Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

information from a New York Post artical that needs to be intagrated into the article

There should be someting in the artical about Mark Lavin taking to task Olbermann about his lack of ratings. Also a very tasteful NY Post article offers great insight in to Olbermann's personal life. audio here Artical Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.151 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons demand high-quality sourcing for information, and these sources do not qualify. The information you seek to include in this article could also be rejected on the grounds of a lack of weight and neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

like the other poster said if you can cite media matters for orielly then you can cite the new york post for olbermann14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.125.89 (talk)

Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

TKO Report/Worst Person In The NFL

I think those were only for 2007, as I don't remember that being added for last season (though when Dan Patrick was added; there was a segment called "The Little Big Show" referring to their nickname for the edition of SportsCenter they hosted). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Messy article

if someone could just take a few moments from political feuding to clean up this article a bit. I'd do it, but I'm not familiar with Olbermann. I just came here to get out of the rain and there were places where my eyeballs rotated. I mean, I think the article is good. Thank God it's not full of a lot of political bickering. Begin with the third paragraph: "After leaving Fox, Olbermann re-joined MSNBC after a short hiatus, hosting Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003." I think someone should mention that he was at MSNBC first, left and then re-joined. Very confusing. No, it isn't enough to say "after a short hiatus" when you've never said he was there in the first place.

Secondly,in the "ESPN" section: "During the same interview, Olbermann stated that he recently learned that as a result of ESPN's agreeing to let him back on the airwaves, he was banned from ESPN's main (Bristol, Connecticut) campus." Hold on: "agreeing to let him back on the airwaves????" Exactly what is *this* about?

Then, in the "Political Positions/Viewpoints" section: "In a Countdown interview with Al Franken on October 25, 2005, Olbermann noted that in 2003, after having Janeane Garofalo and Franken on his show, a vice president of MSNBC had questioned him on inviting "liberals" on consecutive nights, contrasting that occurrence to the apparent ideological latitude he enjoyed at the time of the second Franken interview." What in heck is someone trying to say here? This last sentence makes no sense at all.

In addition to these, there are numerous instances which I'm not going to review where the same material gets mentioned again---and again. Someone who's worked on this article needs to go through it and decide where each tidbit goes and remove it from other places.

The article's tone is pretty good, but it needs organization and tightening. 72.209.11.245 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to detail these concerns. I'll be unavailable for major article work until next week; if it's still in need of attention then I'll get on it. Any other specific concerns would be awesome. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The link to "sportsnight" is confusing. Olbermann worked for an ESPN2 show called "sportsnight" but the link goes to the short-lived fictional show. I'm not sure if the right thing to do would be to remove the link or to create a stub about the ESPN2 show and then redirect the link. Can someone with more wiki know-how do something about it? Thanks. 68.10.90.72 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some damning information about the Olbermann/O'Reilly feud by linking to a YouTube video, and it was removed due to a claim that "YouTube not a reliable source". Excuse me? I checked and found the person that removed it identifies himself as a Conservative. Sorry, but that seems like political censorship rather than an attempt to be accurate. Now, how is YouTube not a reliable source?Seeker alpha806 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE clearly states that Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections. Your other problem is that you are not a WP:RS. You need reliable citations to prove that it is both factually correct and noteworthy. As for me identifying as a conservative, please read WP:AGF. Soxwon (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I've also reverted you. Sorry, but simply showing a Youtube video and saying Olbermann damaged someone's credibility isn't sufficient to count as a reliable source. Are there any reliable secondary sources that describe it as such? Dayewalker (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. If TWO people say I've made a mistake, that indicates that I am more likely to be in the wrong. My apologies. Seeker alpha806 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, you may wish to be more careful when posting such videos in the future. This one appears to be a copyright violation as it wasn't posted by MSNBC or Countdown. Soxwon (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the first post written here. The language was used to gisguise the point, which was not a beneficial point. That is done throughout this article about anything negative towards the subject. What you orignally read was meant to point out that olbermann has liberal guests on the show every night, and less than once a wek has a conservative perosn on the show. He simply has on people that agree with him on everything is the point. MSNBC in general does this with their talk shows. I know this is true, but I'm not going to have another battle to post it on here, with 9 out of 10 people wanting to have abiased article in favor of Olberman... it becomes a difficult thing to do. I had to fight for an entire week just to have the fact that O'Reilly never mentioned Olbermann on his show included in the feud section. Now it is disgused in a snetence saying he has led a campaign against olbermann. Thus that effectively has disarmed the point it raises that a feud is a questionable term. It's like me saying bob has never insulted tim, but he has led a campaign against tim's character. Clearly the point I raised is null thanks to the modified language of the sentence. But I give up, there's too many liberals on this page, and too many conservatives on O'reilly's page to ever get the truth . But at least o'reillys page has a ton of a negative things about him tat go undisguised, i don't feel like proof reading right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs) 08:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare with Oreilly Page!

Why can you edit Oreilly's page but not Olbermann's and why is there no Criticism or Claims of Bias section like on Oreilly's? Dont claim there are no reliable sources either because if Media Matters can work against Oreilly than Newsbusters, Media Research Center, and Olbermann Watch are equally as reliable. Come on this guy is an obvious cheerleader for the FAR LEFT. And he makes up lies about the most minuscule things, such as the Twitter account with his name on it that was supposedly being run by a "Fox News Operative" but it turned out it was MSNBC actually running it, hell even the NYT called him out on that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvintorres45 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Countdown with Keith Olbermann#Criticism and response. Croctotheface (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

To feel that everything left of right is "far left"... well do you want us to take you serious? Have you ever been in a country with a far left? chandler ··· 06:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The term feud is defined by Wikipedia as, "A feud (referred to in more extreme cases as a blood feud or vendetta) is a long-running argument or fight between parties--often, through guilt by association, groups of people, especially families or clans". The "feud" between O'Reilly and Olbermann does not fit this definition; as O'Reilly has never even acknowledged Olbermann, much less feuded with him. This is a gross mischaracterization of the constant criticism and character attacks that are put forth solely by Olbermann. 21:11, 18 May 2009 (CST)

O'Reilly has acknowledged Olbermann before, as evidenced by the instance of threatening a caller who mentioned Olbermann's name. "Feud" is correct. Dayewalker (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So one instance of mentioning the other person in response to unforeseeable call, and the other person attacking you nightly, means that both parties are feuding? This is untrue, both parties must be involved in an "argument" or "fight" by Wikipedia's own definition; the only fighting or argumenting comes from olbermann but never from O'Reilly. If you are suggesting that a audience caller mentioning Olbermann, and O'Reilly responding to that caller is an an example of him "feuding" with Olberman, then you are grasping at straws. Can you name one instance where O'Reilly has criticized Olbermann, other then his response to a caller? You cannot because he does not do this. And if you can, you will only be able to find one or two such scenarios, which cannot compare to the nightly criticism put forth on Countdown. Olbermann's criticism of O'Reilly borders on obsession, as he does it nearly every evening. So your rational is: O'Reilly mentioning Olbermann one time in response to a caller means he is feuding with Olbermann; when Olbermann attacks, insults, mocks, and makes caricatures of O'Reilly in more airings than in not. This in no way is a feud, it is a one sided assault. If you could actually cite a real examples of O'Reilly attacking or criticizing Olbermann, your term "feud" would be more conceivable. But to support this, you would need to some how put forth the false premise that O'Reilly attacks Olbermann consistently; because it is very easy to show that Olbermann does this to O'Reilly nearly every night. He consistently labels O'Reilly "today's worst person in the world". Perhaps you don't watch both shows as I do, but I have never seen O'Reilly EVER attack, nay mention Olbermann. And I watch both shows most days of the week, and always try to watch both, in order to understand both sides of the issue. I am not writing this to be difficult, I am writing this because I care about the TRUTH. And for you to grossly mischaracterize Olbermann's unrelenting criticism of O'Reilly as a feud when I know for certain that O'Reilly does nothing of the sort to Olbermann, It truly takes me aback when I see such apparent bias in an allegedly objective document. Please I beg of whoever has editing privileges for this document, please correct this inaccuracy that is intended not to purport fact, but to unfairly characterize Olberman's actions as mutual. I know if the truth were written Olbermann would seem less noble, but that should not be a problem if it is merely represenative of the truth. If you cannot do this, then please: Provide evidence that O'Reilly criticizes Olbermann on a regular basis. But you cannot do this since it is untrue. Do what is right please, try to look past your own biases and respect the tenant that Wikipedia holds most dear: Truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We do not hold truth dear here, what we hold dear is Verifiability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Beyond that, O'Reilly decries the evils of NBC, GE, and MSNBC nightly. While I don't necessarily thing feud is the right characterization, it's absurd for you to try and portray O'Reilly as some sort of victim. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you so blinded by your bias that you somehow think I'm a fan of O'Reilly? He just as big a ****** as Olbermann. But this is beside the point. I just took issue with the misrepresentation of REALITY. O'Reilly is an arrogant man for sure, but he never talks about Olbermann (And yes, he probably does this to spite him since he has 3 times Olbermann's ratings). But lets not pretend that because I take issue with lies, that I am some how a proponent for the O'Reilly Factor. So if we could please correct the article to correctly characterize Olbermanns one-sided critcism as what it is, and not call it a "feud", I would be very satisfied. I hate O'Reilly for his stance on social freedoms, and I hate the the term "Culture Warior". But I equally hate Olbermann for blaming the wealthy successful members of society for all the plights of the irresponsible ones. You can probably tell wher e I'm coming from now. It is the nature of people who allign themselves with my beliefs too seek the truth when they see it, as we believe our beliefs to be the logical result of the constitution. But enough about me, can we please correctly describe Olbermann. I would focus on O'Reilly's page, but it seems that it is already very critical of him. So for the sake of accuracy, fairness, and objectivism, please make the changes I request. (Whoever has the power to do so). And by the way, Verifiability and Truth should go hand in hand. And the "feud" is unverifiable because it is false, and no one has ever documented it. [No time to roof read] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Calling the article "lies" and coming to a talk page to profess your "hate" for the subject is inappropriate. I don't think you have a very clear grasp of Wikipedia rules and expectations of articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Rival?

This kind of relates to the last section...I'm not really sure if it's really a "rivalry" per say. I see a "rivalry" as more of equal competitors. O'Reilly goes after MSNBC but he does not go after Olbermann as much as Olbermann goes after O'Reilly. A rivalry is something acknowledged by both sides. By this same definition, O'Reilly is then a rival of many Democratic politicians, The New York Times, Boston Globe, Tom Brokaw, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and many others he has complained about. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly's ratings are far superior. They do compete, but are not rivals. It's kind of what I was saying with the edit. Arnabdas (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

O'Reilly gets more viewers, that's true. However, in the "key demo" that advertisers care about, they are much more competitive. Olbermann wins the demo sometimes. O'Reilly's refusal to acknowledge Olbermann doesn't change anything. I'm not sure where this "something acknowledged by both sides" definition came from, but Webster's doesn't say anything about it. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never been comfortable with the "rival" assertion made by some editors -- it seems like an artificial, post hoc assessment. Also, I have no idea what O'Reilly's ratings have to do with it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, Blax, you're being pretty nitpicky here. One could say the same thing even more justifiably about the claim that Olbermann has "established a niche" also found in the lead. I'm sure that there are a number of reliable sources that either directly or indirectly describe them as rivals. They appear on rival networks in exactly the same time slot. They publicly compare their respective ratings whenever it is to the benefit of either one to do so. Olbermann probably has talked more about O'Reilly than he has about any politician, including George W.Bush and Dick Cheney. There are sections in both Wikpedia's Olby biography and and its Countdown article on their feud (rivalry?). What more do you want? However, you are correct in basically saying that whichever of the two is actually leading in the ratings and by how much doesn't really matter here. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not championing changing the wording, Badmintonhist, I merely said that it seems an artificial construct. An otherwise-uninvolved editor raised a concern, and I replied that I share a similar uncomfortableness with the verbiage. Calling me "nitpicky" for expressing an opinion (when asked) on a topic I didn't bring up is the second time in 24 hours you've referenced "due respect" while giving very little. In my experience, the qualifier "with due respect" is usually in indication that none is forthcoming (otherwise, why qualify it?). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rival" and "Feud" are misleading and unfair characterizations of the Relationship between Olbermann and O'Reilly. To understand the inaccuracy of "rival" you must first understand the ongoing inaccuracy of "feud". For a feud to exist both parties must be criticizing each other, and this is not present. At the very least both sides should have something to say about each other. O'Reilly has never brought up Olbermann other than responding to a caller, as was mentioned. If this is a feud, then Olbermann is also Feuding with the Bush administration, not just criticisng them. Why is it a feud when Olbermann criticizes O'Reilly, but criticism when he is critical of Bush? Neither Bush nor O'Reilly criticize or mention Olbermann. I can see this intentional choice of words as having only one effect: mischaracterizing how O'Reilly has behaved towards Olbermann. To the same extent rivalry implies that there is a relationship, usually in competition, between the two parties. I could let this one go though, as they are both commentators on cable news channels. In this way even if O'Reilly does not acknowledge Olbermann, he is indirectly competing with him in regards to ratings. But a better word for the two would be "peers" not "rivals". Since they is no feud between them, peer is a far more appropriate word. It is unfair to readers to imply that O'Reilly is involved in criticisng or commenting on Olbermann. To say that a call in guest mentioning Olbermann's name on O'Reilly's show is proof of feuding is unfair. If I received a call and someone else mentioned a person I worked with in a critical way, and that person was critical of me that the caller was talking about; it would not be a feud until I started being critical of my fellow employee. And a feud is be definition on-going or continous, a caller mentioning his name one time, would not qualify. It is no different with O'Reilly. I am beginning to suspect your objectivity in your choice of words. Likewise with the person calling me about my fellow employee; I would not be that employees rival simply because he was critical of me. IF we were both aiming at singular goal say a promotion, that owuld make us a rival. SO if you wish to keep your wording "rival" in regards to ratings or awards that may be excusable. But again Feud is an unverifiable characterization of the nearly non-existent relationship between the two parties. Please if you will not allow the change of word from feud to criticism, please provide citation of O'Reilly involving himself in the feud. I see you have posted numerous citations after your choice of words, but non of which show any evidence that O'Reilly has feuded with Olbermann. Why in the the aim of truth, and verifiability, would you not select the appropriate descriptor of the relationship between the two? I would believe that you are trying to improve the image of OLbermann artificially by characterizing O'Reilly unfairly as having the same hyper-critical commentary or Olbermann. (Anonymous) 02:59, 25 June 2009 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs)

Weighing in on this tentatively, a quick g-news search brought up several instances of ppl talking about this supposedly non-existent rivalry: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. All of these were on the first page alone. As for feud, two of the sources I've provided even us that exact term. Soxwon (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue here seems to be the pro-O'Reilly POV that there is no feud simply because BOR's ratings are superior, and BOR doesn't directly address KO. While I understand the point they're trying to make, it certainly seems there is evidence of a rivalry existing in reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes very little sense IMO Soxwon. And simply because others have likewise misrepresented the truth. Until someone can validate that O'Reilly has been critcising Olbermann over a span of time (Or even once would help the argument alot) there is no feud (Read on about 'rival'). I don't care about O'Reilly, I care about Validatiable truth. MY desire for correct wordage helps him in no way, it only helps the accuracy of the article. By bringing into discussion pro/con viewpoints you are attempting to polarize the seeking of accuracy; one can only assume you are fighting the use of a more accurate term because you like the beneficial effect it must have on one party. Otherwise why would you support a word that can't even be agreed upon as accurate. Why rivals and not peers? Why feued with and not critcized? Both of which are UNDENIABLE FAIR. IT cannot be argued that they are not peersm and that OLbermann has not critcized O'Reilly. These are the facts, and using these words elimnates ambiguity and falsehoods.

Thus you must be attempting to twist things to help one party if, you intentionally choose not to use the descriptor that everyone would agrees with. No where have I defended O'Reilly for any of his opinions, so please son't accuse people of being pro-anything other than truth. You yourself just said O'Reilly never addressed Olbermann. That means there can be no rivalry or feud. I dare you to define rivalry as a scenario were one party is oblivious of the other. Even though I feel its a slander against the truth, I will concede to using Rival simply because they work towards the same goals. But just so you know, this makes them peers, not rivals. When two people work in the same business but have no relation to the other, they are peers. And even if one talks about the other, it still takes teo-people conflicting to be rivals. But with the justification used here, anyone who hosts a television show with the same time slot is a rival because they are aiming for the viewers from the same population. But when you say rival, wouldn't you expect some sort of rivalry between them? Is having the same objective really enough to be rivals? It just seems weird that the two are 'rivals' when on of them doesn't know that. O'Reilly expresses no opinion, concern, or acknowledgment of the Olbermann. But if you wish to use rival I would say its acceptable, even though not the right descriptor, because of the time slot and similar show formats. But they are not feuding in any way whatsoever. Why do you so strongly want to use a word that is controversial in its description. I have no Pro-O'Reilly POV, nor does anyone other contributor in this section, but I have an affinity for the truth. Thw only bias I can perceive is that in which unfairly classifies the two men similar in their behavior. You know that rival isn't really thw word to use, but you want to use it any ways, why? It seems that its beneficial to Olbermann to have it appear that he is not the only one insulting the other. But sense he is the only one insulting the other, it should not be a rivalry. If you and I knew both worked on the sales floor at a store to make sales at the same time, that alone is not enough to make us rivals. That is the very situation with these two men. You know this is true. Now add in the fact, that the less successful one constantly tells other people how bad the more successful one is, and again: it's still not a rivalry. Until the other party becomes involved in some sort of conflict with the other, it is merely a critciser and an inactive party. The fact that O'Reilly is more successful, and Olbermann less, has nothing to do with rivalry. If that were the case are you attributing the argument to jealousy? And if the roles were reversed by this logic, there wouldn't be a rivalry according to you, because only the less successful party takes the time to criticize the other. I don't think I can make this any clearer. I won't complain any more about rivals, but I will not let truth be ignored by saying they are feuding. If I had my wish, it would be everyone could stop caring about who they like more, and start caring about the accuracy of Wikipedia.Anhedonic (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2009 (CST)

We operate on verifiability here. Saying there's no rivalry b/c it doesn't meet the definition of rivalry is WP:OR. Plain and simple really. Soxwon (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - that may be the funniest "serious" response I've ever seen on Wikipedia. "Saying there's no rivalry because it doesn't meet the definition of rivalry is WP:OR." WOW. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ain't red tape wonderful? (Note, for the record, that was supposed to read your definition of rivalry) Soxwon (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, "hell no" -- it's that sort of bullshit wikilawyering and making a point that frustrates the well-intentioned editors with whom you spar. Twice now you've openly admitted to such, which is why more and more of us have decided you operate in decided bad faith... I suppose as long as there are editors who assume your motivations are pure your tricks will continue. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...Are you serious? You know what I meant. It was an attempt at humor at my mis-edit, not serious. The edit should have read: Saying there's no rivalry b/c it doesn't meet your definition of rivalry is WP:OR. The fact that I backed up my claim with verifiable and reliable sources proves that this wasn't a case of WP:LAWYER. The sources clearly say that the two are rivals. Exactly where does the lawyering come into play? The fact that his edit was they very definition of WP:SYN because it was based on his conjecture (What a rivalry is+How BOR acts towards Olbermann=No Rivalry w/os sources backing up his statement) would not be enough I agree, but I then provided verifiable sources to back up my claim. Soxwon (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(I think im responding here to a point that was deleted) Congratulations you found two articles that used a blatantly inaccurate descriptor. I can find countless articles that say HItler was a hero, but obviously I wouldn't cite these as they are wrong, just like the two you use are. If you can provide evidence for a feud, then you should use the word feud. But without any acknowledgement or criticism of Olbermann by O'Reilly, there is undeniably no feud. Please if you wish to use a subjective characterization give evidence for it, not unverified articles. The standard for Living people on wikipedia is very high, on your sources must be verfiable as true. Otherwise I could post blog entries saying anything I want as fact.

Why are we even arguing this??? It is undeniable that when one party doesn't even acknowledge the other that it isn't a feud, both by common sense and by definition?

[User:Anhedonic|Anhedonic]] (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (CST)

We are arguing it because you don't feel the long-standing consensus on this page is accurate. Soxwon provided examples, you simply saying you don't think it should count because you don't think BOR acknowledges KO isn't verifiable, it's original research.

Anhedonic, please stop edit warring on the main page and continue our discussion here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very right, we do lack original research showing a rivalry or feud. We have 2 articles that use the word without verification or research. Thus using those articles as citations for feud is completely without original research. Perhaps you could provide original research showing that O'Reilly feuded with Olbermann. Otherwise anyone can take anything they want from any source, and as long as its an external source, its welcome to contradict reality. But the requirement you speak of extends to the citation you use. If you cite a fact from a wsource, especially on living people, that fact must be supported by original research in that article. And as no onie has shown any reserach saying that O'Reilly has criticized (and repeatedly, by definition of the feud) with Olbermann, you have absolutely no original research showing the two feuding. And again we aren't even debating a debatable argument, there is a clear requirement for original research supporting a feud: it must support the definition of the word. Other wise We can pull any inaccurate description of any person, form any source. And it can not be challenged by reason or logic, simply because its from a citation. Your belief that using a citation overrides the definition of the word is ill-conceived. If i find an article calling someone an imbecile, that source must provide research supporting that claim. I can't just use it and say, well its from a source, the definition and application of the word no longer matters. This is undeniable again, please jsut accept that it would be better to use the most fitting word, not the one makes your favorite pundit look best. Which clearly is your motivating factor at this point.

[User:Anhedonic|Anhedonic]] (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2009 (CST)

No One Has Privided Any Evidence Of Oreilly Feuding Olbermann? I want the truth. You don't, you want the article to say your opinion. So you find two articles that support your opinion, without giving ANY EVIDENCE THAT O'REILLY FEUDED OR EVER TALKS ABOUT OLBERMAN Please stop changing the word to feud, which is unverified. You use two sources that use the word, but provide no evidence of a feud. Please provide some original research indicating that O'Reilly haslikewise Feuded with Olbermann. I lknow that you guys like Olbermann or something, but even O'Reilly deserve a truthful depiction on wikipedia.

Why won't you simply be like wow "O'Reilly has never talked about Olbermann", obivously the word feud is very misleading??????????

(OD) I'm not sure you understand wikipedia's policy on original research, based on this edit [5]. Original research is a bad thing, not something to be desired. Wikipedia is based on verifible reliable sources, not original research. Dayewalker (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anhedonic, my first piece of advice is to calm down. This one just isn't worth getting that upset about, no matter the outcome. I can assure you that not everyone who edits this page is a huge fan of Olbermann. Soxwon isn't, for example, and neither am I. The "feud" language in the lead does not claim there is an entirely reciprocal tit for tat between the two. We are all well aware that Olbermann talks publicly more about O'Reilly than O'Reilly does (even indirectly) about Olbermann. However, reliable sources have certainly mentioned negative comments each had made about the other. To that extent, there is a feud. Like any other editor, you are welcome to find reliable sources that would support a different wording about the relationship between the two in the lead. I must say, however, that the deleted change that you made earlier was rather awkward. Good luck in your endeavors. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Its sad, that you all don't care at all about the truth. I really am flabbergasted. I have shown this page to people who really don't a give a crap about politics. None of them thought that since you cited a "OR" (that has NO EVIDENCE of a feud), that it was clear that there is no feud here. I work for a University news paper, and even the Majority of the staff who agree with Olbermann found it amazing the standard for citation is so low.

Here is why your wordage is absurd, please read: I found an article in an arabic language newspaper that calls Osama Bin laden a rival of Barrack Obama. Can I go ahead and post that Bin Laden and Obama are rivals because of this article; apparently this is enough for me to be able to post something. But without evidence, this should not be admissable as a accurate description of their relationship. But in this article, you use this is exact same justification.

Anhedonic (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! Are you *really* saying that there is NO rivalry between Olbermann and Billo the Clown? Seriously? LOL! Right -- and Donald Trump is godfather to Rosie O'Donnell's kids! LOL. NaySay (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that the article's presentation of the two's relationship is now ccurate, and I am glad the neccesary details where added. I still don;t think it's much a of a feud wihen one host has never talked about the other host on his show, but you have sources that are wrong and I hav eno sources that specifically address thoses sources that are wrong; so the innaccuracy will remain. THat is a flaw with wikipedia by the way. If there is an article that says a murderer is a hero for doing something, and there is no article that specifically says he is not a hero; Then even if that is a bold face lie and is in no way supported by any facts. it will remain as as fact on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhedonic (talk • contribs) 08:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry, feud?? i dont know what planet you wiki lefties are living on..Olbermann wishes there was a feud/rivalry but its more like Yankees vs Mets...this article is a joke.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.210.210.177 (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

End of feud w/ O'Reilly

Good ref in today's NYT, but the article is protected :(

Stelter, Brian (2009-08-01). "Voices From Above Silence a Cable TV Feud". New York Times.

-- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann and NBC dispute these claims; Olbermann said that there was "no deal", nor did anyone at NBC ask him to make any changes to his program. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the mask incident mentioned?

There are reliable sources pointing to it, why isn't it brought up? Soxwon (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Criticisms of Wikipedia - and in particular "Liberal Bias." There ya go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.254.207.141 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

oh go back to conservapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.146.160.51 (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead is Overcited

I'm going to assume there was an edit war with the lead section, and that's why this is happening. But seriously:

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

Isn't that paragraph rather ridiculous in the citation department? We should probably cut down on the citations a bit, but I'm hesitant to do it because I'm sure there's a reason almost every sentence is cited at least five times. BAPACop (converse) 21:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's that way b/c unless each claim is strongly supported, it gets rmved by one side or the other who don't like it. Soxwon (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I guessed, it just looks really bad. But if that's why they're in there, there's nothing we can do. Thanks for answering. BAPACop (converse) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a false conclusion -- we should certainly bring this article into policy compliance and point uninformed editors to the talk page archives. Perhaps a FAQ (see Talk:Fox News Channel) would help. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, I'll get it started. Soxwon (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Bill O'Reilly doesn't acknowledge Olbermann, so how can there be a rivalry.

Answer: See this discussion (should be changed once it gets archived). Even if O'reilly doesn't acknowledge Olbermann, there is a general understanding that the two are rivals.

Is that good with you Blax? Soxwon (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Troop comment

Why is there no mention of him referring to US troops as cold blooded killers?[6] John Asfukzenski (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not referring to US troops. It's quite clearly a reference to Chenney, Rummy, Yoo, Rove and other people willing to kill others "to achieve their political objectives". Raul654 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those sources you used are questionable. John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 is correct, Olbermann is clearly referring to political leaders, not to troops. Troops don't have "political agendas." Soxwon (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seymour Hersh, Human Rights First, and Harper's Magazine are all reliable sources. Your claims are without merit. Raul654 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember reading one of the source articles which (I believe) said that as he had originally planned to phrase it, it sounded as if he was referring to the U.S. military in general. MSNBC cohorts got him to change it. However, even if was referring only to President Bush's inner circle the fact could still be raised in an appropriate place in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Negative -- please see our policy against original research. You guys can pontificate all you want, but unless this is covered in multiple reliable sources it's moot. Let's avoid clogging talkpages with forum style discussions. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BLaaaaaaxthos! You can't be serious!! Of course I'm assuming that the entry would have to be reliably sourced. I'm not that much of a novice. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia. I think we can concur that MSNBC is a reliable source. In this case, Being from a primary source is not a problem. Given that there are already a bunch of Countdown transcripts I do not see what the problem is. John Asfukzenski (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been refuted, please stop. Soxwon (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

liberal

The tone here is kinda strange.. it makes him look as if hes afraid to admit hes liberal.. but he has admitted a few times on his show that he has a "liberal heart" and has used it on a few occasions... no need to make it look like he doesn't know what he believes... *cough* unlike billo. Tommy talk 02:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Tommy Tdinatale, in past debates the effort to directly label Olby a liberal was generally led by contributors who despised him, while the effort to keep him from being labeled a liberal was generally led by contributors who adored him. As it has become more and more obvious that Olbermann takes the advanced liberal position on just about every issue, his Wikipedia bio has gradually recognized the fact that his politics are very liberal. However, there is still a fig leaf of coyness about directly calling him a liberal; a carry-over from past talk page brouhahas. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. If Keith is "very" liberal, Rush Limbaugh is reactionary. PS, if you use my full name, best use thomas. :D Tommy talk 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith IS a Liberal (Not that there's anything wrong with that, to take a page out of Seinfeld)

I don't think we should shy away from designations that seem consistent with the evidence out there. Olbermann may not refer to himself as liberal, but his show was strategically positioned to be a liberal counterpart to the conservative O'Reilly Factor. He does post on dailykos, a liberal blog, most of the people in his "Worst Persons in the World" segment are conservative, not liberal and he receives praise from famous liberals like Michael Moore. It seems perfectly NPOV to refer to him as a liberal in the article, regardless of whether he himself acknowledges it or not. Ericster08 (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally, when one starts applying subjective labels on what he believes is "consistent with the evidence", the situation becomes somewhat of a slippery slope -- at what point can someone start labeling Rush Limbaugh as a reactionary or Glenn Beck as mentally ill? While it could be argued that both of those labels could be reasoned by a preponderance of the evidence, the Wiki best practice is to only use subjective labels when the subject uses them in a self description, and those labels aren't significantly challenged. There is a very big difference between "Keith Olbermann is liberal" and "So-and-so says Keith Olbermann equivocates a liberal philosophy"; to that end, only the latter is acceptable. We should not and do not make blanket statements of fact -- we should instead present the evidence to the reader in a neutral and balanced manner and let him draw his own conclusions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If a pundit such Olbermann wants to maintain the conceit that he isn't a liberal, or a pundit such as Bill O'Reilly wants to maintain the conceit that he isn't a conservative, what's the harm? By their fruits we will know them. There is plenty of objective information in their Wikipedia bios for the reader to form a solid opinion about their respective political ideologies. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well, although it seems plausible and NPOV to assume that Olbermann and O'Reilly are cut from the same cloth: people who refuse to acknowledge their true political ideology. Olbermann is clearly a liberal (despite his denial) and O'Reilly is clearly a conservative (despite his ridiculous claims that he's "independent"). It seems unfortunate that two men who espouse opposing ideologies on television and to whom liberals (following Olbermann) and conservatives (following O'Reilly) identify the philosophies of liberalism and conservatism cannot be deemed as such, but alas, we must not as you say make blanket statements and I accept that. Ericster08 (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is genuinely impossible to pigeonhole another person's political or religious thinking, since you don't have access to their thoughts on every issue. Olbermann might be moderate to conservative on some issues that haven't been discussed on his show. I don't know how he thinks and neither does anyone else. I think that applying ideological labels to a person on Wikipedia should meet a two-pronged test: 1) self-identification and 2) consensus. I think you need both. To cite an opposite example, there was a discussion a while back about Bill Maher calling himself a libertarian. Many libertarian editors strongly objected to labeling him as a libertarian in the article, as they did not feel he fit with their ideology. Maher's also been accused of being an atheist, something he denies. Again, I think you need to meet that two-pronged test. Henrymrx (t·c) 16:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, KO's approach to political questions and debate is so subtle and nuanced; a lot like Sean Hannity's. I basically agree that there is no need for Wikipedia to directly label Olbermann a liberal, Henrymrx, but let's not get silly about it. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, has sarcasm ever proved to be a productive tool that has helped you move a discussion forward? It certainly diminishes the level of respect you're given by your fellow editors, and detracts from any validity your points may contain. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it was meant to be sarcastic or not, equating Olby's level of nuance and subtlety to Sean Hannity's is right on mark. I'm not nearly as worried about the level of respect my fellow editors accord me as you should be worried about the the level of respect that they accord you, Blax. By the way, may I correctly assume that you were not being sarcastic when you suggested that the preponderance of the evidence would indicate that Glenn Beck was mentally ill? At this point I would suggest that are own talk pages we be the better forums for further discussion. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious false dichotomies... my point, Badmintonhist, is that your repeated sarcasm is unhelpful and unwelcome. It doesn't help you make any point, nor does it make you appear more objective, witty, or mature. /23:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And your compulsive, hypocritical Dickism does you no good, Blax.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmintonhist (talk • contribs)

Can you two take this off-wiki please? Soxwon (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Bravo. The fact the Olbermanns page cannot be edited is disturbing. Who controls who can or cannot edit wiki pages? Also, that fact combined with Olbermann portrayed as mainstream as opposed to extreme left (which is certainly is) tells me that [whoever] controls who can and cannot edit has a political axe to grind, and are opposed to free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kory207 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the page is protected, so you can make edits to the page or discuss possible edits here. As for free speech, please read WP:FREE. Dayewalker (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Imminent cancellation

This is POV and supported by a short opinion piece in a gossip column. While the rest of the material may be worth of inclusion, this speculation and Jon Stewart's latest rants most certainly are not. Soxwon (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something

(a) Countdown's ratings were up, not down

(b) This isn't the Countdown article

(c) We don't report spurious gossip about living people, per WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You DID miss something - go to mediabistro (a pretty left-leaning outfit) and take a look at the ratings ... as stated in this reference - Olbermann's ratings have dropped over 44% [7]... this isn't some "gossip" page - it's a place JOURNALISTS GO to get the scoop on what's happening in their own industry. Furthermore, it's got EVERYTHING to do with what's happening to Olbermann and whether or not he'll have a job. You're obviously biased in this due to your statements herein. And one more thing... if you don't like some of what you call gossip (the Page Six article) then why not edit that out - but keep the rest of the FACTUAL articles about his ratings and Jon Stewart? Or is that you have no business claming non-bias in this?Reality Maker (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, seriously, not the gossip that's been refuted with actual viewership data. I mean did I miss anything subsequent to the refutation? Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding material like that - negative commentary about a living person which is poorly sourced - is a violation of the WP:BLP policy. Since this smear has already been refuted, there's no way that it can be acceptable here. Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless I missed something:

(a) From what time frame? Compared to last January/February? Last month? Last week? The typical measurement is last year during the same month. And when compared to FNC, he's nowhere. He's 11th in cable news, averaging, what, a million viewers a night? The top 10 is filled with FNC shows, two of which are O'Reilly's (his 8 PM and the 11 PM repeat.) He was at least 10th before January 19th, 2009, the day cable news changed.

(b) True, this would make more sense there, I'll give you that.

(c) The ratings don't lie, dude. Significant interest in his show was lost after the 2008 election while FNC has only gone up since the election, which is extremely rare for news stations after an election.PokeHomsar (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, back to the topic. There's nothing in the mediabistro story about "imminent cancellation" which is what got this thread started. If we're going to add material to the article on every dip and jump in the ratings, there will be no end to it. We'll have 100,000 bytes on that alone. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's not gonna be cancelled, but his role has been diminished significantly. Campbell Brown and the rest of CNN's primetime lineup are the only ones with anything to worry about. When FNC's 3 AM show beats their primetime lineup, they should start looking for other employment. PokeHomsar (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PokeHomsar, is any of your commentary in some way intended to improve this biography? Your editorial opining doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to try and stir up an ideological battle. Unless there is some specific issue we're discussing with regards to article content, I don't see any productive value in continuing this thread. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Tyson Cousin

On Countdown 2010-10-02, Mr. Olbermann said he was cousins with Mike Tyson: "To Italian television; Rai Uno Chow (ph) -- they have imported my cousin, Mike Tyson, for their version of “Dancing With the Stars.” That‘s no joke, he‘s actually my cousin." ^{([2010-10-02 transcript])}. IMDB seem to [support]. Also Mr. Olbermann has said this on air other times, for example "And my cousin mike is in trouble again. Mike Tyson, the former heavyweight champ. He is a distant cousin of mine by marriage and adoption. I voted against it but what can do you? But there's been another nightclub incident. Sao Paolo, Brazil, this time." ^{([2005-11-10 transcript])}. -Justin Ormont (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Think this fact is notable enough to mention on the page?

Only notable in that you better watch what you say about him (right-wing), or he will send his cousin after you.--67.36.58.10 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith's real college...

Irrelevant discussion already subject of extensive consensus

It seems the editors of this page have left out the inconvenient fact that Olbermann did not attend THE Cornell University but one of its off-shoots, its Agriculture and Life Sciences college. His degree is worth much less than a degree from THE CU would be worth. The source given says which one he went to but the article does not make it clear. I will add it if no one has a reasonable objection.PokeHomsar (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) This issue has been very thoroughly discussed here. Check the archives if you like. Cornell has multiple colleges like any other university, but a degree from Cornell is a degree from Cornell. It's not a separate institution. Henrymrx (t·c) 10:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Nothing has been "left out" -- check out the talk page archives, which indicate an overwhelming consensus that trying to make such a distinction is inappropriate and biased. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I just find it funny that telling the truth is biased.PokeHomsar (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, dear God, this has been talked to death, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. You're too late to the party. Any time one claims particular access to "the truth" is a time others should be suspicious and vigilant. Mrs. Peel (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) OK, I looked through the archives and did not find where this "consensus" was reached. If you'd link me to where this consensus was reached, we could end this discussion. All I saw was you, Blaxthos, claiming consensus like 10 times, something I have seen you do before.PokeHomsar (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Not this again. There is no functional difference between a degree from CALS and CAS. They look exactly the same, hold the same weight, etc. The only difference is that the head of CALS signs the degree for people enrolled in CALS and the head of CAS signs the degree for people enrolled in CAS, which is something virtually all universities do. As for why you see Blaxthos commenting over and over again on this is because the rest of us got tired of having the exact same discussions over and over again and, more frequently than not, with the same people.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) No, a degree from the main campus is worth more than one of its off-shoots. Also, if a university has many colleges on its main campus, some of those colleges have higher national rankings than the other ones, so a degree in business at, say, Lehigh University would be worth more than one from its arts and sciences college. Once again, show me where in the archives that this supposed consensus was reached because I couldn't find it.PokeHomsar (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC) See thoughtful addition below by Cornell2010. Cornell2010 took considerable time to contribute the addition. Please demonstrate you really studied the archives. Mrs. Peel (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) If this is the case, then surely there must be some sources discussing this matter (academic ones, not partisan commentary) out there to substantiate this claim. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC) PokeHomsar, did you really look in the archives? The entirety of archive 5 is dedicated to this subject alone. There was also discussion at the village pump, and in both cases consensus has clearly been to identify the University conferring the degree. The only motivation to make a distinction in this one singular case would be to try and differentiate his degree as "not from THE Cornell" (which is obviously false); that you stated as much in the first sentence of this section speaks to that motive. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, god, here we go again, another editor with The Truth™. Listen, if you'd done five minutes of research on this, PH, you'd know that students at the Cornell ag college go to the same classes in the same rooms with the same professors as everyone else, and they naturally do this on the same campus, not some imaginary "off-shoot." Moreover, if you'll look around at a few other bios of people who have university degrees, you'll see that they're exclusively identified by the university, not the individual college they attendeded. You can yap about it all you like here on the talk page; the article isn't going to change. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC) More tempest in teapot silliness. I really don't think that the specific college within the Cornell system and its public rather than private status should be included as part of the standard education information in the bio, unless that kind of thing is normally done in Wikipedia bios which it apparently isn't. However, to "keep hope alive" for PokeHomsar and others who feel that the "not the real Cornell" information be included in the bio, I would say that if it were included in a bona fide, well sourced, neutrally written section on Olbermann's numerous spats with rival commentators then I would have no objection. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) His degree has nothing to do with "numerous spats with rival commentators." Wikipedia should take no part in giving credibility to the obvious miss-statements of Ms. Coulter, or the delusions of those who believe what she says is true. No need to pander to editors who (1) believe something that isn't factual, and/or (2) try to use their made up beliefs in an attempt to inject bias or misinformation (or, in this case, both) into Wikipedia articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC) No, this attitude that in no context whatsoever should the fairly well publicized charge made by folks such as Ann Coulter (and PokeHomsar) that Olbermann attended and graduated from something less than the "real Cornell" ever see the light of Wikipedia day is clearly pro-Olby biased. His degree may have "nothing to with 'numerous spats with rival commentators' but his "numerous spats with rival commentators" definitely includes a spat about that degree (It's a bit like the charge made by O'Reilly detractors that he didn't grow up in the "real Levittown"). Thus it would be fair game in the context of such a section. We are not, after all, talking about a claim that is entirely wild, anti-factual, or delusive – there is an uncontested factual basis behind it. Such a section, however, as yet doesn't exist in the article so I am not suggesting that the "not the real Cornell" charge be added forthwith. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I would support such a section, but I wonder if chronicling all of Coulter's attacks du jour would be appropriate. Is this particular gripe more significant or did it get more play than any other of her crapflinging? Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure, but I suspect that it is is the single most contentious and publicized exchange between Coulter and Olbermann. It was certainly mentioned in a few WP:RS's. For the sake of balance and "due weight" I'm not suggesting that such a section be dominated by any particular incident or spats with any particular rival commentator. At most, the Cornell thing would only get a brief mention. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Bad and PH, what Blaxthos says immediately below. Can't say it any better. I'm here to second it. Mrs. Peel (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Honestly, I'm pretty uncomfortable with giving any encyclopedic voice to patently bullshit statements made by Coulter (who is known for doing just that). Given that her false statements and innuendo have been refuted by the University, Mr. Olbermann, and damn near everyone other than those who disagree with Mr. Olbermann's ideology, I don't think there is any value in echoing them in his biography, regardless of how many ideologues and zealots called attention to her statements. This issue was (rightly) dead months ago; there is no encyclopedic significance to her statements or the responses, and repeating them here does more harm than good. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Blax, but you're generally pretty uncomfortable with anything that even remotely tends to cast Mr. Olbermann in a bad light. One man's "patently bullshit statements" and "false statements and innuendo" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) are another man's "voice of reason and truth." Actually, there really isn't any question of objective truth here. Olbermann clearly was not accepted into the private, Ivy League, liberal arts, lofty tuition, lofty SAT score college in the Cornell system. Coulter is simply correct as far as that goes. Everything else, the inferences that one wants to draw from that fact, is entirely subjective. Of course, Olbermann may never have specifically claimed that he was a bona fide Ivy Leaguer but I haven't the slightest doubt that many folks thought that he was, and making a big stink out of relatively innocuous facts is something that both Mr. Olbermann and Ms. Coulter have frequently done. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) Was it really necessary to make this personal? Any editor of a BLP should tread carefully when considering how to deal with the sort of slander Coulter traffics in. Gamaliel (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I don't recall any complaint about "making it personal" when Blaxthos questioned whether PokeHomsar was telling the truth after he (PokeHomsar) said he had looked through the archives or questioned PokeHomsar's motives in bringing up the issue. "Slander", "crapflinging" "attacks de jour", "obvious miss-statements" (sic), "patently bullshit statements", "false statements and innuendo", "ideologues and zealots" – sounds like a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Poisoning the well to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Having a personal opinion about slander and having an opinion about the appropriateness of it under Wikipedia policy are not incompatible. You seem to think that people against inclusion have an axe to grind, but you could say the same about people for inclusion. That's why it's counterproductive to make things personal. So stay focused on the article and make things easier for everyone, including yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I have no personal stake in whether this is included on Olbermann's page or not and won't get involved in the politics, but felt it was appropriate to chime in from a factual and historical perspective. The College of Agriculture & Life Sciences is no different from the College of Arts & Sciences in terms of its standing as part of Cornell University. In fact, historically speaking, the Ag School could be described as more central to Cornell's founding principles since the Morrill Land Grant Act that created the school mandated that agriculture be part of the curriculum. The college structure used today was created in the late 1890s in order to lump similar departments together. Both colleges are private, although the Ag School is a "contract" or "statutory" college, meaning it has a relationship with the state, but it is different from other SUNY colleges. The state provides funding because the college addresses needs of the state, but admissions and curriculum decisions are still made by Cornell's own trustees, and the entity is still part of a private institution. The Ivy League is an athletic conference that the university is part of, not any single college. There are certainly many Cornell athletes who have been enrolled in the Ag School (and the other contract colleges). Cornell's other contract colleges include the Vet School (#1 in the country), Industrial & Labor Relations, and Human Ecology. The standards for admission are set by each college, but do not vary significantly (and average SATs fluctuate between departments across campus). Some departments in the Ag School are considerably more competitive than departments in Arts & Sciences, and vice versa. Tuition for in-state residents is lower in the contract colleges as part of the funding arrangements with the state of New York. Students in the different colleges can and do take courses in any of the others. The college units are simply a grouping of academic subjects within the same private university, and some groupings receive additional funding from the state because of Cornell's mission to serve the public and the needs of the state, as stated by the Land Grant Act. I hope that helps clear up the misconceptions. Cornell2010 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Mrs. Peel (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe we should ask Andy Bernard if KO can really claim Cornell.  :) Arzel (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Olbermann did not enter Cornell University via the Ivy League requirements. Olbermann received a diploma in Communications from Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (Ag. College). I think the distinction should be made (certainly more than "B.S. Cornell University), particularly as disparaged the educational qualifications of a lowly Bush aid that attended night school for a few years. Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree. Graduates of the ag school include David LeNeveu of the Anaheim Ducks, Mitch Carefoot of the Phoenix RoadRunners, Darren Eliot, former professional hockey player, and Joe Nieuwendyk, multiple Stanley Cup winner. If you actually want to pursue a career related to agriculture, there is no better school than the Cornell Ag school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.9.194 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "Ivy League requirements"... Wow, are we really just making stuff up now? This is exactly why Wikipedia should not and can not give voice to made-up, factually inaccurate claims in a biographical article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Clearly you didn't read the above discussion as virtually everything you've written here is wrong. The Ivy League is an athletic conference and none of the colleges at Cornell is any more or less a member of that conference than any other. Participation in Ivy League athletic activities is equally open to students of the College of Engineering, the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Architecture Art and Planning, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and all the other Colleges at Cornell. There are no special "Ivy League" admission requirements at any one school. The information in the article as it stands is accurate, complete, concise and informative. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Blaxthos, all I see in archive 5 is you once again claiming a concensus was reached previously. Find me the original area where the consensus was reached. And for all it's worth, I didn't hear about this controversy from Coulter. I heard about it when I saw it on his show. When he ripped out his diploma. The Cornell he went to wasn't the actual Ivy League part of the school. It was the public college, something that is much easier to get in to. A degree from it is worth less when going for a job or graduate school. Ask someone like a Harvard Law interviewer. They will agree with me. Same as a business degree from Lehigh is better than an arts and sciences one from Lehigh University due to the country rankings.PokeHomsar (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC) PH, please read the posting from User:Cornell2010 above and see if you can repeat absurd statements like "wasn't the actual Ivy League part of the school" and "much easier to get in to (sic)" with a straight face. If you can, I suggest there's something missing in your ability to apprehend and understand simple facts. I will also direct you to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. This was a minor tempest nearly a year ago and nothing has been said about it since. The consensus is clear in the discussion Blaxthos pointed out to you. The consensus is further supported by the fact that the article has been stable since, and there's plainly no consensus to change the article now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC) OK, as a newcomer to this page, I'll put in my two cents. 1) I read the other threads about the college "controversy" and I don't see any consensus on either side. In fact, I see a few people becoming way too emotionally involved. 2) The official name for the school is the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and it was established by the state legislature in an unusual agreement with Cornell. You can check the discussion on it's page for evidence of that. As far as I can tell, it still officially counts as an "ivy league" school, although rather tentatively. whether or not it's the "real" Cornell is a matter of opinion, unless someone can show a reference that says it's standards are different than Cornell in general. 3) It is true that it's not the norm to list the particular college of the University that a notable person went to, but there is no rule against it, and this school is not a normal case. Moreover, it's become a controversial subject, simply because both Olbermann and other notable people (such as Ann Coulter) have made an issue of it. Whether they are credible or not is not the point here. I say include it, and I will do so unless someone can give a concrete reason why not.BuboTitan (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The concrete reasons not to are amply detailed on this thread and others on the same subject. If you make the edit you say you will, you may rely on it being expeditiously reverted. You may also wish to consult WP:BLP. Since you think that there is no consensus on the issue (I disagree), you should remember that the burden of evidence is on editors wishing to include the material not those wishing to exclude it. The assumption that "no consensus" should be resolved in favor of including the controversial material is faulty. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ok, now you throw out WP:BLP. My question is, have you read it? Simply mentioning which college Olbermann attended does not violate NPOV, it is quite verfiable, and it's not original research. Now, I see only see two "concrete" reasons mentioned here not to include this information: 1. It's not the norm for BLPs (which is irrelevant really), and 2. it's supposedly prejudicial. Well, here you may be shooting yourself in the foot; if the Cornell Ag school is a fully Ivy League institution, what is prejudicial about mentioning it? Why this should even be "controversial" is beyond me - there is nothing "scandalous" about attending this school. I would be glad to hear someone else try to explain that before I edit the page. There is no reason why this information cannot be included in a neutral fashion. Incidentally, to Tony Sidaway: you have not explained why this section should be moved to the Cornell page, and in fact, I don't think they would appreciate it over there. Editing a page solely in an attempt to hide an active discussion is extremely rude and could be considered a violation of Wikipedia Etiquette.BuboTitan (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) If the discussion is a dispute about the status of a Cornell college, then the correct place to discuss it is on the talk page about the college, or Cornell. It is emphatically a bad idea to discuss it here. --TS 19:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Obviously you didn't read my post above. I haven't said anything about the status of the Ag school one way or the other. The relevant discussion is not over the status of this school, but a discussion over whether said school should be mentioned in this article.BuboTitan (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to continue feeding the trolls or those who choose not to hear. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sign Off

I think that the sign off should be changed to the actual words that he uses because the way it currently is doesn't really clarify what he says. This page is about Keith Olbermann not about the previous president. There are people who may not agree with his sign off, but again this page is about Keith Olbermann, not them. Here is a reference: http://newsbusters.org/node/3998. There are probably better references, but I don't feel like going through page and page of not the right stuff.--69.221.227.23 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Deaths of mother and father

Everybody's mother and father eventually pass away. It is certainly not common practice in Wikipedia bio's to mention the deaths of subjects' parents unless connected with some other notable fact about their lives. In the case at hand, if some editor connects the deaths of Olbermann's mother and/or father with Olbermann's commentary or with his frequent absences from Countdown, fine. Otherwise I suggest that they be removed as a freestanding facts. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. –BLM Platinum (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we need an intervention?

The destructive editing, archiving, and using html tricks to hide current discussion on the talk page is unacceptable, and it runs contrary to both the policies on WP:EQ and WP:Talk. I only came in here to suggest a NPOV way to introduce information about the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences to the article. I even showed the courtesy of asking for discussion before I made any edits in the article. In response, the discussion was removed and people resorted to name-calling. In all my time on Wikipedia, I have seen plenty of edit wars and plenty of contentious discussion the talk pages, but I have never actually seen edit warring occurring on the talk page itself! I will also remind users of the policy on Ownership of Articles. For the time being, I'm not going to resort to a 3rd revert and instead I'll let the talk page edits stand as evidence of some of the problems here. My question remains. Do I need to get third-party intervention for the talk page? The fact that I even have to ask that question suggests that things here are out of hand.BuboTitan (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

BuboTitan, I'm going to suggest that you go through the archives of the last two years and see how many times we have discussed this issue over and over and over and over again. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are new here, but please realize that bringing up certain issues again and again can be considered disruptive editing. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, well it's kind of hard to go through the archives of the last two years when certain portions are labeled as "troll", "irrelevant" and hidden with html tricks. But in fact I did read much of the archive and failed to find a consensus on this issue. As far as disruptive editing goes, are you kidding? If you are going to quote that policy, let's read it first. The policy applies to edits in the article, not the talk page, and even if it didn't, no one followed any of the actual guidelines for how to handle disruptive edits anyway! BuboTitan (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Steven. Why did I forget that simple rule? =) Henrymrx (t·c) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How about we just try this simple rule:WP:AGF BuboTitan (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As with any article on a well-known figure, there will be super fans that wish to keep certain things off of the person's Wikipedia article. I've encountered this several times in different articles from Bill O'Reilly to this one. PokeHomsar (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the atmosphere has calmed down a bit, here are some additions I would like to make to the article: 1. The simple mention of KO's school at Cornell, which has become an issue. 2. Mention of the Cityfile http://cityfile.gawker.com/505807/ controversy, where he apparently took three unannounced days off out of protest for Ben Affleck appearing on Maddow's show instead of his. This did create quite a bit of buzz, enough that KO preempted other material to angrily deny the story on the air. 3. I'm wondering about the wording of this "feud with O'Reilly". It may be a feud to KO, but it's not so clear that it's one to O'Reilly, since he never criticizes (or even talks about) KO. 4. Now just a general question - why is there no criticism section? The article used to have one. There is one on his Countdown page, but virtually every other prominent figure in his category (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, et al) have one on their main pages. Had this been too controversial, or was it eliminated to put the items into various sections instead?BuboTitan (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you on 3. Dictionary.com defines a feud as "a bitter, continuous hostility, esp. between two families, clans, etc., often lasting for many years or generations." Now let's break that down...

1. "A bitter, continuous hostility...": I think that "bitter hostility" is an apt description of Olbermann and O'Reilly's relationship.

1. "Between two families, clans, etc...": MSNBC and Fox are definitely comparable to two warring tribes or clans.

1. "Often lasting for many years or generations...": These two have been going after each other since at least 2006.

So, after a great deal of microanalysis, it can be argued that "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" is an apt title for the section. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

1 has been discussed ad nauseum. If you're still having trouble grasping where consensus lies on that, perhaps I can recommend an understanding therapist in your area.

2 is a story from a source that fails WP:RS. I mean fails it in a huge way. I mean the kind of source that when it isn't dreaming up stuff like this runs stories on things like "Have You Heard the Sandra Bullock Hitler Poopstache Sex Tape Rumor, Yet?" Also regardless of the source the fact that he took a couple of days off (what, a year ago?) is pretty inconsequential.

As far as 3 is concerned, I haven't closely examined the references, but if the reliable sources say there's a feud, we report that here.

4. Criticism sections suck. That goes double for "Criticism of ..." articles. Would you believe that Wikipedia actually has an article called "Criticism of Family Guy"? I can't imagine a serious encyclopedia including such dreck. Anyway I guess they're here to stay. If you go that route, count on the fact that you'll be held to a standard for what goes in it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Sure it's been discussed quite a bit. But most of that discussion was over whether CALS is the same thing as Cornell in general. I would rather just give the link to CALS and let readers decide that for themselves. In fact, just the fact that it's such a contentious issue means that maybe it's something readers would like to know. Also, if there is a consensus here, please give me a link so I can see it myself. The only thing I can find is one user "Blaxthos" constantly saying there's a consensus, and another user complaining that he's constantly saying it. BTW, comments telling other users to "seek therapy" just poison this discussion. They are also personal attacks and don't belong here.

2. How does that fail WP:RS at all???? It's quite verifiable that Cityfile wrote the story, many pundits commented on it, and Olbermann vehemently denied it. This isn't just a case of someone taking a "couple days off" work.

3-4 I can see your point. BuboTitan (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

1. No. This is dead -- no matter how many times you ask, consensus hasn't changed. This has been all the way through and RFC and a PUMP discussion. Move along.
2. No. Gawker is not a reliable source, and the subject is inanely petty and irrelevant from an encyclopedic standpoint.
3. By all accounts, it's a feud.
4. I'm okay with some reliably sourced criticism. I'm not okay with editors who seem to be here to advocate viewpoints that are all designed to make a BLP article put a subject in a negative light -- the four points listed here seem to bend over backwards towards that end.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Sorry, but you saying so doesn't make it so. I need a little more than that. See my comment below.
2. I can provide several reliable sources that Cityfile reported the incident, many outlets covered it, and KO denied it. I'm not sure what the issue is there. As far as it being "petty and irrelevant", well let's compare it to KO's dating Laura Ingraham, or his appearing in a Boston Market commercial, which are both in the article. BuboTitan (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"The only thing I can find is one user 'Blaxthos' constantly saying there's a consensus, and another user complaining that he's constantly saying it." If that is really all that you can find, you are not looking very hard. Henrymrx (t·c) 20:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, then please give me a link to any page where a consensus was achieved. If it's true, then that shouldn't be difficult. Otherwise, I'm done arguing this point. BuboTitan (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The onus isn't on others' to prove consensus to your satisfaction - this point is done regardless of how long you continue to argue (with yourself). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You claimed it, so prove it. The default position is that there is no established consensus. I also can't help pointing out the rich irony of you arguing with me, and then claiming I'm arguing "with myself". BuboTitan (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BuboTitan, consensus already exists on this one. Please check the archives. Unless there's a new reason to revisit the topic, this one's been discussed to death already. Dayewalker (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, since you just jumped in here, I'm going to say this one last time. I did check the archives, which is not easy, since some users (Blaxthous) have been allowed to label previous discussions as "troll", "irrelevant" and zip them up with html tricks, essentially jumping through hoops to do everything they can to censor the discussion without actually deleting any text (probably the most blatant example of wikilawyering there is, and entirely against the intent of WP:Talk. I see plenty of arguing, I don't see a consensus. If a consensus "already exists", then give me a link, or stop wasting my time. As is stands right now, this is a Keith Olbermann "fan boy" page, not a wiki page, and several users here need to refresh themselves on the policy of Ownership of Articles. Look it up. BuboTitan (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bubo, look at the comments above. How many people agree with you that the Cornell issue needs to be brought up again? Anyone? *crickets* How many people think it does not need to get discussed again? At least four. Consensus is clearly against you. I'm not sure what kind of magic paragraph or sentence will convince you that consensus existed before and I'm not going to do the work for you. It doesn't matter. Consensus is against you NOW. And as for ownership or this being a "fan boy" page, well... for someone who recently accused me of not assuming good faith, you should try doing it yourself. Henrymrx (t·c) 14:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So you want to use this discussion (of one week) as proof of consensus? I suppose you could try, but then you ignore all the previous archived arguments, which as most admit, has been discussed extensively. Incidentally, you might also want to look at this article here [8], where this very page is mentioned as an example of the problem of NPOV and WP:OWN in an interview with Jimmy Wales (the founder of Wikipedia). As far as assuming good faith goes, where have I failed to do that? When I made remarks insinuating other people were "trolls"? No, that was done to me (including by you). When I made personal attacks? Nope, but that was done to me as well, and I haven't responded in kind. When I just edited the article without discussing it first? No, I haven't done that either. BuboTitan (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has been the same since archive 3, in which there it was upheld by an RFC and a follow-on village pump discussion. In the interview you referenced, Jimbo actually refutes the (admittedly biased "Olbermann Watch" blogger) interviewer by stating that "I can't imagine how we could possibly be any more transparent", that he "disputes the characterizations" by the interviewer , and notes that "Bob is just unhappy that (a) we don't follow his lead in calling fans of Olbermann "Olby Loons" and (b) he was banned from editing Wikipedia for his misbehavior on this page." Regarding the rest, it's plainly obvious by the four proposals you've made that you're here to grind an axe. By repeatedly refusing to acknowledge the consensus, coupled with your proposals that have no obvious intent other than to try and inject your own biases, you shouldn't be surprised that people no longer believe you're here in good faith. I'm glad you're not trying to edit the article against consensus (for which I commend you), but rest assured disruptive behavior. edit warring in a tendentious manner, or disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point will be met with a block. Unless anyone here believes BuboTitan is here in good faith and an unbiased proposal, I strongly recommend letting this communique be the last. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Blaxhous, your personal attacks on me and my motives are poisoning this discussion and violating nearly every rule on talk page behavior. I find it ludicrous that you are accusing me of bad faith or "edit warring" when it is you who is making personal attacks and attempted to censor the discussion by very selective archiving and editing. More importantly, you are deliberately mischaracterizing the previous discussions. The question for that particular RfC you linked to was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. That is not the topic at hand here. Nor is the topic whether or not CALS is just as prestigious as Cornell, I haven't suggested any change to that. And to declare a "consensus" in archive 3 is absurd on its face; on that page, the only person saying the discussion is "closed" is you, and you say it over and over again (leading to the question of what would be the need for one to say that if the subject really was closed). WP:Hear is not based on listening to one editor (you). The Olbermann page does not belong to you personally, and even less so the talk pages. So I guess no one can produce this "consensus" for us? BTW, that quote you give from Jimmy Wales was only his guess, and it's quite verifiable that the editor didn't try to put the phrase "Olbyloons" in the article. BuboTitan (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This may be a good time to take some time to cool down from this discussion. -- Chickenmonkey ^X  sign?  01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

quote

"I'm not a liberal; I'm an American."

"American" is a nationality, a citizenship. It is not a political position, or viewpoint. Why is this useful information to include in Olbermann's biography? Slaja (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If this were someone else's take on Olbermann's political viewpoint, I would agree with you. However, this is a direct quote from Olbermann and shows the way he, on one occasion at least, handled the question. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The latter half may be irrelevant, but the former is relevant. As a whole, I think the statement demonstrates he does not see himself as holding one political position, but that is for the reader to decide and why they statement has merit in the article. Akerans (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's implying that to be a liberal is un-American. Still though, he doesn't say he's not still on the left. Ink Falls 02:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Why are all left leaning commentators and/or figures in general semi-protected, while right leaning figures are not (e.g. Rush limbaugh)? Another subtle way that wikipedia picks sides no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.148.208 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection isn't applied for political reasons, it's applied to prevent vandalism and edit warring, and to force discussions on the talk page to gain consensus. Is there something about this article you think could be improved? Dayewalker (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Old timer's day

If Olbermann was the play-by-play announcer at the game, that's fine, but it needs a source. (Still not sure about wp:undue, though.) I was tempted to but a cn tag on it, but you can't do that on a BLP. You have to delete until it's sourced. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith's "rivalry"

Is this a joke? Who's idea was it to label Keith a rival of O'Reilly's. Keith's ratings come nowhere close to approaching O'Reilly's. This is like calling any ole swimmer a rival of Michael Phelps. Secondly, Bill never talks about Keith, so as far as this article is concerned there is no feud. More like one man attacking another, but if that is the case why is this even relevant to the article. Is attacking O'reilly such a major part of his entire show and career that it warrants mention? I hope not, because if that is so then that is extremely pathetic. Let's keep the trash off Wikipedia and discuss the person who the Wikipedia page is about and not use it as a platform to baselessly attack non-involved persons. Ink Falls 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: to feud means "to carry on or perpetuate a bitter quarrel or state of enmity", and since O'reilly does not appear to carry on or perpetuate anything with Olbermann, then there is no feud. Ink Falls 02:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the article on this "feud" seems to be properly sourced. For instance, The New York Times labeled Olbermann/O'Reilly a "feud". This article doesn't seem to offer any attacks, baseless or otherwise; this article documents sourced statements, and actions, made by the subject of this article.  Chickenmonkey  02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: " made by the subject of this article." is the key to your sentence, as O'reilly has not taken any action himself. Just because one source called it a feud does not make it one, clearly by what this article says their relationship cannot defined as a feud. Since the article is self-contradicting and paradoxical we should change it to just call it what it is, Keith attacking Oreilly for whatever reason, and not a "feud" as one source was confused enough to mistakenly call it. Ink Falls 03:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV. The New York Times is a more than reliable source.  Chickenmonkey  03:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let's add the response from the New York Times. Ink Falls 03:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say this is one issue I didn't anticipate coming back. It has been discussed many times and feud was always the agreed upon term. Other sources that support feud: Slate, Washington Post "What began four years ago as a colorful feud between rival commentators,", politics daily. And that was just the first page of one google search. Honestly, this is pretty simple. Soxwon (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Noooo, I'm down with calling it a feud. But if we're going to label it a "feud" then it's only NPOV to give the other side of the "feud". Currently it just says what Keith Olbermann says in the "feud" and nothing from the other side, it you want to cut down the long quote fine, but some of it's got to get in there somehow. Ink Falls 04:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The current section doesn't give "one side" of the feud, it just describes the feud in general. There's no need to give a pull quote from "the other side." It's non-encyclopedic. Dayewalker (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean it's NPOV. She is just stating what O'reilly won't state to boast Keith's ratings(let's face it O'reilly can boast anyone's ratings just by talking about them). What you mean to say is "Oh no, we can't possibly have any criticism on Keith in his article... umm let's call it "non-encyclopedic"... yeah non Keith lovers might just be dumb enough to fall for that", and to your comment I respond " We non-Keith lovers are not idiots blindly following a rude(let's face it downright unhappy) little demagogue with a niche that includes conservative haters, internet bloggers, and disgruntled, left leaning Wikipedia editors, thus I will not fall for your silly claim that it's "non-encyclopedic"." Ink Falls 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, then. You seem to be here to make friends and establish a consensus. Good luck with all that. Dayewalker (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You go on and pretend to be trying to make friends here. The editors here have one agenda, to make Keith look as good as possible. You bully people around by casting your majority on every issue that could appear to give him a negative image. All I am trying to do is give voice to the other side, which you clearly don't care about. I tried compromising, but you are just acting ridiculous now, throwing around any term you can think of(non-encyclopedic) and just seeing what will stick. If you want me to rationally respond back, give me a rational person to debate with, but don't start using rhetoric, wikilawyering and semantic witchcraft to avoid making decisions that go against the grain of the obviously POV editor majority. Ink Falls 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The only editor appearing to apply their POV here is you.  Chickenmonkey  04:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First time I've ever been thrown in as a left-leaning editor... Soxwon (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's what someone who is afraid of presenting a factual, NPOV presentation of Keith would say to someone trying to shed the light of truth on this disgracefully POV article(it's really bad isn't it?). I'm just posting a response to this "feud", but it seems the huge Olbermann fans can't handle others opinions on the guy, maybe you should avoid discussing your hero with anybody mainstream. Ink Falls 05:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This article, in my opinion, is fairly neutral. It offers in-context, sourced criticism of its subject. At the risk of not assuming good faith, you seem to be looking for a confrontation. I hope not, but if so; you won't find it.  Chickenmonkey  05:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the section should be removed. Or rather, belongs on the Countdown with Keith Olbermann page, since a majority of the content generated for that section comes from Countdown with Keith Olbermann. There's only one mention of Olbermann doing anything outside of Countdown, which I don't believe is enough to mention the feud on his personal page. Also, the 3.1 section already leads into the Countdown with Keith Olbermann. So, is a 3.1.1 section necessary? Akerans (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a feud, but it is unrealistic to expect something fair like this to be entered into an article that is guarded by Olbermann fans, so I am not exactly trying my hardest to make a convincing argument when I know it will just be shoved under the table of "Consensus disagrees with you: next topic". I personally don't think the "feud" warrants a mention at all, it seems to me to be a cheap way to try and boost Olbermann's status, by comparing him to and calling him a "rival" to Bill O'reilly when, quite clearly, it is just him mocking and attacking O'reilly personally to please an anti-O'reilly fanbase, but if we are going to have it we should at least include the only response the other side has ever made. If you are for this section at all to be continued, I have to ask, why? It doesn't tell us anything about Keith. Ink Falls 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: in an interview Keith has admitted he started the feud as a way of raising his profile, thus I stick to my original position that this section should be removed. Ink Falls 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fox News has replied to Olbermann multiple times. It could be correct that the information on the Olbermann/O'Reilly feud may be best served to be relegated to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article.  Chickenmonkey  20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's just put it there where it belongs. Ink Falls 20:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not. The reliable sources don't call it a feud between "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" and "The O'Reilly Factor"; they call it a feud between Olbermann and O'Reilly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, why is it under section 3.1.1, under 3.1 Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Shouldn't it be 3.2? This change would prevent readers from incorrectly assuming it has anything to do with the show, as its current layout is misleading. Akerans (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The feud is clearly a byproduct of Countdown. However, to characterize it as a feud between the shows is inaccurate (both in fact and sourcing). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Not saying to characterize it as a feud between the shows. Rather, saying that as a byproduct of the show, that its facts and sourcing being gathered from the shows, would be better presented on the show page. In other words, it just seems out of place on this page. Doesn't feel right, if that makes sense. Akerans (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Difference of opinion I guess.  :) I agree that it is also germane to the show (and should be in its article), but the sources have characterized this as a personal feud between the men. As such, not mentioning this longstanding professional rivalry in the subjects' respective biographies would be inappropriate. Would you agree that a major point of Olbermann's professional identity, in terms of available reliable sources, is his feud with O'Reilly? I contend that the sources clearly support that; as such, I don't see how we can avoid mentioning it in the article about Olbermann... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Would you agree that a major point of Olbermann's professional identity, in terms of available reliable sources, is his feud with O'Reilly?" Yes, and his "professional identity" is Countdown with Keith Olbermann, not to be confused with his "personal identity" Keith Olbermann. The sources mention the shows and ratings enough times to make that distinction clear, but this page does not. Moving the section would clear any doubt. Or, the section here should include information about the show ratings so that the readers can better distinguish between the two. If that make sense? Akerans (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we can trust our readers to understand the difference between the show and the person.  :) Regarding the sourcing, I still think they make the particular distinction that the feud is personal (as all feuds are). I'm pretty much agnostic to the information's position within this article, and I tend to agree with you -- the "Countdown" section seems like the right place. However, I do not support an effort to excise the information from this article entirely -- feuds are personal, and many mainstream sources have directly talked about the rivalry. Anyway, I respect your position; thanks for the clarification.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: If this feud was so major, then it would also warrant mention on O'reilly's page. But it doesn't and that's because the only reason why their is a perceived "rivalry" is because they share the same timeslot. It's a feud based on a matter of circumstance (time slots), based on their competing shows, and would be more appropriate in their shows Wikipedia page. Ink Falls 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We should probably stick with what the reliable sources say, instead of whatever you've decided on your own. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source which says what we should and should not include in Wikipedia articles. If you can't, then make an original argument on what should be included where(like Akerans and I), and respond to our arguments, that's the way these discussion boards work. Ink Falls 23:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that you've plainly admitted to being here with the express purpose of pushing an agenda, have been blocked for "overt POV/agenda-pushing", and have claimed justification because no one warned you NOT to be a POV-warrior, it's clear you're not editing in good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia articles neutrally and within our core policies. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to apologize to Chicken and Akerans, I came here (never having been to someone like Keith's page) expecting a fight and was being preemptively offensive. But you both are perfectly rational. I think we need to make a distinction between Keith Olbermann and Keith Olbermann. Since Olbermann has admitted he started the feud as a way of raising his profile and rarely ever made attacks outside of his show, there is no reason to assume he has anything against personal against O'reilly. As such I think it would be more appropriate to keep a "feud" between the two out of his personal page since there is no evidence of the two feuding outside of their public personas. Ink Falls 02:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize to me, that's the same position I hold regarding the information. In addition, the Criticism of the Bush Administration should be moved to the Countdown page as well. Most, if not all, of that information is obtained from the show. I respect that the sources specifically mention Olbermann and O'Reilly, but they also mention the shows and ratings; and I find the situation somewhat WP:SYNTHESIS that the latter information is largely ignored. Akerans (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is comparable to Stephen Colbert/Stephen Colbert (character) because Colbert has said he is portraying a satirical character while Olbermann is just Olbermann. Apparently, Fox thinks it's at least a little personal, "Ailes countered by asking Immelt how O'Reilly's wife must feel when Olbermann made references to the Fox host's personal life and a long-settled sexual harassment suit." I think the rationale of keeping the feud constrained to the section dealing with Countdown and also dealing with it on the Countdown article is good.  Chickenmonkey  02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, I agree with dealing with the feud in both articles (all four, actually) and I think that the Countdown section is the appropriate place to cover the topic here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone once asked if Mrs. O'reilly might have taken things personally doesn't mean that O'reilly and Keith take things personally. I still don't see how this warrants mention in Keith's article when clearly this "feud" was started for ratings(thus would be appropriate for his show) and not because of any genuinely expressed dislike and/or hatred. Ink Falls 23:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I love how Wiki has a "controversy" section on O'Reilly's page, including mentioning Olby as if O'Reilly started that, and I love how various other FOX people have a "controversy" section, even Gretchen Carlson of all people, but Olby does not have one. LOL Hilarious in it's blatant bias and total whitewashing of any liberal commentators, just like the politicians. As if Olby doesn't have any, as if he hasn't made some of the most vicious and nasty personal comments and attacks ever recorded on tape about numerous people at FOX and elsewhere, and as if he isn't the one attacking FOX News people constantly, with most of it ignored, including by O'Reilly. There IS no "fued" between O'Reilly and Olby, it's Olby constantly lobbing bombs at O'Reilly and all of FOX with about 75% of it ignored by FOX, and all of it ignored by O'Reilly who won't let Olby boost his ratings by drawing O'Reilly into a media war. But Olby doesn't have a "controversy" section here. LOL Hilarious. (71.156.54.2 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie>

If you feel a "controversy" section would improve this article and can cite it with reliable sources, you should feel free to do so.  Chickenmonkey  05:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reported User:Ink Falls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for edit warring, and if the obvious POV-warriorism continues I recommend referring his actions to the appropriate noticeboards. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - based on this edit I think the community should move forward with a topic ban. This sort of attack not only violates one of our most sacred rules, but clearly indicates that Ink Falls is here for one purpose (and it has nothing to do with improving articles based on reliable sources). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, I've seen all sorts of "talk page" insults hurled at the subjects of Wikipedia articles without much enforcement of this sacred principle, but if anyone other than ol' Blaxthos is better suited for hurling the first stone at such a ghastly offender I've never encountered that individual. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What?! You can't insult someone you don't like in their talk page? What rule do you think covers that? Have you been ever heard Glenn Beck discussed before without insults constantly lobbed at him. There is no POV mandate for Talk pages, yes I don't like Keith Olbermann, I have been perfectly upfront about that, but all I have recommended is giving the other side a platform to respond in his article instead of just discussing his attacks, that is NPOV and this is just a shallow attempt to silence any dissent in this article. Ink Falls 22:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - you say I am only here for one reason and that is correct. I try to protect the pundits and commentators who are always under attack in Wikipedia and came here hoping I wouldn't see any attacks on Bill or Glenn Beck, since you mention everything Keith has said and done then at the very least I feel this article should mention what Fox has done in response. Ink Falls 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you for your honesty, Ink Falls. I know of very few editors with the balls to admit that they're here for the singular purpose of using personal POV to influence articles. I suggest that if you're here to right some Great Wrong, you probably shouldn't be here. You should be more interested in adhering to Wikipedia policy, instead of trying to mangle policy to support your pre-formed agenda. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Personal Life" section may have been vandalized!

Unashamed to admit I'm a novice with wiki so sorry in advanced. The Personal Life section says that Olbermann suffers from celiac disease and other nasty things, however the so-called evidence leads to 404 pages. I say it is nothing less than suspicious, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.161.235 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom of the page. I'm not sure "Personal life" was vandalized as much as the links have simply died. With that said, I could not find replacement sources for the information, and something such as illnesses must be sourced. Therefore, I removed the information.

Nice catch.  Chickenmonkey  03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is probably where that came from.

Celiac

OLBERMANN: Elizabeth, you and your daughter have Celiac Disease. I know that all too well. That‘s—I have that, too. My executive producer‘s daughter has it probably as bad as you can have it. But can you explain to our viewer just how serious the problem is?

RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome)

He has been given a diagnosis of Wittmaack-Ekbom’s syndrome, also known as “restless-legs syndrome”

I added back in with the correct sourcing. Arzel (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently something was wonky with the citations. Thank you for correcting my error. I did rephrase the subway injury to more accurately reflect what the source says, however.  Chickenmonkey  05:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.201.172.146, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Will you please accurately list out the appropriate college that Keith Olbermann attended. He has a communications degree from Cornell's Agriculture college. He did not go to the ivy league Cornell and this is a gross misrepresentation of his collegiate accreditation. 98.201.172.146 (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been covered in past discussions. A degree from Cornell's Agriculture College and Cornell University are the same degree, they both read as Cornell University. Akerans (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Akerans, this has been covered in past discussions, true - but it's a little hard to find, since Olbermann's fans constantly edit the article and archive the talk page (and in some cases even zip the text in the archives!) to prevent anyone from finding out that KO went to the Agricultural and Life Sciences college.BuboTitan (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BuboTitan, I explained all of this to you more than seven months ago. While ignoring the actual reasoning (including RFC's) so you can summarily make shit up regarding other editors' motives may be satisfactory when you're trying to advance an agenda, it certainly doesn't help Wikipedia, and it makes it obvious that your interest is more in pushing a POV than respecting community consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blaxous, I don't have to make anything up. All anyone has to do is go to this archive page here here and see where you deliberately archived and hid the discussion of this topic (for anyone who wants to check - it's zipped in the middle of the page, labelled by Blaxous as "Irrelevant discussion already subject of extensive consensus". You just need to click on "show" to see it all). I would have fixed that, but I prefer everyone to see how you were deliberately are trying to keep people from reading this discussion. You probably didn't want people to see that there was not, in fact, a consensus on the issue, although you kept claiming it.BuboTitan (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct the misconceptions being cynically perpetuated here, the Ivy League is an athletic conference. Cornell University is a member of that conference. All of the students at all of the colleges at Cornell, including the Ag School, the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Engineering and all the rest have equal access to and are an equal part of Cornell's Ivy League athletic programs. Likewise, the students from the various colleges attend many of the same classes in the same classrooms, sitting side-by-side in front of the same professors. The admissions standards at the various Cornell colleges are known to be similarly high throughout the university. Any attempt to say that the Ag School is any more or less "Ivy League" or any more or less a part of Cornell than any other of its Colleges is a bald-faced lie. Also, it is not common practice for Wikipedia to name the individual college in which a bio subject was enrolled when citing his university degree. There's no reason to depart from that practice at this article, least of all the idiotic gibbering of some drag queen whose name escapes me for the moment. BuboTitan knows all this because he engaged in extensive talk page disruption on the subject some months back, which disruption has since been (mercifully) archived (Trust me, you don't want to read it.), not by one of "Olbermann's fans" as Bubo so dishonestly puts it, but by an archiving bot which visits this page occasionally and cleans out old material. Consensus on this has been reached. Wikipedia policies are being followed. This is a dead issue. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the official name for the school is the New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University and while Cornell is a private university, the Ag school was established by the NY state legislature in an unusual agreement with Cornell, so it's somewhat of an unusual case - that's why it may be worth mentioning. I have no idea if the standards are the same as the rest of Cornell, but if there was no difference, then what's the issue in mentioning it?BuboTitan (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is really getting tired. How do Wikipedia articles work? References. Currently, there are two references, in this article, which state that Olbermann graduated from Cornell--one of which is The Cornell Daily Sun. If a reader wishes to read these references, they can do so by clicking on them; this is the case on any Wikipedia article. Nobody is trying to hide the fact that Olbermann went to the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, because the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences is part of Cornell. Likewise, nobody is trying to hide any past discussions (this page is automatically archived by a bot, and the archives are easily searched).  Chickenmonkey  18:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The page is archived by a bot, but plenty of users have done their own selective archiving. As far as trying to hide anything, I provide one example in my response to Blaxous above.BuboTitan (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Who in the hell is Blaxous? Either way, we often put {{hat}}s on discussions perpetuated by low-contribution editors making pointy disruptions to push a POV, especially when the issue was already settled by a request for comment. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh,so now you admit doing it. You can rationalize it any way you want, if that makes you feel better, but the issue was obviously not settled at that time, and probably hasn't even been settled now. If there has been a more recent RFC that helped resolve the issue, then certainly you can provide a link to it? I would love to see it. The one you always kept referring to in the past was only whether or not to send the Cornell link to Cornell page directly or the the Ag School instead. That is not the topic at hand here. Incidentally, the bigger issue here is not one reference to a college, but rather Ownership of Articles, which I see is still a problem here. BuboTitan (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

How gracefully you admit that you never bothered to actually read the archives before flinging around incendiary accusations. If you're actually here to contribute constructively, you should behave responsibly and educate yourself on previous consensus before engaging in an argument; otherwise you're just another POV troll. In either case, we don't have to re-explain it to you ad infinitum because you are either to lazy/irresponsible to go do a little reading first, or refuse to hear what's already been explained multiple times. We should put a {{hat}} on this one too... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I'm going to put this simply. You made the claim, not me, that the issue was "settled", so back up that claim. Wikipedia works, as Chickenmonkey notes above, from references. WP:HEAR doesn't apply if the "consensus" doesn't even exist; ad hominem attacks on me personally are a poor substitute. And incidentally, I'm curious, just what "POV" do you think I advocated here? The POV that the issue should actually be discussed? Do I need to remind someone of the policy on censorship? Have a good day. BuboTitan (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue should be discussed? Are you fucking serious? Have you glanced at the archives? There are hundreds of thousands of bytes on this subject, half of it utter, useless bullshit advocating the very position you're pushing here. Don't like personal attacks? Try this one on for size. You are a worthless, time-wasting troll and a serious net liability to the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this has now gone to the realm of the personal, I recommend that anyone who want to read further, simply go to the noticeboard/Incidents page. BuboTitan (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer on Football Night In America

Keith is no longer on Football Night In America.. yet to the right it's listed as "2007 - Present". Just a minor tidbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiddings (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

As above, the article needs to be updated. Specifically, where it says "2007 - Present" in the sidebar, it should say "2007 - 2010". --74.138.214.5 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspension

Please see discussion here about how to incorporate Olbermann's suspension into these articles. Since this has just happened today, and it is yet to be known if this "indefinite" suspension will last one day, one week, or be forever, it is premature to change the articles to past tense. He's still the host - name of the show as of tonight is still Countdown with Keith Olbermann - so until reliable sources report otherwise, we treat this as a temporary matter, and leave the present tense. It's fine to note the suspension, but not ok to assume what it means long-range. So please don't change this to past tense without discussion and consensus. Tvoz/talk 00:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Huffington Post? What a joke, the story is everywhere and Wikipedia cites a partisan blog. 99.144.244.4 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, next time, how about suggesting an alternative source rather than making a snarky, unhelpful comment? Perhaps when the HuffPo source was added it was the best one available - ever think of that? If you want to help improve the article, great - make constructive suggestions. Otherwise, go play somewhere else. And by the way, we also have the Washington post and I'm adding the New York Times. Have a problem with that too?Tvoz/talk 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

suspension

Is Keith Oberman Suspended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.0.15 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Try Google news. Tvoz/talk 07:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

I find this debate about the college a bit mystifying. For UK universities that have a college system, it's totally standard to state which college at that university a person attended, if it's known; I don't see why the same thing doesn't apply. Apart from anything else, it is interesting that a sportscaster attended an agricultural college (Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences). By contrast, controversy about the college's source of funding seems pointless and manufactured, and eminently ignorable. So why not have "enrolled at Cornell University at the age of 16, attending its College of Agriculture and Life Sciences)? Incidentally, what the heck is a "bachelor’s of science degree in communications arts"? That could do with explaining, especially in view of the college he attended; was it in any way agricultural or life science communications? Rd232 ^talk

It's not usual in the states and it's undue weight. Take a look through Category:Cornell University alumni and you'll see that no one in that category has that information listed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked at the first five listed at Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences#Notable alumni (Olbermann is in that list BTW), and indeed none specify it. I find that very strange. Anyway, do you or anyone else have some explanation of the nature of the degree? It shouldn't be undue to explain a person's college education properly... Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Olbermann has a degree in communications. The communications department is part of the Agriculture and Life Sciences College. I'm sorry you find it strange, but I think you'll find it true for the alumni of every other American university. Please review the extensive talk page archives on this if you have further questions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that communications is part of Agriculture/Life Sciences is strange to me, but I suppose that is just the way it is. What would be wrong with this though?? NW (Talk) 22:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't do that in any other bio and this was discussed to smithereens before when consensus was against it. Why should we resort to that kind of trivia here? Can you come up with any reliable sources who think this is a significant part of Olbermann's bio? I realize WP:NOTE doesn't apply, but WP:UNDUE does. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:UNDUE plays into it at all. That policy section says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Note the key word in the policy: viewpoint. It does not say "facts should not be mentioned unless it is shown that they are important." I don't have any dislike for Mr. Olbermann and I certainly don't think that including this information would be a snub against him. I just don't see the purpose of ignoring mentioning the information (four words, not exactly a ton!) when reliable sources have indicated that he did indeed enroll in the college. NW (Talk) 02:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess you didn't make it to the third paragraph of that section of the neutrality policy, so I'll copy/paste it here:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Let me paraphrase that for you. Facts should not be mentioned unless they're important. I'm sorry you don't see the importance of ignoring it, but that's really not the issue. Perhaps you also don't see the importance of ignoring his shoe size, his mother's maiden name and his favorite color, but, fortunately, the burden of evidence is on the editor who wishes to include the material, not the other way round.

This is an insignificant, niggling, petty detail that's barely ever been mentioned in any reliable source. Since the whole word is ignoring it, it's not Wikipedia's option to decide that it's so important it just has to be mentioned here. No one gives a shit about it except one pundit, some SPA's who are obsessed with getting her ravings into this article and you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to find it interesting how vociferous you and others are to exclude this - do you really think it damaging? Because it's hard to see that including a fact like this should arouse much interest per se. Two uninvolved administrators (NuclearWarfare and myself) have thought it reasonable to include. And FWIW I'm British and have nothing against Olbermann. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight but I find it a bit curious that editor Steven J. Anderson would make reference to the importance of "ignoring . . . his mother's maiden name" when, in fact, Mr. Olbermann's mother's maiden name is given in the article (Charbonier) as is the fact that she was a a "lifelong New York Yankees fan," as is the fascinating information that young Olbermann was a once major figure in the Great White Way of pitch-card trading periodicals. I would suggest that the specific college he enrolled in at Cornell might carry weight at least equal to those factoids, but that is my subjective opinion. As for WP:UNDUE it is sometimes evidenced by the information we strive to leave out of an article as well as what we strive to put in it. Banishing a particular fact from an article because we dislike a particular person who once tried to make a separate issue of that fact gives that person's views a kind of negative undue weight in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the specific college, at Cornell, Olbermann attended could be mentioned without any undue weight coming into play. Problems arise when some editors believe the specific college should be mentioned in lieu of mentioning Cornell, because the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is somehow inferior to the real Cornell University. This is what I was objecting to and what is getting tired. Also, to address the notion that "the whole world is ignoring it", the reference from the Cornell Daily Sun does mention that he attended the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. It's not a negative; it's a specification.  Chickenmonkey  19:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

During the extensive discussion, consensus formed that the norm across Wikipedia is to reference the University bestowing the degree. The impetus for trying to list the specific college in this singular case seems to be giving credibility to a false meme that "Cornell is not the real Cornell" perpetuated by Ann Coulter and the fringe right (much like the Obama birther nonsense). Being specific here, when it's not generally accepted across Wikipedia, provides undue weight to a false claim. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Is mentioning that "Obama was born August 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii" in the Barack Obama article caving into the birthers as well? The vast majority of other Wikipedia articles are not as specific as this one, why do we have to give special treatment to that article?

I did not appreciate the implication that the implication that the rationale for my edits was out of some desire of myself to be anti-Olbermann and a proponent of the right wing. What happened to leaving our politics at the door when editing? NW (Talk) 21:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a bit of difference to the quality of the article whether we include the specific college or not. It isn't "necessary" but on the other hand it's probably more pertinent than all sorts of other stuff that has been in the article for years. For example, who cares whether Olbermann thinks that Fred "Bonehead" Merkle belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame? Who cares whether or not his mother was a lifelong New York Yankees fan, or that he was brought up in Unitarian family (when nothing else in the bio relates to his religion in any way). THE ONE THING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO, HOWEVER, IS LEAVE OUT INFORMATION SIMPLY BECAUSE WE THINK THAT IT MIGHT PLAY INTO A RIGHT WING MEME. That rationale is absurd on its face. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NW, I apologize if you took my comment as directed specifically at you -- it was not. My point is simply a restatement of the general consensus formed during the discussions before, during, and after the RFC. No one ever presented a legitimate reason to specifically discern between a University granting a degree from the college one attended on this article when Wikipedia writ large does not. I have no doubt that you are not personally motivated by such -- it's a trivial point, no doubt -- but unless there is some other reason to give this distinction weight I don't think it's appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well that's just WP:OTHERSTUFF - and as I said I'd include the specification elsewhere too, as relevant albeit minor detail. Badmintonhist put it well - we're writing an encyclopedia and to exclude information because some people want it in for political reasons is no better than to include information because some people want it in for political reasons. If the prior argument was about replacing Cornell with CornellAg, then we can forget that, since that's not being suggested. I see no reason to oppose NW's formulation as shown in his edit. Claiming it's UNDUE when there is so much in the article which is vastly more trivial simply doesn't cut it. Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Its a verifable fact, Its all Cornell so frankly I see no reason not include it. As long it is presented neutrally and a foot note in the infobox is all thats needed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it needing a footnote in the infobox, just the additional detail in the body text. Rd232 ^talk 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, with no specific accusations toward any individuals: There is a faction out there who wish to inject their POV into the article. In this case, they wish to present a case that somehow Olbermann's Cornell degree is something less than he claims to be . . . and extrapolating, that Olbermann's claim of above-average literacy and credibility is discredited because of it. "He lied about his degree and therefore he lies about everything else." Its a form of microscopic sniping at him in the very-public Wikipedia forum. Sarcasto (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason we should care about such nonsense? There is no serious claim that CornellAg is not part of Cornell. Rd232 ^talk 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Then there is no serious reason we should make a distinction here that isn't the generally accepted Wikipedia practice. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that relevant information is not included elsewhere is exactly WP:OTHERSTUFF. No concrete reason relevant to this article has been given for excluding a relevant detail of the subject's educational background, beyond the irrelevant "some people are trying to make political hay out of it". I feel if I go add this info elsewhere I find it relevant it will just tick people off - so, what, do you want to have an RFC on the general principle? Rd232 ^talk 11:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) So to sum up, there has been a group of editors who wish to insert the college name in lieu of the University, or qualifying it in some way, as they believe it redounds to Olbermanns discredit. That argument lost out to factual accuracy, consensus and common sense and has been replaced by various lesser arguments over time but generally aiming towards the same end. The regular editors are thoroughly sick of the WP:TE, WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT behaviour and undestandably suspicious of any further suggestions on this point. However, due to wider publicity generated by ANI and the like, we now have a selection of good faith editors who can't see what the problem is in mentioning the college (as it's plainly a regular part of the University), as it is straightforward, accurate information. Can we resolve this by discussion or do we need an RfC? Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking RFC on the wider principle, so as not to merely rehash the issue of inclusion in one article, where perhaps the longrunning dispute clouds the issues too much. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think an RfC on the wider principle is a great idea, as it will finally put this issue to bed. It is sad that WP:POINTy behavior by the dead-horse floggers makes this necessary. There's little chance that a consensus will form for including irrelevant minutiae like the attendance of a specific college within a university, unless an individual is somehow chiefly notable for attending a specific college within a university (which is unlikely). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I still think the college info falls under WP:UNDUE and also WP:NOTDIR (see point 7). The fact that it was a state college within a public/private university doesn't really tell us much about him or enlighten the reader. In fact, I think saying that it does borders on original research. Can someone find a reliable source that says that this fact is in some way significant in the subject's life? Henrymrx (t·c) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many bio details routinely included here and elsewhere for which the same can be said (eg, precise birthdate, beyond year). This can only be settled by a broader RFC, but I'm gradually losing the will to give a monkey's in the face of such intransigence against including this minor detail. For something so seemingly uninteresting, there sure are a lot of people very interested in excluding it! Rd232 ^talk 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head, Rd232. Intrinsically, it IS a minor detail (though in an article filled with minor details -- at one time it even listed the other universities that the 16 year old Olbermann had applied to). Had the specific college within Cornell been included from the beginning, no one would have cared a fig about it either way. It was only after Ann Coulter made an issue out of Olbermann's Ivy League bona fides that the battle was joined. The notion that Coulter was essentially right and that Olby might be taken down a peg by including the specific college was certainly a motive for some who wanted to include the information. Since then, however, excluding the information, no matter how innocuously worded, has become a sine qua non for many Olbermann defenders. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well at a human level, and having read the 18 months worth of tendentious nonsense on this point, I can understand why the regular editors are sick of it and not inclined to be sympathetic to the just a harmless little factoid approach. Maybe an RfC would resolve this but I'd be surprised if many editors could summon the enthusiasm to comment. We'll see. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Another RFC? Why, has something changed? This was settled already. Tvoz/talk 02:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That does it, I'm doing an RFC as soon as I can I be bothered. Rd232 ^talk 02:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to get testy just because skepticism about the idea of catering to tendentious nonsense is expressed. Tvoz/talk 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The testiness comes precisely from accusing good faith editors of catering to tendentious nonsense. Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bickering. I see no problem with having another RfC because consensus can change; however, I would suggest it is extremely unlikely to. Rd232, if you can be bothered to bait Tvoz with comments like that, I would argue that you ought to be bothered to get on with creating the RfC instead, since it is you who has expressed the desire for it. I think the appropriate expression is "put up or shut up" at this point. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can't change here, because there never was consensus to begin with (the only consensus that existed was simply whether or not to send the Cornell link directly to the AG school, a totally different matter). The many months of discussing this issue alone is proof positive of a lack of consensus. Like others, here, I too have been mystified about the rather extremely hostile reactions against any inclusion at all in the article. BuboTitan (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cough. There was really no intention to bait, it was an expression of frustration that a comment like that could materialise at this point in this thread. If there was any doubt about what Tvoz meant, his reply to my remark cleared it up. Rd232 ^talk 13:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I accept your statement that you did not intend to bait Tvoz in good faith; nevertheless, actually setting up the RfC rather than prolonging an argument about it is surely preferable, is it not? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Educational background. I feel posting the link here almost guarantees the RFC will be a messy failure overwhelmed by editors coming from this article being unable or unwilling to distinguish the general question from the specific case it originated with... but perhaps I'm unduly pessimistic. We'll see. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you were uduly pessimistic! What a quiet, polite, model exchange it's been Rd232. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)