Talk:Wolf Blitzer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:13, 7 July 2006

Thanks Jackie

THanks Jackie from Cnn now we can't even edit the damn page on Wolf now...Thank you for letting them block us lol but we still love you pretty woman.

THIS WAS JUST ON CNN BABY! IT WAS BUFFALO NOT SYRACUSE!

No information for that. --ThomasK 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, his first name is just "Wolf". It was his maternal great grandfather's name. [1]

--YTMND Significant?--

I don't know how significant Blitzer's popularity on ytmndg.com in ref to Hurricane Katrina is. The comments might be newsworthy, but their prominence on YTMND seem seconday. 24.60.184.196 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was just shown on his TV show with instructions on editing.

Remove the YTMND

Not only is the YTMND Insignificant it’s very much a

My favorite quote:

HappeningNOOOOOWWWWWW

I'm working on my impersonation of him, and I've got that line down cold : ) I even have a grey wig, beard, and the glasses. I went as him on Halloween, and people raved!

Corrections

Apparently, the change to Buffello is correct (please confirm this someone). The other thing mentioned on CNN was who he was named after. I removed "whose first name was his maternal grandfather's name (not a nickname)", until we can confirm/check this -- sannse (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How's this [2] for confirmation? DHowell 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found that too, and added this back to the article, along with the source. Demi ^T/_C 23:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here's [3] confirmation for Buffalo. DHowell 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prophylaxis is bad

I don't think we should leap to protecting articles just because they get a media mention. Once they're being hit by regular vandalism, sure. But the CNN article said they'd show how to fix it. Only now, they'll show a scared Wikipedia which they can't fix. -Splash^talk 23:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to fix something and if they can read, then all they have to do is come to this page and suggest the change. --JWSchmidt 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content review by admins on Wikipedia, and we should not be instituting one. -Splash^talk 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This still can attract unwanted attention, for CNN just had to confirm "a site that anyone can edit". Lord Falcon 23:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't appreciate the misleading summary in the protection log of "Corrections". Tell the truth: it's protected because we're scared of vandalism, right? -Splash^talk 23:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash is right Scott Fisher 23:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Just saw this page advertised on CNN! Cool! Scott Fisher 22:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha they just showed this article on CNN, and now that one good looking woman is going to change it!--Skyler Streng 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't consider that cool, this site only gets recognition if it unintentionally puts false information.--Lord Falcon 23:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

Thisa article should not be protected. It was just on CNN as an example of (unlike the monkeypox episode) how to -productively- edit. There has been little vandalism so far, and it would be a crime to discourage people who've seen the story from coming here and participating in constructive editing.--Pharos 23:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw the CNN report as it occured, I got onto the article and it was being vandalized frequently until User:Danny protected it. We then cleaned it up and since then it's been protected and only admins can edit it, this is why it's had little vandalism. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 23:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no vandalism since I unprotected it ten minutes ago.--Pharos 23:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count a total of about 7 edits while were getting up to speed. That's nothing to get all protectionist about. -Splash^talk 23:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Danny. Jus for a short while, while this page is so prominant and vunerable to vandalism, let's keep it locked. Danny is, after all, one of the people who has to field all the journalist calls about this flap -- sannse (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And most of those so-called "vandalism" edits were stuff like "OMG, I just saw this on CNN". We really shouldn't overreact. Now is the time to show CNN viewers that we are an open system; yes it's not vulnerable to vandalism now, but it's also not really a wiki.--Pharos 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should keep it protected forever, I'm just retelling what I encountered. We should keep it protected though for a few hours or maybe until tomrrow morning to make sure no vandals come back, or CNN doesn't decide to rerun the story with the same example. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 23:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't think a short period of protection is an over-reaction. It will allow all those who saw the piece to see the article in an un-vandalised form. This isn't forever, but why not give it a few hours of not making us look worse than we are? -- sannse (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is vandalised several times within just a few minutes, it is acceptable to temporarily protect it under the existing Wikipedia protection policy. Hall Monitor 23:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. That's not persistence. The correct solution is to block first and if blocks fail, protect if you must. -Splash^talk 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot measure persistence when attacks are being made by multiple IP addresses. Hall Monitor 23:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much guarantee that many of the people who saw it will be going to check out the page. At this point, I want them to see a correct version, showing our ability to respond in real time to errors, than a vandalized page, making us look like idiots. I can also assure you that when I go into the Wikimedia office tomorrow, the journalists will be asking about this immediately. Our goal is to write an encyclopedia, not provide a bulletin board service that anyone can edit. As for Hall Monitor's question, when it is such a prominent page, and displayed on national television, the answer is yes. Danny 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For additional information on when and when not to protect articles, please refer to Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Uses. Best regards, Hall Monitor 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To quote that section, "When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is best not to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself." I think that this page should remain unprotected--we've handled more than this before, and we'll handle what vandalism this may bring, even if we have to raise WikiDEFCON. NatusRoma 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still on TV? -Splash^talk 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been enough time, we can uprotect now. -- PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 04:12, 7 December2005 (UTC)

Protecting the page could discourage potential Wikipedians who saw the CNN piece. They hear that anyone can edit the articles on Wikipedia, then come here and find that they were misinformed. Such pages should be added to watch lists and reverted as needed. That is how best to demonstrate how the Wikipedia community works. -- Nelson Ricardo 11:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Are all of the quotes listed currently featured in this article necessary? If so, can someone please explain why? Hall Monitor 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we just need to link to Wikiquote --JWSchmidt 19:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hard News?

I'm not sure if I would characterize Blitzer's style as "hard news"...He pretty much just goes by the talking points. --- (True. Also, I think it worth mentioning that Blitzer started out reporting for Pat Robertson's 700 Club, according to this link. http://www.yuricareport.com/Media/OnPatRobertsonWolfeBlitzerAndDavidCorn.html )

sure he's gonn resign. ok. andrea koppel says maybe not. Kɔffee drinks you 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy? What Controversy

A section of this article, titled "controversy" states that:

On the September 1, 2005 edition of The Situation Room, while Wolf Blitzer was stating his observations of New Orleans citizens wading the streets, he stated: "... so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black ..." [1]

Now, while there is in fact a reference to the transcript of the broadcast during which Wold Blitzer said "so poor and…so black" the fact remains that there is no controversy. The reference that we are looking at may just have been a slip, and no one has attacked Wolf Blitzer for it. Had they have attacked him for it, whoever added this would have linked us to an article attacking Wolf Blitzer. Unless that can be produced, what we are looking at here is a perfect example of original research.--Pac 06:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:12, 7 July 2006 edit Zpobric (talk \| contribs) 98 edits Controversy? What Controversy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:13, 7 July 2006 edit undo Zpobric (talk \| contribs) 98 edits →‎Controversy? What Controversy Next edit →
Line 101:		Line 101:
	''On the September 1, 2005 edition of The Situation Room, while Wolf Blitzer was stating his observations of New Orleans citizens wading the streets, he stated: "... so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black ..." [1]''		''On the September 1, 2005 edition of The Situation Room, while Wolf Blitzer was stating his observations of New Orleans citizens wading the streets, he stated: "... so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black ..." [1]''

	Now, while there is in fact a reference to the transcript of the broadcast during which Wold Blitzer said "so poor and…so black" the fact remains that ''there is no controversy.'' The reference that we are looking at may just have been a slip, and no one has attacked Wolf Blitzer for it. Had they have attacked him for it, whoever added this would have linked us to ''an article attacking Wolf Blitzer.'' Unless that can be produced, what we are looking at here is a perfect example of original research.		Now, while there is in fact a reference to the transcript of the broadcast during which Wold Blitzer said "so poor and…so black" the fact remains that ''there is no controversy.'' The reference that we are looking at may just have been a slip, and no one has attacked Wolf Blitzer for it. Had they have attacked him for it, whoever added this would have linked us to ''an article attacking Wolf Blitzer.'' Unless that can be produced, what we are looking at here is a perfect example of original research.--[[User:Zpobric\|Pac]] 06:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)