coming here is not from obscure Reddit links but more because the controversial quote elicits a universal response and has been covered in some of the widest-reaching US blogs as well as the Daily Show. So far it seems that we've reached all the consensus we will ever reach: statsone, myself, Aquavit, You idiot kid, and David Levy believe that the quote can be added while ICarriere and perhaps Theresa Knott disagree. OptimistBen 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I don't disagree. I've pretty much deliberately sttayed out of it as being English I cannot evelate the sources. However I'm doing a bit of research on the web as we speak and will offer an opinion shortly. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I just posted the same thing on your talk page Theresa before I started reading this page. Just to reiterate, I agree with OptimistBen, it's hundreds that might have seen the reddit comment about the talk page while maybe a couple million have seen the quote via major blogs (each I cited above get hundreds of thousands of a readers a day) or the Daily Show (1.4 million viewers a night according to the WP page). Aquavit 13:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as you wish to convey a miscontrued comment as fact, you now cite misconstrued statistics as facts.

First, page views are not the same as people. I am one person for example who has come to this page hundreds of times, generating hundreds of page views. That does not mean that I count as hundreds of people.

Second, while a main page of a popular blog may receive many viewers, each topic on a blog may only receive 1/25th as many viewers (I know, I manage websites for a living)

Third, if you look on these blogs you'll note the page views are listed and none of come anywhere close to millions. - ICarriere 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I don't think anything will make Aquavit, happy short of a defamatory comment in large bold print. - ICarriere 14:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I don't know what else can be said about the comment beyond what I and everyone else has said here to you before. You will always think there is a conspiracy out to get this person.

Where did you get that I meant "page views" from? You can put out your straw man, I said readers. Let's say you are right though and it's more like only thousands a day that read the major blogs I cited above. Then a little less than 1.5 million people saw the quote recently. My point about people coming to the page because of the quote vs. the reddit comment is still the same. Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with you. I'm saying to Theresa Knott that her reasoning behind why I'm not a sockpuppet isn't that great and maybe the traffic is for another reason.

What will make me happy is to see that one person, who for whatever motivations, cannot whitewash WP. I think the reason people care about the result of this is a lot because of your attitude. Everyone who disagrees with your opinion is demonized. We're an "angry fool" or "slanderous" or spouting "bile and hatred" or an admin has a "political bias" or we should "look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really like the person you see". In the end, we're all sockpuppets and it's a big conspiracy against a person that most people haven't heard of until the quote came out last week. It's just silly. Aquavit 15:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Source for the China Quote

Here is a direct link to the Hardball transcript. It is in plain black and white, in her own words.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249441/

There is no need to link to youtube or a blog, there it is. You idiot kid 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And here is one where she defends her earlier comments. I would say that having to defend earlier comments proves that there must have been some controversy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we are well on our way for a nice "Controversy" section. You idiot kid 23:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

here is an online clip of the daily show quip. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no dispute about whether she said it or not. The idea that it became a bonified controvery is open to debate (not to mention, on going).

Now, as far as the source, I like Jossip-I used that website before, but Aquavit made a good argument about that website being a BLOG, which is prohibited by WP:BLP.

That's no problem though, as I have a direct sources for the misconstrued statement, and two direct sources where her clarification is given.

If you read my previous comments above, you'll see that I've said, I have no problem with adding the information. My concern has always been about following the rules found in WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

I don't mean to be a policy wonk, but them's the rules. - ICarriere 01:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The website maybe a blog, but it is showing a legit video clip from the Daily show. I believe the Daily show is big name show yes? So having the mickey taken out of you on a show like that would indicate that there is some controversy. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think getting laughed at on the Comedy Central's Daily Show is the same as having the mikey taken out of you. But I do agree that her mention on the Daily Show warrants an add to the page.

As to the source, we really don't need Jossip, when we have the direct link to the clip on the Daily Show.

There are several ways to do this while adhering to Wikipedia policy. And in all honestly, I would have added the Daily Show mention myself, had I not been so busy reverting poorly sourced edits and blatant vandalism to the page. - ICarriere 02:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this is all well and civil, but I still don't know why you, ICarriere, are acting as the moderator of this wikipage. As far as I see it, we do not need permission from you to add anything to this page as long as it is a consensus and has proper sourcing. A number of members of this community called for the change, added a perfectly valid quotation, and you took it down because of your own preconceived notions as to what should be represented on this page. It is not Wikipedia's place to clarify anything she said as that would appear to be opinion or commentary. We have a valid source (the Hardball transcription) and that is all we need to add it to the quotation section. I think it would be good to add her explanation, as long as there was a valid source to go with it. You idiot kid 04:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, the items you and others added were poorly sourced (BLOGS) and in violation of the WP:BLP policy. I removed them for that reason alone. We want quality not quantity here. I have to say that I am amazed at how many people want to turn Wikipedia into a Gossip rag.

Can we not come together on the notion that we at least want to do a good job in presenting the facts? - ICarriere 11:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we're all so sorry for this oh so aggrevious violation of WP:BLP policy. However, now the "poorly sourced" (BLOGS) items can safely be replaced with more legitimate sources should be more than acceptable to your particular interpertation of Wikipedia policy. These sources now include the actual transcript as well as the clip from The Daily Show. Forget the fact that posting a clip to the actual video clip, regardless of what site it's on, should be a good source anyway (after all, people weren't quoting from the blog to bolster their facts, only pointing to the video posted there), the original poster has since apologized for this and many, many, many users have suggested alternatives. So what's up now?

Though, of course, why you should be the deciding force here is beyond me. I have to say I am amazed at how you want to turn Wikipedia into ICarriere's Personal Playpen. It is not, I assure you. Going to go ahead and request the quote be added. 70.112.187.10 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? And why do you, like all the other puppets, have Statsone's welcome stamp on your 'discussion page'.

Honestly, it's so obvious I'm laughing out loud. The fact is that nothing should be posted by you or the other puppets until the WP:CHECKUSER request is complete.ICarriere 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add a special thank you, for all the wonder contributions you've made to Wikipedia. Here are a few that I found in your 'contrib' list:

Hugh G. Rection, Dick Hertz

but the nipples and pubic area covered

It's black tie optional, attire optional means maybe naked. - ICarriere 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, this is getting so lame. Here, I logged in. I'm sure I'll still get plenty of accusations of sock puppetry, as ICarriere really seems to be sick. Anyone who opposes him/her is in on some conspiracy, despite the fact that the tons of IP addresses he/she has listed come from different regions. And who knows what you're talking about with these other contributions, or why you think such personal attacks are relevant to the discussion. Anyway.

Given that your own personal page shows an odd inclination to focus on MSNBC, and that you apparently claim to have special knowledge of what Erin Burnett meant or not, you should be the one refraining from posting. Your attempt at a dictatorship over this entry page has been rebutted and the only laughable thing here is your attempts. This quote will get added to the entry despite what you say, because this is a DEMOCRATIC community, and not one run by you. This has become absurd and I urge the admins to deal with this situation soon, as I've put through a request, because users like ICarriere make projects like Wikipedia seem less attractive and invite less participation due to their bullying tactics. Hadjisofi 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I am glad you are having a laugh. I am not sure who Statstone is and I am not sure why I have a welcome message from him... perhaps it could be because he is part of a "Welcoming Committee" as it is clearly stated on his profile page? The only thing funny here is your self-righteous paranoia. You idiot kid 18:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, but why would you respond so quickly to a comment I made for someone else? Let see? Maybe because, you are the same people. - ICarriere 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because this is on my watchlist and I am at my computer all day because I have no life? You posted this comment on a thread topic I created. I understand your concern for the puppets. In fact, I would even agree with you that some things do look suspicious, but as Theresa Knott said in her talk page, you seem to be seeing what you want to see.

Your Words: 1) "You have all tried to add similar sources to the page. - WP:BLP policy clearly states no blogs as sources, so you all have an inability to read the rules." Yes this is true, but that is only due to the lack of familiarity among the new users who joined soley to edit this page (myself included).

2) "The edits of one account has not occurred at the same time as any of the others. - You could prove yourself innocent by making an edit at the same time. =)" I wouldn't know how to do this, I don't know who these people are nor when they are online. Furthermore, I have tried to make edits at least twice and get an error message saying that someone has edited at the same time as me - so is this even possible?

3) "You all write in similar prose. - A Linguistic Analysis of the page would clearly show this." I don't think this is true, but you are entitled to your opinion. However, please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and we all know how wiki articles are written. I think, if anything, our prose is similar to the style commonly found on WP.

4) "With the exception of 1-2, the accounts were created after August 15, 2007. And the only contributions have been to the Erin Burnett page." I agree, this does look suspicious. However, I joined on the 17th of August, the date of the airing of the Daily Show quip when I was able to see how to spell her name and search for her WP-bio.

5) "Although each of you are supposedly new to Wikipedia, you are knowledgeable enough to monitor my contribution page..." I am new user to wikipedia, but i am not new to wikipedia. I know how this site works. Besides, it's not all that hard, plus I have an interest in this page and have been following its comments all over WP.

I think it would be best to drop this puppet talk and get to the point of editing this page. Now, without mentioning puppetry, can you please express clearly your major objections to adding a Controversy section and including EB's original quote from Harball, her appearance on The Daily Show (pop culture ref), and her subsequent explanation for her original quote? You idiot kid 20:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the quote. It can be sourced properly, and being mentioned on the Daily Show is enough to convince me that it has generated some significant controversy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection removed

Unproteceted - been long enough. Be nice now :-) Vsmith 02:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the edits just made and reprotect. It would have been better to have an edit reached here and then placed by an admin. --statsone 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Anyone is free to edit. Should the edit war resume, then it may be re-protected. Feel free to edit the page to add verifiable information. Vsmith 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I added what I believe is a compromise to the page. I still don't believe a mention on the Daily Show qualifies as a bonified controversy. Especially, since the comment had already been clarified by Erin Burnett.

That said, I understand the arguments that have been presented here and I hope this will bring the issue to a close.

In case it has not, I took the added measure of alerting the Erin Burnett fan club to the situation. So, I'm sure if someone wants a fight, a fight they will now have.

But honestly, don't we all have better things to do? I know I do. - ICarriere 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I'm sure if someone wants a fight, a fight they will now have.

I'd say that comment was most unwise considering the situation. We're here to seek consensus and a compromise between differing viewpoints. Threatening a fight is not the way to achieve consensus. Vsmith 03:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just semi-protected the page based on User:ICarriere's ill advised recruitment and fight threat. Vsmith 03:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't mean to inflame the situation. Feel free to strike my last comment.

As you all know, someone posted a link to this page on several leftwing blogs. In response to that action, I decided on Monday to make her fans aware of the situation.

Setting this particular debate aside, the situation is that the Erin Burnett page has been repeatedly vandalized.

Comments like, "Quote Proving She's a Quasi-Fascist" should be reverted by someone.

And since, I am not a fan of Erin Burnett, I thought the best way to bring balance to the situation was to alert her fans to what has taken place.- ICarriere 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You've got some issues ICarriere I think the rest of us will work out a non-biased, accurate depiction of the events. Why don't you just go hang out at the EB fan club. You're something else You idiot kid 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere's new edit of the page

I'm not going to change the article page because I know that ICarriere would just revert my edits and we'd be back to where we started in this whole mess and I'm going to bed soon but it can't go without remark.

1. He didn't put the quote on the page!!!! It's what the controversy is about, you have to be kidding.

2. His personal editoral slant: "liberal talk show host Jon Stewart", "mis-interpreted comment", "immediately clarified".

a) Jon Stewart might be liberal, I don't know if he claims to be or not, but I don't see how it pertains to this at all.

b) That the comment is "mis-interpreted" is ICarriere's editorial bias. While I don't believe that Erin Burnett wants toys to have lead in them, I do believe that her still means her point about sacrificing quality and safety for cost. Why force either view down the readers throat? Why not let her words about the quote speak for themselves and let the reader draw their own conclusion?

c) Days later isn't an "immediate" clarification.

3. ICarriere has the quote a bit off. It's tough to transcribe live speech and I'm not giving him a hard time about this. Here is what I caught when I listened to the video. I ask others to please double check.

"You know this follows what you and I were talking about, it's happened to Mattel a couple of times. Toys made in China, there are some safety questions about toys made in China, alright, that's the fact."

"And you and I were talking about, this is what people got upset about. I had said, that look, if people want to start making toys, and by extension a lot of other things guaranteed to be safe and make them in China, then the costs of production are going to go up in China and that means prices at Walmart may to go up too."

"China has kept prices low in this county and that's why I called China our friend the other night on Hardball."

"You know, Chris, nobody wants Children to play with toys that aren't safe. Nobody wants that. I don't want that, you don't want that but safety and quality come with a price."

4. I think a Controversy banner is more appropriate than a Popular Culture banner.

5. Lastly, I encourage people to chip in on what should be on the article's page. I don't think ICarriere should be able to dominate the moderation of this. He was wrong about excluding the quote in the first place and has shown poor judgement repeatedly. Aquavit 03:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So Erin Burnett has no M.B.A. and No M.S. in Economics or Finance?

So it is clear that Erin Burnett has no real formal educational credentials beyond the undergraduate level in economics or finance or anything? She doesn't even know the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation. She does talk a lot, but actually conveys remarkably little. (Not that that makes her atypical for a CNBC Talking Head.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reflection

Having recovered from a long 4 hour drive, I was going to do a summary, consensus, and recommendation to start a consensus edit for an admin to change the article. But, it has been unprotected so that is late.

Unfortunately, it will not look at if will stay that way long, but I will give it a try. Just the lack of a NPOV and the quoting of blogs, which a few days ago was against [WP:BLP], shows the edit war will start anew.

I also have used this edit to revert the vandalism of a user, who was warned [55] not to change the edits of others. I hope that individual will respect the comments of others. This page is the talk page and not the main page so changes are handled a little different.[56]. I see no reason for that user to change the headings of others or to place a major heading as a minor sub-heading . ADMINS PLEASE ENFORCE.

I will edit the main page in a bit but need to put forward a few comments. I will not place all the references here as many are already on this page so they don't really need to be duplicated.

Just sometimes it is better to argue with a wall instead of a person. After a while, the wall will talk back to you and then after a little while longer, will agree with you.

Having put up with a lack of civility, stubborness, threats, misquotes, and parania, it is time to end the ridiculous debate. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on the views of an editor who owns a page. If the change to the page can not be agreed on quickly, or an edit war starts again, then I ask an admin to protect the page again and bring this forward to arbitration as it is now wasting everyone's time for no good reason. I am not asking for my edit to be the final, but will see what will happen. In fact, others are invited to edit as that is what wikipedia is. The truth needs to be heard and enough of the edit war that is way too one sided.

As for signings, it seems some don't understand how to. After editing a page, place 4 of the ~ at the end. This will automatically place your name ( with a link) and a date stamp. It is also good practice to preview your edit before saving the page. Also, place an edit summary as this helps in some cases when a quick review is done.

Please, everyone be nice and civil. --statsone 04:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I apologize for not signing some comments and then editing them with a sig. Have you been to User:Theresa knott's talk page? She listed some good sources there. You idiot kid 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No she didn't. ICarriere did. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for China Quote entry

Alright, let's use this space to come to a consensus regarding the quotation and format.

I believe the majority of us want to include the following: 1. Header = Controversy 2. The Hardball quotation in full + Hardball transcript source 3. Reference of quotation on The Daily Show + video link. This was also just briefly mentioned on the program iCought, but I didn't want the full thing - anyone else see this? 4. EB's explanation + source.

It should not include any of the following: 1. Any sort of opinion or judgement on what she said. Avoiding polemic adjectives such as "liberal talk show host." You idiot kid 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree/disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by You idiot kid (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, everywhere you look on Wikipedia. The bias of a talk show host is noted.

Whether it's the conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh or the liberal talk show host Jon Stewart it's relative. It's not a negative in either case, it's merely descriptive of their views. Furthermore, showing the bias of where commentary comes from reduces the bias of the article. see, WP:NPOV

As to the quote, it became irrelevant once it was clarified. - ICarriere 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this addition while I was putting in the quote. I have tried to place an edit with a wp:npov so it looks like it is a good place to start. I would like to see some better references for the comments by Jon Stewart and the follow comments later on. --statsone 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you reverted my add. That did not help move us closer to a resolution. Nor was it done by any consensus.

What I inserted into the article was a fair depiction of the events. Anybody who reads the page can watch the videos and decide for themselves. - ICarriere 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about labeling JS as a "liberal talk show host" but I wonder if that is what he would consider himself? Where is the line between fact and opinion here? Furthermore, I think the original quote should be in there so those who come to read this page can see what exactly stirred the controversy and why exactly she felt the need to clarify. You idiot kid 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We cannot call him liberal unless he calls himself liberal. We certainly cannot state "The mis-interpreted comment". That is pure opinion and certainly violates NPOV. According to his Wikipedia article Jon Stewart is a political satirst. Why not call him that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The China quote section definitely needs revision as it stands. Burnett's original comment clearly generated controversy - she would not have felt the need to clarify/backtrack (unprompted) the following week otherwise. Yet ICarriere removed this quote as "vandalism", leaving only the second of the two quotes. Surely we need the inclusion of both quotes in the section? And either "satirist" or "comedian" is a better label for Stewart than "talk show host". Gr1st 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not the only one who's tired of ICarriere's playing games with this article. Somehow, the editing of an entire article is being bent to the will of a single editor who's all-but-functioning as Burnett's damage-control PR representative. If any further deletion of the original Burnett/China quote occurs, or if any repeated inclusion of weasel-wording like "misinterpretion" happens, then some sort of action is required to prevent the editor-in-question with having any further say with this article, period. -- J.R. Hercules 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think both J.R. Hercules's [57] and Gr1st's [58] version for the China quote section are pretty good. Though J.R. Hercules's missed the end of the clarification quote "...but safety and quality come with a price." which I think is important as it's really the subject's main thesis. Aquavit 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dave From Queens Opinion

I have never seen someone as dishonest and disreputable at this site (granted I'm fairly new, I usually edited anonymously and never bothered to sign up out of laziness) than this ICarriere. I sincerely hope someone with power just looks at this thread and permanently blocks this person's power to edit here. It's beyond ridiculous. The quote did not come from Jon Stewart, it came from Erin Burnett and was said on Hardball.

ICarriere obviously has a bias and probably is part of the Erin Burnett Fan Club, she being the elitist who makes Marie Antoinette seem slightly more compassionate. And I too have a bias as you can infer.

But I think we are close to a consensus WITHOUT ICARRIERE that is 100% neutral. Simply quote her first remark, then you segway into the next paragraph and say, "The following day on Hardball EB said, ....."

Words like clarify are still biased although better than "correcting a misinterpretation." I personally don't feel she was "clarifying." I personally feel she was spinning, that she was given that quote to say ahead of time by someone else and she just delivered the sound bite when prompted by Matthews. I wouldn't be surprised if she read it from the teleprompter.

That said, just remove any of the biased adjectives and biased vivid verbs that are remaining and replace them with blander language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.186.83 (talk) 12:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Request for protection

I have made a request for full prtection. --statsone 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and support this request. You idiot kid 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

From a neutral third party

I think the article is fine the way it is written now. The Daily Show is a notable source and to get on it usually means you did something pretty notable (usually not in a good way). ICarrere, you are seriously harping on WP:BLP and ignoring WP:CON and WP:OWN. I don't want to dissuade you from editing but let it go. From someone who happened upon this article and the talk page, it is you who seems out of line. Spryde 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As someone who has been here since the beginning the quote looks great as it is now. Although, I hate how she said "a extension" and not "an extension" but I guess we can't correct her own grammar. Should we clean up the rest of the article, and by that I mean should we get rid of the second quote in the "Quotes" section as its source seems to violate the no blogs rule? You idiot kid 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, reading it, that blog sourced it from Portfolio.com. I will update the source at is would be more appropriate Spryde 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed the title of the reference ( minor edit) --statsone 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a neutral third party too, I think: I think that having the two quotes together connected by the Daily Show comment presents the matter neutrally, and it should stand as is.--SarekOfVulcan 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Ossified

Frankly, this one seems like a no-brainer. (1) Erin Burnett's comments on China are the most notable thing that she's ever uttered since being on TV. I'd never even heard of her until I heard about what she said about Chinese-manufactured toys (which is what brought me to this page). Second, there's more than ample proof from reputable sources that she said it. Any denial of that smacks of wikilawyering to me. Third, it seems that the same people who set the bar extraordinarily high when it comes to proving that she made the statement, set an extraordinarily low bar for demonstrating that she said it accidentally, or that it wasn't what she really meant to say. This appears to demonstrate a violation of WP:NPOV. Ossified 04:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what she said was an "accident." I believe what she said was stupid, and she realized that and corrected herself. But these words didn't magically, accidentally, fall out of her mouth. She chose them and regretted it. I think that once the majority of us found a reputable source for her correction, we were all in favor of including that. You idiot kid You idiot kid 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Consensus is a beautiful thing! The result on this page is quite good. Ossified 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing Edit by 65.7.153.91

Greetings, I am reverting your additions as they appear to be POV/slanted. I am assuming good faith so if you could either source or provide verification of the statements without the loaded words ("curiously") put in, please do so! Spryde 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Gr1st did before I did... Spryde 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So much for neutral...

Ok, after watching this page for awhile, I guess I am now involved a bit. Looking at the school for her, it seems there is a bit of confusion on where she went to school. I have one source that says St. Andrew's School in Potomac, Maryland and a internet fan site that says it is this St. Andrew's School. Since verifiable and reliable source trumps fan site, I gotta revert to that version. Logic also dictates that since she grew up in MD, that she went to high school in MD however knowing the area she grew up in, rich people can trump logic sometimes... Spryde 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And yet this WashPo article says she went to boarding school in Delaware. Is it possible she went to two schools named St Andrew's? Gr1st 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now this sucks. Two sources that are conflicting. One is a op-ed piece (Howard Kurtz is a media critic/journalist) and the other is a profile in a industry trade publication. The area that she grew up in on the Eastern Shore is near Middletown but pretty damn upscale which lends to the school in Potomac (upscale prep academy as well). Any other reliable sources we can find to break the tie? :) Spryde 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Kurtz is a better source, but in any case Potomac is a long way from the Eastern Shore, and the Potomac SAS isn't boarding. ASt this point I'd say the scale tips in favor of the Delaware school. I'd check for a yearbook but I'd have to recover my login and I don't have time to do that right now. Mangoe 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed to the Delaware one and eliminated the "most likely" quote for now (I'm a bit dubious), though I'm not adamant about its exclusion. Mangoe 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The source seems valid. Did you want the quote removed because it wasn't sourced or because it wasn't appropriate? --statsone 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere, just wondering why you changed the birth location? We have two sources citing different locales. Spryde 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The SAS material is out for now

I've cut out the "St. Andrews School" material for now, since we have plainly contradictory information. I'm going to try to get access to SAS (Delaware) yearbooks today and see if she shows up there. Please don't put anything back unless we find a new source. To recap the problems:

• All sources say she grew up on the eastern shore.
• One source is claiming she went to a "St. Andrew's School" in Maryland; another claims it is the one in Potomac.
• Another source is claiming that she went to the SAS in Delaware.
• We have no evidence she ever lived on the other side of the bay.
• None of the Maryland SASs are boarding-- certainly the Potomac one isn't.

I've found another scrap of evidence, which is not (unfortunately) definitive. Here we have a workshop by one Robert Rue which has a recco by the headmaster of the Delaware SAS based upon Mr. Rue's tenure there as a faculty member. It also has the follow recco from Ms. Burnett: "I still remember Bobby Rue's probing, patient questions about literature that expanded my mind and enabled me to reach my own conclusions. He was an outstanding and beloved teacher who brought insight and humor to the classroom." I don't think this is an ironclad proof, but it strongly implies that she studied under him at the school in Delaware. Mangoe 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your last change because I think it's poorly written (sorry). Also, we don't removed well sourced information without replacing it with newly sourced information.

I applaud your research into the subject, but more is needed to establish your claim.

To the contrary, Delaware is almost 100 miles away from where she grew up (see map). The reference cited states she attended SAS (Maryland). That reference is from one of the few interviews that she has given. That's not to say it couldn't be an error.

But, please wait to change until we have more information or at least one good citable contrary source.

If we already have a citable source, replace with Delaware and referece that source. Korismo 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have a source: the Howard Kurtz article that has been cited. I've also found at least two other sources that suggest the same, though it requires more inference from them than I am comfortable with. There are also several fan sites that agree with Kurtz; I haven't looked into them further since, after all, they're fan sites.

Left's go through it again:

• Potomac is just NW of DC, on the opposite side of the bay from where she is said to have grown up. The St. Andrews there is a day school. It is impossible for a kid to commute that far every day.
• The St. Andrews in Delaware is a boarding school, so distance is no impediment; moreover, it offers squash and field hockey, which the article you prefer says she played. The Potomac school does not, and given its history, it's a sure bet it has never offered squash.
• While I'm at it, she is quoted in the article as saying that she could only get three TV stations in her hometown. Washington DC has affiliates of all four major networks, plus two PBS stations and a couple of other stray UHF stations. In the Maryland suburbs you can also get the Baltimore stations to some degree, plus MPT. Even as far away as Frederick you can pick up more than three stations.
• The statements are not quotes from the interview; they are statements by the reporter.

What the evidence suggests is that she said that she went to "St. Andrews School", and the reporter, ignorant of geography, assumed that it was the Potomac, Maryland one. The only reason I haven't definitely settled on the Delaware one is that the evidence is thus far not incontroverible. Mangoe 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have me all wrong. I said, if you have a source, add it to the page. I've reverted your last edit and replaced Maryland with Delaware. That should make everyone happy except maybe ICarriere.

Now, please add the source you have to the page under refereces. Thank you. Korismo 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Too late, I've already added the source. That should end this mess. Korismo 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at her yearbook and confirmed that she went to the Delaware SAS. I also have an accurate cite for the "most likely to..." claim (the old version wasn't entirely accurate). Mangoe 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a problem with the "ironclad source", the link doesn't work. I think we should reverse the change until the link can be fixed. Thanks 67.185.223.19 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a 38M PDF. Give it a chance to load. Mangoe 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, the 20 year... Erin: Talk Show Host should not replace the previously written comment. There was no reason to remove, where she was voted "Most Likely To Host a Talk Show. They are not mutually exclusive statements. And while the yearbook was an interesting read, I don't know that it belongs on a Wikipedia.

Also, I checked with the SAS privacy policy and the yearbook is not considered public information. Access to the book requires a secure login credential, which means it really should not be used a source. Korismo 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no privacy policy on the library's website, and I do not require any kind of secure access to get at the yearbook. It is true that there was a time when the yearbooks were so hidden, but they are not hidden now. And as far as the reliability of the B&C story is concerned, it's wrong about what school she attended, and it doesn't source its information. The yearbook statement has an absolutely reliable source, so that's what's going in the article until someone comes up with a new source. I'm frankly inclined to strip the B&C story out entirely as a source.Mangoe 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the conversation, but why would you strip out the B&C source? Because, they made an error in reporting a single item? Huh?

Also, I can't download the PDF from SAS. Is anyone else having this problem? - ICarriere 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting for your pleasure...) Well we can cite the information from other sources which means we can avoid any possible issues at a later date just in case they get anything else wrong as well. Something as simple as high school attended should have been something very easy to factcheck. The fact someone guessed really is not a good thing for that article. Regarding the download, I had trouble at first. It is a very large file that I downloaded to disk instead of using Adobe Reader to open instantly. I can confirm she is on the page specified in the citation. It must be nice having a whole page to yourself in the yearbook (or not...). Spryde 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the two remaining cites, the one is a direct quotation (presumably from an interview for the story) so it is safe. The one about her sisters I'm ambivalent about, but for now I'm not inclined to challenge it. Mangoe 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a student here at St. Andrew's (class of '08) (check my IP address) here in Middletown, DE I can tell you that Ms. Burnett did indeed go here: I've asked the teachers, she's in the yearbook from 1994 in our library (the physical copy, not the pdf). All the confusion over the place of schooling is understandable. St. Andrew's is a boarding school, which might clear up why she'd live in MD but go to school in northern DE. It seems to have been one minor mistake that snow balled when big wigs like Kurtz relied on, ironically enough, unreliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.45.114 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome 76.160.45.114! Thanks for the further followup. One thing is that Kurtz actually got it right (as opposed to B&C). Spryde 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Back for another round of pain

I have just removed a few items I can't verify ("International Superstar") and the exact Birthday. In all the sources provided, I see age 31 but no exact day. Until we can get a reliable, verifiable source, it has to go. Spryde 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the "now cited" reference to "International Superstar". The "International Superstar" comment was added by KevinAction, who I'm sorry to say is simply wrong.

Joe Scarborough begins and ends his segment with EB by saying, "with us today, international superstar, Erin Burnett" or "that was international superstar, Erin Burnett". The comment by Scarborough is clearly used as filler, not as a nickname. A nickname would be a name in place of the persons name. This is used in addition to the persons name.

I get the feeling that people are a little too anxious to contribute to this article. I realize Erin Burnett is beautiful and all, but come on people -- it's an encyclopedia article. - ICarriere 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people do seem to want to contribute. SamanthaG (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I could find a source which refers to her as "money honey", but I can't convince myself that's very encyclopaedic.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Archive Discussion page?

This page has become very long. If anyone knows how to archive pages, it would be great to have that done. - ICarriere 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. SamanthaG (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Public reactions regarding camel cull story

Some nitwits keep insisting on removing the camel cull story, on the basis that Burnett's pet names are worthy of being in an encyclopedia but a global incident where she insulted the leader of a country is not. Get over yourselves and allow the controversies to stay on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section:

Subsequent to the rant, fierce reaction from informed Australian citizens has been vehemently against the comments made by Burnett. Comments have suggested that "Burnett clearly has no clue" and "...having never traveled to Australia and seen the environmental impact, these comments have been clearly made by an ill-informed, bat shit insane television presenter who should probably stick to wrongly predicting finance". "She should just fuck off, stupid sheila having no clue what's going on in Australia but feel like they can comment on our domestic affairs.. Get back in the kitchen love, or I'll jump on my 'roo and come get you.".

Other than some minor concerns with the wording ("rant" may be accurate but is far from NPOV, and there is no way to know if the posts really were from "informed Australian citizens"), my main concern is that it relates to comments made on the News story, and thus is simply relating the equivalent of non-notable, highly opinionated forum posts and is very much one sided. If the story has legs then there will be better commentary to use, and if not then this is, at best, undue weight, and at worst attacking the subject. - Bilby (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support removal. Blogs, chat-sites, and web-forums are not WP:RS, even if they are attached to a WP:RS story. Editor analysis of blog patterns is WP:OR. DMacks (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blog/comments countering the claim should not be included but her comments are getting widespread coverage by reliable news sources in several countries.[59]][60][61][62][63][64][65] Removing the section entirely is inappropriate. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No section on this ignorant bitches comments about Australias prime minister? It made headlines worldwide and should be here.

I don't know why Australians are so hell-bent on killing camels, but opposition to animal cruelty hardly makes a person "ignorant." Also, referring to the "bitches" [sic] comment is offensive to women, every bit as much as the word "nigger" or "gook." Hanxu9 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Erin Burnett has a habit of making odd comments and then backtracking. In my mind, it would be appropriate for there to be a section on Controversies including the China story and the Rudd story. Perhaps something along these lines:

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following section to the Erin Burnett biography, as this event created widespread media coverage globally: Australian Camel Controversy

On Wednesday August 5, 2009 Erin Burnett presented a story on the CNBC segment, "Stop Trading Listen to Cramer!" to launch an apparent attack on the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd regarding the Australian Government's plans to cull Australian feral camels in the outback. Burnett started the story after a segment on the property market by stating, "There is a serial killer in Australia, we’re going to put his picture up see if you know who it is. Don’t know if you know him," upon which a photo of the Australian Prime Minister was screened above a caption "Serial 'Camel' killer on the loose". Her story presented the culling as "airstrikes" against camels which she described as "...a million camels that live in Australia, the only place they live wild in the world." She described the cull as "...They’re slaughtering them. He’s shooting them all." and later as, "No that would be painless, no they’re strafing them, maybe a leg gets hit..." Co-host Jim Cramer described the cull as initially 'genocide', before offering 'camelcide', a description which Burnett agreed with.

Media in Australia picked up on the story which became a high news item in almost every capital newspaper around the country as well as on television bulletins with headlines mainly focussing on Burnett's description of the nation's Prime Minister as a serial killer. The Adelaide Advertiser received over 200 comments from readers of the story and ran a humorous poll titled, "What feral menace is most in need of culling?" which received over 1300 votes, of which 11% voted camels and 88% voted "ignorant American TV hosts". As of August 7, no official comment was made by the network of the show, CNBC on the matter.

After the media attention in Australia and subsequent fallout, Erin Burnett appeared on her other CNBC show, "Squawk on the Street" on Thursday August 6, 2009 to claim that her story was a "deadpan joke", describing the camel cull as "... a complicated issue". While the true nature of the story remains controversial, her claim of it being in humor is supported by her final statement on the original airing of the show, "I know there was some humour, a little bit, but... it’s camelcide. Kevin Rudd. I hope they have this on in the morning in Australia. They’ve upset us here, let’s see what happens. Camels which are very human-like when you see them in person".

During Burnett's retraction on the "Squawk on the Street" segment on Thursday, she invited the Australian Prime Minister to appear on the show but failed to offer an apology for any offence that she had caused to the Prime Minister, the Australian Government or the Australian people. No clarification, statement or apology was offered on the "Stop Trading Listen to Cramer!" segment aired on Friday August 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.107.114 (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC) ```` 118.208.231.59 (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Celestra (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the above section to the article and it's been removed again without any discussion entry. Has this been done by an editor correctly or is someone trying to stifle information? CSJoz (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Maxim photo shoot - spurious?

The only reference for the story that she appeared nude on the cover of Maxim in 2007 is today's Australian story about the camel cull controversy. A detailed search of the net fails to reveal any evidence of such a photo shoot other than an oft-shown cover pictire which looks very much as if it is photoshopped. I'll stop short of removing the reference to the Maxim shoot but I think a more experienced editor might want to look at it closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.92.251 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked the 2007 covers, and she wasn't on any of them, so I've removed the material. I suspect that the journalist grabbed it from here, as it was unsourced when added. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is correct to remove that paragraph as its abusive writer may not be Australian - there are American spelling conventions, and Australians would not use that "roo" sentence nor add an apostrophe before the word "roo" either. However, it would be worthy to add a controversy section to Burnett's bio in Wikipedia. It is considered offensive that that TV program inadvertently compared the culling of a feral and introduced species to the genocide of Jews by Poles a few decades ago. Also, it is insensitive to label an elected official as a serial killer, especially in a country where the Aboriginal population was systematically exterminated by the British colonists. This Prime Minister made significant inroads by being the first Prime Minister to apologise for all the hurt and failings throughout two decades of British misery. (Britain tested atomic weapons in the desert and poisoned local Aboriginal populations and their country just after the holocaust.) Camels are destroying Aboriginal cultural sites. It would be prudent if Burnett were to travel to Australia and apologise to the Aboriginal population for mixing holocaust imagery with their plight and for her trivialising Aboriginal culture and land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.118.114 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Archived old stuff.

I moved messages from 2008 and earlier to the archive. --Sophitessa (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wild Camels in Australia

I saw your news segment about the Camels in Australia. There is not 1 million camels. I dont know where you get your information from - they are mistaken. There is 250,000 camels - they use them for racing in the outback - not all of them. They were used for transport - now we have trains, cars, motorbikes, trucks, etc to get around with.

They are CULLING them. They are not going to kill them all. They are also going to send them back to where they came from.

Why dont you say something about the kangaroos they kill. They dont eat all of them. They ruin stock and scare livestock at night. My sister lost her beautiful grey gelding that way. They jumped into his enclosure and he tried to run and being so scared he went through the closed gate (its always closed at night) and they found him on his side (he was laying there all night) - and he couldnt get up in the morning. The vet was called to authanase him, not shoot him.

We dont have much water out there either in the outback and some camels get killed running into thr trains that cross the desert. This is dangerous not just for the comel but also the passengers on the train.

THINK before you open your mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.219.134 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mate, your statement belongs in the comments section of abc.net.au/news or news.com.au, not here. If you're asking whether or not that incident should be included in the article, then that's fine. Depor23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

There are approximately one million camels according to the Desert Knowledge CRC who quoted Saafeld & Edwards 2008.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.205.71 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• You're an idiot too. There may be 1 million camels in Australia but only about 250,000 are being culled. She said it's costing $AU80 per camel and $AU18 mil all up. If they were killing 1 mil, then it'd be costing 80 mil, wouldn't it? Do the maths, mate. Depor23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

The original post (top of this section) debated whether there were one million camels in the Australian outback. The original post did not debate the number of camels to be culled. Research estimates that there are indeed one million camels. Please avoid being disrespectful as it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia.

"China and toy safety" section undue-weight tag unjustified

This is the only part of the article even remotely critical of Burnett. I think it's properly balanced by inclusion of her (IMO reasonable) explanation of her China remarks. Full disclosure, I was the section's most recent editor. --CliffC (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any real evidence that this material is notable. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It reflects controversial on-air comments made about a US trading partner. They are at least as notable as her excellence in varsity lacrosse and field hockey, or the fact that she gave the commencement speech at her alma mater. --CliffC (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I support Bilby's just-now tightening up of the section, good job. And it leaves more room for the camel story.  :-) CliffC (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"They are at least as notable as her excellence in varsity lacrosse and field hockey, or the fact that she gave the commencement speech at her alma mater." ...those take up just one sentence each in this article. There isn't an entire section on her college sports abilities or her commencement speech, nor should there be. I don't see how this China section merits two full paragraphs...does a sound clip that makes it to the Daily Show justify its own separate section? Is there really a "controversy" here? If it is truly notable, I fully support weaning this down and incorporating this so-called "controversy" into the Career section. 71.227.179.189 (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have hidden the China story. If you are going to label something as a controversy, you need evidence it was a controversy, i.e. discussion in reliable secondary sources of it as a controversy. For that matter to mention it at all in a wikipedia article it should be mentioned in reliable secondary sources otherwise you're giving WP:Undue weight to something. As someone who hosts a show every weekday she must have mentioned thousands of different things we can discuss. In other words, in the absence of reliable secondary sources discussing her comments, there's no particular reason why this one is of any particular note. (Editor opinion is largely irrelevant since we go by sources not editor opinion.) If reliable secondary sources can be found, these should be added to the article then the section can be unhidden (although there can still be some discussion on how long etc it should be) but if none are found within a few weeks it should be removed. This is an issue which comes up in most WP:BLPs of (particularly controversial) media commentators so you can find plenty of other discussion of the same issue if you wish. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Camel redux

Wikipedia is not a newswire. The "camel" controversy lasted all of a day, it simply is not biographical. (That is, by the way, what makes it distinct from the Chinese "controversy," which received some ongoing coverage for a reasonable period of time.) This was addressed several months ago, although it appears it's being dredged back up for whatever reason. Please review wp:notnews and if you can justify this as being encyclopedic using some reliable sourcing I've yet to see, please make a case here for it. user:J aka justen (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking the Not News, it states that articles should include items of historical notability: the issue was picked up as a major topic by a country of 22 million people and was only limited in its scope by a retraction (i.e. it was so significant it required an on-air retraction by the person who said it). It should not be routine (e.g. announcement, sport, tabloid journalism) but this was not routine unless you wish to argue that Australia's main news broadsheets would include gossip on their front pages. Notable events should not include people who were not major players: Burnett said it and retracted it. It should be in proportion: the section was 78 words to the China Toys subsection's (which you yourself edited) 79 words under the "Controversies" banner. It should be neutral (which you have not argued); it should be verifiable (it includes two direct videoclips from CNBC of Burnett making the actual comments plus a further seven references to reputable news sources) and it should not include original research (which it doesn't). I would suggest, considering your willingness to leave quotes, pet names and other non-biographical materials in here that you either make a full attempt to clean the whole article or you avoid removing single sections in such a unilateral manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Major topic? It didn't even last a day. Find me an article from more than a week later. Encyclopedic content survives at least one news cycle. This "controversy" did not. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found you three articles showing that her comments were continuing to be used in connection with the cull up to five weeks after her retraction. I've also added references showing that the story was picked up in various other countries to disprove any objection as to the comments being limited to Australia. The China toys story shows only three references and suggests that the controvery over that issue only lasted six days, so your request to shows that the story lasted at least a week has now been amply met. Any further objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One of those may not be reliable and appears to be from the same week. The other mentions her once, in the next to last paragraph. The other was simply a reprint of a Bloomberg article from August 7. These do not establish that this was anywhere near encyclopedic. Stop adding unencyclopedic content without consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You requested information demonstrating that her comments lasted over a single news cycle, which they did. It now appears that you have removed those items which shows that the matter was taken up by the global media. It appears that your main purpose is to limit information that demonstrates the obviously huge impact that this matter had. While you accuse me of "adding unencyclopedic content without consensus", you have taken it upon yourself to arbitrarily and speedily remove properly referenced materials before other users have a chance to comment on it. All of the references were checked to ensure that they were from reputable sources, but while accusing one of those references as, "may not be reliable" and "appears to be from the same week", you fail to say which one so the matter can be debated properly. Furthermore, the final sentence that you removed stated that the comment was still being mentioned "in connection with the camel cull" demonstrating that the comments had longevity even if the matter was no longer "top billing". I therefore must demand that you undertake to properly allow this matter to be left and allow other users to have their chance to consider the sub-article and make their own statements on it without removing it arbitrarily and quickly to avoid full discussion, as you so clearly have a habit of doing for whatever reason that has not yet become clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Three separate editors have removed this content as it is not encyclopedic, and the links you provided reinforce that it was a one news cycle blurb. When it comes to biographies of living people, contested information does not stay in the article without consensus. Consensus here and at the appropriate noticeboard has actually been that the camel "controversy" should be removed as Wikipedia is not a newswire, and this is not biographical. Why on earth there are people in the world who care about an American reporter's joke about a camel cull is beyond me, and I suppose that's really the part that "has not yet become clear." user:J aka justen (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is where the matter is: the matter was picked up by news services around the globe and whether it was a joke or not does not affect the incident's "worthiness" in being mentioned, as there is a good chunk of evidence showing that it was a major issue for a period of time. Three editors have not removed this story: one has (you) removed this particular iteration, with other editors removing other completely different iterations which were opinion-based, sensationalist, undue and/or non-referenced materials. After the comment was made by Burnett, news media picked up on it. After her retraction was made, news media picked up on her retraction but continued to consider it worthy of including as information so suggseting that it was a "single cycle" is erroneous - the comment itself was one news cycle, the retraction was a second news cycle, and the cull with her commentary was a third news cycle (assuming a news cycle is where more information or a new angle is added). Arguing that it is "contested information" is erroneous as well: she made the comments as can clearly be seen in the two videos included in the references. Suggesting that the same story being run in various outlets cannot be counted as multiple outlets is confusing personally: this would suggest that anything that is not original cannot be referenced on the basis that it would be a duplicate. Your position that Wikipedia is "not a newswire" has been thoroughly contested above to which you have yet to make any real debate contesting the above to support your position. The note in the "appropriate noticeboard" is merely that the matter "appeared" to have reached consensus and not that "the camel "controversy" should be removed as Wikipedia is not a newswire," It may indeed have been that the story was blown out of proportions (due to differences in senses of humor around the world) but does not negate that it was picked up by global media, became well-known across the globe and prompted an on-air apology by Burnett. This incident was not an everyday occurence, it was not gossip, it was not a single day, and was read by potentially tens of millions of people around the world. If this item is not worthy of a note under a Chinese toy story then what on earth is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you care about this issue. For the life of me, I can't see why, but I digress: the issue is that it is not biographical, no matter how much you care about the issue. The sources you provided to attempt to prove it was a "lasting" concern did not do that: one mentioned her only in passing, one was not immediately discernible as reliable (and even if it was, it was from the same time period), and one was a reprint a few weeks later in a monthly "magazine." You have not established this to be biographical content, and edit warring to reinsert "controversy" into a biography of a living person is not permitted. Unless you're able to provide sourcing indicating this was a lasting biographical matter in the life of Erin Burnett, there's nothing further for me to comment on. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay so let's sum up: I've provided you with all the factual proof you've asked for; and you continue to peddle out your opinions as though that becomes fact. Sorry but unless you provide substantive evidence to the contrary (ie by providing substantive factual responses) then your opinion remains just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.203.85 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

Astounding (well, not really this is Wiki) that Burnett calling the President of the U.S. a monkey is not even mentioned - if she had been referring to the current holder of the office, this would have been a career buster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.153 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like, if anything, she has a history of offensive comments about important figures in government. They're either monkey's or serial killers in her eyes. I was glad to see the mention of the controversy surrounding the cull in this article because this is the only reason I know of her.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

controversial statements

do these things really need to be in this article? perhaps the one might somewhat be justified but the other one regarding Jon Stewart has no relevance what-so-ever to be included.

If you included controversial statements like this regarding other wikipedia articles they would never end.Woods01 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm bothered by this too. The second case at least has proof of notability; the first, not even that. Mangoe (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

different issue - same header

I am bothered by the fact that the first time I ever tried to make an addition to Wikipedia, it has twice been removed with no valid reason. I added:

On January 28, 2011, Burnett reported on the unrest and potential revolution taking place in Egypt. She stated, "...if democracy in the Middle East spreads, the United States could take a huge hit...what that means for oil prices, they're going to go stratospheric." Critics argue that she implied that the US must support dictators in order to keep cheap oil flowing.

This statement is factually correct. The video clip included in this article shows her literally making that statement, thus the quote is accurate. Moreover, I did not say if it was wrong or right. I did not say anything political about what she said. I kept it completely objective by placing it under the controversy section and saying that "critics argue..." I was told that this was "not encyclopedic." I am not sure what the standard for "encyclopedic" is here. It is factually true. If we want to discuss what is "encyclopedic" we can discuss why news anchors of mid-level notoriety even have pages. Additionally, I would say the reaction to this note proves that it is "controversial" thus its placement. Additionally, I was told that a blog was not a good citation. I would like to point out that there is a video of her on the blog, which I think is valid proof that she made the statement. Additionally, a blog is valid proof of differing opinions and critiques on a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.195.86 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the fact that she made the statement that is at issue; it's whether or not WP:RS critics have a notable opinion about what she said. I would argue not. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, lets correct an inaccuracy in the IP's opening statement, the reasons for the revert were explicitly stated in the edit summaries and both are valid reasons for removal. In fact due to WP:NPOV how other critics construe her statements is strictly not relevant to this article. Aside from that there is no context. What critics? Who do they work for? But, as wikipolicy points out even if those questions could be answered the item is still BLP violation along with its POV problems. MarnetteD | Talk 16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be note that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an online forum. The IP may want to begin at this page Help:Contents/Getting started to learn the process of editing here. MarnetteD | Talk 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthday?

I can't find anything reliable for her birthday, though I've found numerous sites saying it's both July 2, 1976 and March 17, 1976, with a few also saying May 3, 1976. I don't think we should include any date until we can get to the bottom of things and settle it firmly. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds good to me. I didn't check when I reverted but it did occur to me that the version I reverted to probably wasn't referenced either. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)