User:Soliloquial

Archives
1, 2, 3

Criticism section

The wording makes it sound as though Bill O'Reilly is a prominent Republican. While he may lean right, he's not a Republican at all.Sadistik 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I needed a good laugh. MageKing17 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You can hardly call someone an independent who has always voted Republican and has (from what I can tell of his opinions and not what he tries to make us believe in order to try to cover-up FOX's obvoius bias)never even considered voting for a Democrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.31.97 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot say someone isn't independent just because he won't vote for a particular Political Party. Least of all in my state where you don't register as a Party member. --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Someone investigated his voter regisration in NY. Turns out he is a registered Republican.69.181.214.234 (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proof? Prove it! --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

who cares about oreilly what about Keith's left biased and criticism of him, there should be a section on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.118.176 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Section

Does anyone think this should be added: [1]. It's not important, but the story received a lot of play in some circles, so perhaps it is notable?OPen2737 08:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the kind of thing that goes in the Wikipedia. WP is not a gossip column. --Rtrev 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering Olbermann's attention to the personal life of O'Reilly, it seems the Post article should be included in the interest of balance. 2candle 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page six is not a reliable source especially when you consider that the entire article is based on an anonymous blog post.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 07:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the article.[2] His mistreatment of women here and in other citations (Rita Cosby) seems noteworthy in that there is a pattern of behavior. 2candle 17:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Rita Crosby content and this one is that the Rita Crosby incident got a mention in a reliable source, this one did not.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If Olbermann's own weblog can be used as a source in the article, surely the same weight can be given to his alleged victim. His problems with women could be the seed of other behavioral problems, such as his self-destruction at ESPN and his often altered view of reality exhibited at MSNBC.2candle 19:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious by your comments that your intention is to push a POV with the goal of slandering the man. Comments such as "self-destruction at ESPN" and "often altered view of reality exhibited at MSNBC" give away your position. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 23:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Should also note that the anonymous blog referred to by the Page Six column is accessible "by invitation only". So much for openness. jvalatka

(unindent) I'm surprised no one here has pointed this out yet, but can the slander, sorry, gossip page of the NY Post really be considered a reliable source? FYI the illustrious NY POST is owned by News Corp, you know, the people who own Fox News, whom Keith's show & network directly compete against and go after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.95.7.190 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The woman does exist and it is easy to verify it...it is a true story about Olbermann and that my friends makes it impossible that it is slander. If you guys would spend more time on reputable resources like real encycolopedias and dictionaries you would know that slander requires saying something untrue about someone. This story has much more possible reliable citations than much of the anti-Oreilly slander that really is on wikipedia. Clearly it is the bias of the admins on this page that keep a criticism section off the Olbermann page (Olbermann has by now received far more reputable cricitism--i.e. something other than moveon.org or another leftist website--which criticize Olbermann...what about the New Yorker article by a thirty year veteran LEFTIST reporter blasting Olbermann for making a mockery of leftists. Yet for sommmmee reason we find none of this on the Olbermann page and Oreilly's criticism section is longer than his accomplishments (Oreilly actually went to Harvard...Olbermann went to some shitty liberal arts school). Not to mention Oreilly continues to absolutely destroy Olbermann in the ratings...only the two lowest rated Fox shows receive less viewers than "Countdown". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Early Life

Why doesn't this Wiki Article list his family, religious and heritage background? --Kilowattradio 16:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any (proper) sources about that information, although I did just stumble upon his religious beliefs in one of his blog posts on MSNBC dating two years ago: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050129a —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WBHoenig (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

It's funny how Mr. Obermann ingores the truth when it comes to causes he stands behind. Like reporting that Michael J. Fox supported a candidate that voted against stem-cell research instead of one who did, just because of their party affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmihelic1977 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections moved to Talk Page

In November 2005, Olbermann and O'Reilly both attended a charity fundraiser thrown by New York Yankees manager Joe Torre. Although both were in the same room at the same time Olbermann noted that "[O'Reilly] never got within 20 feet of me" and that, "every time I looked up, [O'Reilly] would suddenly look down". Olbermann also alleged that FOX News had been distributing his phone number and that someone had hacked into his e-mail.

True, not true?? Needs citation. --Rtrev 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

===Comments about Rita Cosby=== Olbermann wrote an e-mail to a viewer stating, "Rita's nice, but dumber than a suitcase of rocks." Olbermann has since apologized for the email saying he had been stupid and should have known better, but Cosby did reply saying: "Keith got it wrong. I'm not that nice."

Another move to Talk for discussion. Is this really a notable part of his bio? I say no. Discussion? --Rtrev 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am moving another section here for discussion.

Olbermann also criticized documentarian Ken Burns, pointing out dozens of claimed inaccuracies and anachronisms in Burns’ television series Baseball. In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Olbermann at one time opposed Pete Rose being admitted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, but recently changed his stance due to the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball.

This is completely unsupported. These {{Fact}} tags have been hanging here for a while and it doesn't really seem notable. The only citation (to dawgsports.com) is to a blog that has a serious axe to grind in general. Without proper citation none of this seems notable or worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Rtrev 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing section

Where is any mention of Olbermann's role on Sportscenter, or any of his time spent at ESPN/ESPN2? This is a very in depth article, I find it hard to believe there isnt even a paragraph dedicated to this, especially considering the controversy surrounding his leaving, as well as many on and off air fights with coworkers and management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.102 (talk • contribs)

The article was recently the victim of an over eager vandal and it appears that not all of the vandalism was caught. Thanks for noticing the missing sections. --Bobblehead 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazi salute

where the discusion about his fascist salute gone>

In the archived talk pages.-Hal Raglan 13:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This section of the article is particularly weak, esp. since it is written in a non-chronological fashion. Why? Hobo-nc 04:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It also ignores Keith's honest explanation and continues to passively attack him by bringing up past qoutes about Nazism. He wasn't giving a Seig Heil! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.77.20 (talk)

So, since Keith provides an excuse that must be true right? There's enough ass kissing in this article already. I doubt you've seen the picture after reading your excuse there. Talk about censorship. Don't want to make top dog Keithy look the least bit bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.189.69 (talk)

Placed a cleanup tag since the section is supposed to be about the o reilly feud but seems to be equally about the feud and the "salute." BT14 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another missing section

What happened to the section about his feud with Geraldo? Fuck you, Wikipedia Fascists! --Werideatdusk33 01:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over Controversies->Comments about Donald Rumsfeld

RE: [3]

I guess I started this war, so let me state my opinion -- hopefully the other participants will join me. I can see why this section was added 2 or 3 months ago, but since then, Olbermann has made many assertions that could be considered controversial. I don't see anything particularly notable about the Rumsfeld accusations, and there's no mention of the "controversy" that supposedly ensued, so I think the section should be removed. Any thoughts? CalebNoble 09:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So Olbermann making many controversial assertions is a reason that he shouldn't be held responsible for any of them? More controversies should result in more coverage, not less. Otherwise, the casual reader would assume that Olbermann is not controversial when, as your comments make clear, he undeniably is. Bill O'Rielly has also "made many assertions that could be considered controversial" but that doesn't mean his controversy and criticism sections were deleted. In fact, last time I checked, there's a whole seperate article devoted to the controversy around that opinion maker. Cg-realms 2:26, 21 October 2007 (EST)

Yes. Olbermann has said plenty of things, and this is not the place to document all of them. No one has made the case that this was particularly noteworthy or controversial. From the way known conservatives keep re-adding it (without comment), you'd think it reflected poorly on him, which seems pretty unlikely, considering. I don't see any good reason to keep it though, and none has been offered. Derex 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree that this is a complete non-controversy. If its so important for these individuals to keep reverting the section, you'd think they would want to explain their reasoning here.-Hal Raglan 13:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI User:CalebNoble, has invited User_talk:Morton_devonshire#Olbermann.2FRumsfeld_edit_war into the fray. Also usersAaron and Derex This is okay as far as wikipolicy.

I don't see anything wrong with this section, it clearly states it is Olberman's opinion. Which begs the question, does User:CalebNoble support Rumsfield?

There seems to be a lot of trivia about Olbermann on this page, including the Keith_Olbermann#Baseball section.

I won't bother quoting wikipolicy to support my POV, but it is only a matter of time before somebody does.

User:CalebNoble, if you dislike Olbermann, instead of deleting sections, I recommend finding dirt on Olbermann and post it in the Keith_Olbermann#Controversies section, (with references). I would support the addition of referenced material, but I don't support the deletion of referenced material, even if it is against my own POV. Travb (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not I support Rumsfeld is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. (For the record, I think he should have been fired at least a year ago. I was elated that the Dems took Congress, but I don't support either party. I think Olbermann is highly biased, but I thought my removal of the section would probably please his supporters.) I removed the section because I thought it was incorrect to call the comments a "controversy", and it seemed non-notable. CalebNoble 06:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kewl User:CalebNoble, thanks for the clarification, happy editing. I am going to unwatch this page. I agree Olbermann is highly biased, thats is why liberals find him so fun to watch. Travb (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Entertainment News Journalists are always biased. They are hired for their personalities. MSNBC has more Republican hosts on air than Democrats. Just to clarify, Keith has only called himself a progressive. He's attacked people from both sides plenty of times. But, after putting up with Tucker all day and turncoat Matthews(softballing people like Ann Coulter), Keith is a relief in the afternoons. Tucker did call Keith a liberal once, though. But that's Tucker...what the hell does he know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.77.20 (talk) 01:12, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

As the world's leading authority on Keith Olbermann, this talk about Ronals Rumsfeld is inaccurate all around. While no fan of Keith's the Rumsfeld Special Comment was a seminal moment for Keith Olbermann, his career, his identity as a voice of the anti-war left in the U.S. and the ratings of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Keith himself has told interviews that this was a major event. It was also historical in another sense, it marked the first significant use of political blogs to promote a television program (other than a debate or convention). Keith "leaked" the special comment to so-called blue blogs like Crooks and Liars to get that word out that he had something special to say. This moment as an "event" is also fraught with mythology. The fact is that few people watched the Rumsfeld Special Comment that night for a very simple reason - it was the Thursday before the Labor Day weekend, the last week in August, which is traditionally the lowest week of television viewing each year (hint: many people are on vacation or otherwise enjoying the last full week of summer vacation). In fact, the night after the Rumsfeld special comment, the ratings for Countdown were among the lowest in the history of the show. That entire week the ratings were extremely low. In fact there was talk of canceling the show because after a brief spike in the first quarter of 2006 due to NBC/MSNBC coverage of the Winter Olympics, Keith's ratings had gone steadily lower. The last week in August was the bottom. That week also then became the basis for a massive amount of misleading reporting about Keith's ratings. In the weeks AFTER the Rumsfeld special comment, MSNBC began putting out press released claiming massive ratings growth for Keith. Some of the data and calculations they used were actually fake but there WAS an increase. MSNBC's PR department (and Keith) grossly inflated the increase by benchmarking the "growth" from that last week in August when Keith was only on-air two nights (he later told interviewers of writing the Rumsfeld special comment while stuck on a plane at LAX on his way back from vacation) and one of those night was the lowest rated night EVER of Countdown due to it being the Friday of Labor Day weekend which is the lowest rated night of the year each year. The gauzy (phony) ratings increase became the basis for a PR blitz proclaiming Keith's "skyrocketing" ratings in the aftermath of the Rumsfeld comment. The fact is that more people viewed the special comment on Crooks and Liars in the month after then watched on MSNBC that night in August. Regardless, the hype worked. Keith began doing a series of Special Comments which were duly promoted on the blue blogs, building a frenzy of excitement among left-wing blogs and their readers. Keith's ratings did go up over the next four months, peaking in the 25-54 demo in December 2006 (they've been on a steady decline since). Ironically, Keith continued to show ratings growth in TOTAL viewers and his overall numbers continue to climb to their current level of about 750,000 viewers per month making his show, by far, the highest rated show EVER on MSNBC. I say ironic because for years Keith ridiculed other networks, especially Fox News but also CNN, because THEIR ratings growth was largely outside the 25-54 demo. The average age of Countdown viewers is now about the same as CNN viewers and only slightly younger that viewers of Fox News (about 1 year average difference). With all that said, there is no doubt that the Rumsfeld Special Comment should receive special mention in Keith's entry. A footnote should also be given to Keith's Katrina Special Comment (not called that at the time) which was actually his first "essay" - lambasting President Bush over the Katrina recovery effort. My recommendation is that the Rumsfeld special comment deserves its own section in this entry because it largely defines Keith Olbermann as an on-air personality in many different ways. BTW, I am NOT going to document any of this or make any edits. I learned long ago that making edits on this entry are a waste of time because the entry is monitored by Olbermann fans whose primary purpose seems to be to turn this entry in a promotional vehicle for Keith (although I will say this entry is MUCH better than it was two years ago). All the supporting documentation can be found on Olbermann Watch which I will mention but not link here.[[User:rcox1963] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcox1963 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-USA Fame

Olbermann now appears to be getting some attention here in the UK. In December 2006, radio host Danny Baker mentioned Olbermann as his nomination for "Man of the Year". Although I listened to this radio show, I'm not sure how to reference it and work it into the Olbermann article. Any advice ?

I don't think you can, as his show is not seen in the uk.

--Crt101 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tycobbuk 14:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Petty Grammatical

My old English teacher would probably have corrected "In the essay, it imparted an instance..." to read, perhaps "The essay imparted an instance..." Look, I said it was petty.Paul Niquette 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul -- I suspect your old English teacher would point out that essays don't generally do a lot of "imparting" of instances, or of anything else. My old English teacher, Mr. Purdy, would have suggested something along the lines of "The writer recounted an instance..." 38.115.185.2 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)LNelson

Yea but you're both amateurs so why are you pretending like you know what you're talking about? This is why wikipedia is so pathetic and college professors have to warn their students that it's against the rules to use it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

24 Reference

==Attack on '24'==

On the January 16, 2006 edition of Olbermann's show, he attacked the popular FOX television series 24, accusing it of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the Republican Party, rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying 24 should be taken off of TV because it's naked brainwashing?"

All of this was in response to its January 15 broadcast in which a small nuclear weapon is detoned in Los Angeles by a terrorist group.

This seems to be completely not notable. This is an extremely recent event that has not yet become a major source of news or an important factor in Olbermann's biography. If anyone really feels this should be included then lets discuss it here. Olbermann says a lot of things that annoy people this is hardly notable in the grand scheme of things. --Rtrev 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly notable enough as criticism to be included in the 24 article, but certainly not here. If somebody insists on reinserting this, he/she will need to explain why Olbermann's remarks regarding a TV series are more important than all the other various editorial commentaries he has made throughout the years that are not mentioned in the article.-Hal Raglan 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. I think that this is part of a pervasive "BLP non-notability creep" where a lot of trivial information gets put in BLP's because there are poor guidelines on how to manage notability of elements within articles and that people feel that any "controversy du jour" is de facto notable. The burden of notability rests on the addition of new material. --Rtrev 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann 24 controversy

Thought I'd advise anybody who may be interested that Olbermanno has created an article called Keith Olbermann 24 controversy. The article had to be subsequently rewritten by several editors in order to tone down its outlandish POV problems. It seems to be pretty NPOV right now, but I think if it has been determined that this "controversy" isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the Olbermann or 24 main articles, it definitely shouldn't rate a separate article. Take a look at it and see if you agree.-Hal Raglan 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of bias section

== Allegations of Bias == Each segment typically involves a correspondent giving an impartial report which is then followed by Olbermann giving analysis/commentary and discussing the issues with guests (most of whom tend to take Olbermann's side). There is rarely any debate on his show, and his guests don't challenge his views. In an interview with [[GQ]], Olbermann names Edward R. Murrow, who in one segment of his broadcast read the headlines and in another did an analysis of them, as his inspiration. However it should be noted that Olbermann doesn't consider his show to be an impartial news broadcast like the network nightly news but rather a talk and analysis show. Independent of any of the other segments, Olbermann does devote a section to hollywood news/gosssip that he calls "Keeping Tabs." Other segments of the show not in the "countdown" include his list of the three most newsworthy people (usually in the middle of the broadcast) and the three worst persons in the world (usually right before segment one). Typically one or more spots on the "Worst Person in the World" segment include right-wing members of the media. Bill O'Reilly, Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh frequently appear on this list. In 2006, Olbermann published a compilation of his "Worst Person in the World" segments. It is because of these frequent appearances that many on the right accuse Olbermann of a "left-wing media bias." Despite the allegations, Keith Olbermann denies any bias on his show and is quoted as saying of his show: "It has nothing to do with a political point of view." The Media Research Center compiled the recipients on his World's Worst List and found 174(88%) conservative figures/ideas were attacked compared to only 23(12%) liberals. <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2006/fax20060627.asp | title= The “Worst” of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann | publisher=Mediaresearch | accessdate=2006-27-06 }}</ref>

I moved the whole section here for discussion and placed it at the top my discussion is below --Rtrev 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am adding back the allegations of bias section. His identification in the public eye is tied to his show on MSNBC, and much of that image is tied to the public perception of his left leaning bias he projects on the "Countdown With Keith Olbermann." The left tend to love him, the right tend to dislike him, this will put into record the reasons why. --Groovyman 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This section has only one cite. It needs more. It contains original research which is not so good. And I am not sure it is notable in this article. It seems like it would belong better in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article. However, most of these points are already covered there. If we can clean it up, do a rewrite, fix the problems, and get some consensus either for or against its inclusion that would be fine but as it is it should not be in the article IMHO. --Rtrev 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason to repeat a section already adequately detailed in the "Countdown" article. And the existing version seems pretty NPOV, unlike the one that the mostly anonymous editors are trying to repeatedly insert into this article.-Hal Raglan 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It isn't going to be edited, cleaned up, and improved sitting here, so I am putting it back in with requests for citations and let people reading it make improvements. --Groovyman 01:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing it from the article again per the old arguments. Besides the obvious problems, this bit is written as though it were part of an article about the show, not the host. If an accusation of bias section belongs, which it probably does, it needs to be started from scratch or very near it. Goodnightmush 01:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am putting it back in. Keith Olbermann's entire persona in the public is based on his perceived bias, this is relevant to any Keith Olbermann Biography. If there should be corrections, the community should be allowed to read and fix it themselves.--BluevState 17:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the section above is WP:POV and largely uncited. It can't be included as is. --Rtrev 19:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the section ultimately covers the exact same ground as the Accusation of bias section in the Countdown article. The only thing that is different is when his VP wondered if he should have had Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken on the show on consecutive nights. That doesn't seem like his boss is questioning his bias, just if it's prudent to have liberals on his show at all at a time when being liberal was a sin. --Bobblehead 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it does cover some of the same ground, if it is important to understanding the public personality of Keith Olbermann, it needs to be there. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles that tread the same ground other articles. Should we remove from George Washington biography, the chapter on the French and Indian Wars just because it is covered under "French and Indian War" in Wikipedia? Covering relevant material in more than one article is not against any Wikipedia rules. --Groovyman 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying Keith has a liberal bias is akin to saying Rush has a conservative bias. Isn't it self-evident in other parts of the article, making in-depth discussions of such bias simply overkill? I don't think Keith denies being liberal. Why should he? It's a political philosophy, not a disease. K. Scott Bailey 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rush's Wikipedia page does devote sections to his conservative outlook, as it should.  ::--Groovyman 22:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to write dispassionately about Olbermann's liberal political philosophy in a category without such an unabashedly pejorative title ("Allegations of Bias"), I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. If there were a section in Rush's Wiki titled "Allegations of Bias", wouldn't it seem to be overkill? Everyone KNOWS he's biased. HE knows he's biased. The same goes for KO.K. Scott Bailey 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote at the end of this section has been reversed. Instead of "I'm a Liberal, not an American" (as it reads right now) it is supposed to be "I'm not a Liberal, I'm an American" the sourcing is correct just copied wrong. I am changing this. --Lakeshark 09:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I copied the orginal quote correctly. It was apparently vandalized by 207.69.137.11, who appears to have made more than a few "modifications" to the article. Azathoth68 12:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section, if not the section itself, is slightly absurd. Would you have a section on the pope labeled "allegations of Catholicism" or a section on Hitler labeled "allegations of anti-semitism?" Of course Keith is biased. Would anyone watching the show think he wasn"t?Badmintonhist (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Propose Removal of "News Anchor" From the Bio

First, let me say I made the change, and had it reverted because an editor felt like it would "cause an argument." Why? I'm not an Olbermann-hater. I think he's funny, talented, and smart. But he's NOT a "news anchor." That title is reserved for people like Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, et al. Keith is a commentator and a sportscaster, NOT a news anchor. For the sake of accuracy, his bio needs to reflect that. K. Scott Bailey 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

While Countdown does feature a great amount of opinion and commentary like say Tucker, it is absolutely a news show. It features detailed reports on stories unlinke other political commentary shows. He anchors a news program, therefore he is a news anchor. Or so I see it. Goodnightmush 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith's Countdown is not much different than O'Reilly's show. Both men are smart--though I'd take Keith in an IQ battle--and both are extremely opinionated. I think common understanding would indicate that "news anchor" is a title best reserved for people whose job entails straight reporting sans opinion. By the definition used to loosely categorize Keith as a "news anchor", Jon Stewart and--gag!--Bill O'Reilly would qualify as well. Both discuss legitimate news items. However, it is not my contention that both should be categorized thus. It's my contention that such an austere title be reserved for the Cronkites, Brokaws, and Jenningses of the world. It would seem a more apt description of such men, wouldn't you agree?

The term is definitely more suited to such men, but Olbermann does seem to fall within the bounds of the term. His show, while similar, is substantially different from the Colbert Report and the O'Reilly Factor. It dedicates a great deal more time to reporting the story, rather than giving a very brief outline and length commentary. However, you do have a point. I'd be interested to hear what some other people have to say on it. Goodnightmush 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Understand, I'm not coming from a position of hating KO or anything like that. I'm just interested in being as accurate as possible, asnd it seems like "commentator and sportscaster" is MUCH more accurate than "news anchor, commentator, and sportscaster." Additionally, aside from their opposite political positions and the fact that Keith is a bit more witty than BOR, I don't see a substantial difference between the two shows. Both comment on the news of the day. Both do bits (KO's "Worst Person in the World"; BOR's "Talking Points Memo") that are COMPLETE commentary. The same goes for Stewart. He comments on regular news stories, with wiseass remarks. It just seems to me that--in the interest of accuracy--the phrase "news anchor" should be reserved for a more austere personage than the "citizen commentator" that the above men respresent.K. Scott Bailey 00:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am once more removing "news anchor" from his description, based upon this quote from the article:

Keith Olbermann does not consider his show to be an impartial news broadcast like the network nightly news but rather a talk and analysis show.

Please do not revert without similar explanation.K. Scott Bailey 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That line you just quoted from the article is completely unsourced. I will add "news anchor" back to the opening paragraph. Please do not remove it again unless there is a solid consensus to do so.-Hal Raglan 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please "source" an article, book, or ANYTHING that shows he is a "news anchor." To place a JOB TITLE in this article, shouldn't the burden of proof lie with those claiming he does that job? Here's the fact: HE DOESN'T DO THE JOB OF A "NEWS ANCHOR"!!!! I like Keith, but that's just the truth! Watch the show. He doesn't function as a "news anchor." He doesn't CLAIM to function as a "news anchor." Why do you all insist on leaving that job in his bio? If there's no explanation for why it's there, should it not be removed? Consensus or no, based on the above--and general common sense--I am removing "news anchor" from the article. Please do not insert in unless you have sourced where he does the job of a "news anchor." K. Scott Bailey 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "He doesn't function as a news anchor"? The dictionary definition of "anchor" is: a person who is the main broadcaster on a program of news, sports, etc., and who usually also serves as coordinator of all participating broadcasters during the program [4] Olbermann certainly peforms those duties on his show. Moreover, his show is the closest thing to a traditional "newscast" you can find on primetime cable; he is at least as close to being an "anchor" as is Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, or Brit Hume. He also coanchors MSNBC's special coverage of important events like the State Of The Union. And if that isn't enough for you, MSNBC officially lists him as "MSNBC Anchor, Countdown with Keith Olbermann". [5] I'd say that's about as definitive as you're going to get. Azathoth68 12:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, K. Scott Bailey, the burden of proof falls on you, since you are the lone voice here arguing to remove "news anchor" from the list of descriptors for Olbermann. Please note that there appears to be a general consensus that Olbermann does, in fact, perform the functions of a news anchor, so any further removal of that job title should not be done unless you can convince of us your argument.-Hal Raglan 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting the passsage, until verified because I have read elsewhere, they he considers his show a news analysis show. He doesn't. He believes it's hard news and also believes he's non partisan - a load of crap. Until someone can prove that he considers his show an "analysis" one, it's gone. It's way too bold to state with a simple, "Oh by the way, we need a citation for this generally untrue claim. We'll get to it." Abacab 13:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my proof: watch his show. Then watch clips of Cronkite, Brokaw, et al (all unquestionably "news anchors"). Then tell me what KO does is a "news anchor." I have no earthly idea why you all are so invested in keeping that job title in there, when that's not what he does. And the burden of proof is on the person arguing for inclusion. You are asking me to prove the negative, which is a logical fallacy. Document where he has been called a "news anchor" by a verifiable source, or leave it out. I am removing it again, until such documentation for inclusion is provided.K. Scott Bailey 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

These two[6][7] call him a news anchor for what he does on Countdown and this one call his a news anchor for his work on ESPN [8]. MSNBC's profile on Olbermann says "MSNBC anchor" [9]. In fact many of the articles on the site by Olbermann say "Anchor, 'Countdown'" such as this article [10]. And for those who say O'reilly doesn't count as a news anchor, you're wrong, just see how many g-hits that gets [11]. Gdo01 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If O'Reilly and Olbermann count as "news anchors" then the words mean nothing. Calling someone an "anchor" is FAR different from calling them a "news anchor." On ESPN, KO anchored a sportscast. On MSNBC, he anchors a commentary program. The job description "news anchor" has to have meaning. Applying it to everyone who sits behind a desk and talks about news is removes all meaning from the term. By this loose definition, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and countless others are "news anchors." That you all are having such a difficult time simply applying common sense to this discussion (i.e. watching his show and comparing it to actual recognized "news anchors" like Cronkite and Brokaw) may be highlighting a flaw of Wikipedia: missing the forest for the trees. We are so intent on keeping this one little pet portion of his job description in the article that we can't look objectively at his job and note that he bears little or no resemblance to any recognized news anchor.K. Scott Bailey 23:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the watering down of the term "news anchor" but your commentary on anchor meaning something other than news anchor is wrong. Look up anchor in any dictionary. The closest word it will direct you to is anchorman or anchorwoman which either means the last person in a relay, a moderator, or a person who presents news. There is no such thing as a "commentary program anchor." Gdo01 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And I am arguing that common sense be applied. If such can not be done, then the words themselves lack meaning. KO is very good at what he does, but that is not being a "news anchor." What then do we put on the pages of people who actually anchor a news program, such as Brian Williams or Charles Gibson? How do we differentiat between the two? Should we also insert "news anchor" into the bios of all people for whom news plays some part in their programming? As I said, words MUST have meaning. As such, common sense must be applied to this case, removing a clearly non-applicable job title from the bio, for the sake of clarity. (It's fortunate that I am not a vandal. Otherwise, one could make a serious case for visiting all of the applicable Wikis and adding "news anchor" to their bios, as a form of protest at the watering down of the meaning of words here on Wikipedia. It makes no logical sense to call KO a "news anchor" any more than it does to refer to Sean Hannity as such. As vandalism's not my thing, though, the bios of Hannity, Franken, et al are safe.)K. Scott Bailey 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess you'd to take a look at the News presenter article. Olbermann, O'reilly, and Nancy Grace are among there with "the greats" in newscasting. Gdo01 23:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

K. Scott Baily, unfortunately your definition of news anchor isn't supported by reliable sources and even more unfortunately, the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia is verifiability, not factuality. If a reliable source saying O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. are news anchors can be found, then they can be called a news anchor. You've got yourself in a race you can't win here, alas. --Bobblehead 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one who should have to prove a case here. The people who want to place "news anchor" as one of his jobs should have to show that he functions as a news anchor. Citing a source doesn't "prove" anything. Point to instances in which he functioned in the traditional role of a news anchor. There should be a factuality standard for Wikipedia--if, as you contend, one does not exist--that keeps problems like this from arising. Are you asserting--as it appears you are--that Wikipedia is less concerned with factuality than sourcing?K. Scott Bailey 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But your own personal version of "common sense" is not the same as "factuality". And of course facts need to be always sourced in an encyclopedia. Why do you believe your opinion should have priority here over simple, sourced facts? Editors have repeatedly provided you with citations that describe KO as a news anchor, so now its up to you to "prove" everybody else is wrong. You haven't even come close to doing so.-Hal Raglan 02:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's a good thing I'm not a vandal, or there would be MANY commentators who would have "news anchor" appended to their bios. I should remind you, I like KO. I just recognize what he does, and it's NOT being a "news anchor." To paraphrase a famous quote, "Mr. Raglan, I know news anchors, and KO is no news anchor." In all seriousness, KO is a talented, intelligent commentator and sportscaster. What this really reminds me of is the Rush Limbaugh Nobel Nominee discussion. It is a sourced fact that he's a Nobel Nominee. However, simple common sense tells us that it's a ploy. Sourced? Yes. But a common sensical approach tells us that such a description does not belong in his article. It's the same reasoning that applies here. Common sense tells us that Keith doesn't function as a "news anchor" any more than Brian Williams functions as a "sportscaster." Several in this thread have acknowledged that it seems to stretch the bounds of what can be defined as a "news anchor" to label KO as such. Yet the label--however erroneous--stays. It's clear that people are willing to set aside what they recognize as common sense, simply because MSNBC posts the word "anchor" (they don't call him a "news anchor")in a puff bio. Keith is great at what he does. He's just not a news anchor.K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, there is no other appropriate interpretation for anchor other than news anchor, thats why people like Chris Jansing are just referred to as anchors on MSNBC's website eventhough she's obviously a news anchor. I'm sure that looking up the other MSNBC's news anchors, you'll see that they are called anchors. There is no way to deny that MSNBC thinks he is an anchor. Common sense arguments won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia since that straddles if not completely violates WP:OR. Gdo01 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying that EVERY local newscast has a "sports anchor"? Or that guys like Dan Patrick at ESPN are referred to as "sports anchors"? Additionally, common sense does not even come CLOSE to "original research." Common sense is what it is: a sense of something that is common to all sensible people. Some people lack common sense, and others choose to ignore it. It would appear that Wikipedia--in this case, at least--falls into the latter category. That's fine, but it still doesn't make any sense. That there can't be a provision in Wikipedia to account for common sense is disappointing. It's too bad that there's nothing in Wikipedia's system that allows us to differentiate between Brian Williams (an actual news anchor) and Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly, et al (commentators). As a person who loves words, and values their meaning, it is extremely disappointing.K. Scott Bailey 06:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine I'll concede sports anchor and weather anchor and traffic anchor but do you think that MSNBC was seriously thinking of anything other than news anchor when they called Olbermann an anchor? That should be "common sense." You frankly have brought nothing to the table other than your "common sense" doctrine and lamenting that there isn't a "common sense" doctrine. If you have a problem with Wikipedia not accepting your "common sense" doctrine then you should take it to WP:HCP. Until there is nothing more to discuss here. There is a verifiable, official and therefore reliable source calling Olbermann an "anchor" of a show that is a "newscast"[12]. I guess he would be a newscast anchor otherwise known as a news anchor. Gdo01 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So because his employer calls his show a "unique newscast" of which he is the "anchor", I must simply acquiesce to your view, common sense notwithstanding? I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how it makes logical sense to use the phrase "news anchor" for both men like Cronkite (of whom the title was first used) and KO (who does a completely different job). Not once does MSNBC even use the phrase "news anchor" for KO, yet that bio is cited as a "source" for continuing labeling him as such. When this fact is pointed out, you fall back on the (apparently non-existent) "common sense doctrine" that I have proposed should underly all decisions as an unwritten rule. You should make up your mind whether the CSD exists or not. If it does, "news anchor" should go. If it doesn't, "news anchor" should still go, as I have seen no citation of any verifiable source that refers to KO as a "news anchor."K. Scott Bailey 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My jab at the CSD was just an example of how it can be manipulated and I didn't advocate using it. I actually stated that he is an anchor of a newscast which is correct and citeable. No one has cited "news anchor" yet, its just there on its own merit for the moment. I'll gladly change the intro to say "newscast anchor" and cite that but that won't survive long on the front page since for most people "newscast anchor" = news anchor. And just to make it clear, the CSD does not exist. Gdo01 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's rather sad that using common sense has to be codified in Wikipedia bylaws before one can use it. It's almost laughable, it's so ludicrous.K. Scott Bailey 01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the cited article never calls him a "newscast anchor" either. It simply calls him an "anchor" of a "unique newscast." If one insists that no form of common sense can be applied here, even "newscast anchor" can not be accurately applied. A "unique newscast" in this case, would have to refer to KO's "Countdown", which is a commentary program. Olbermann DOES "anchor" this program.K. Scott Bailey 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[13] Gdo01 01:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. MSNBC has clearly disregarded what he actually DOES (comment and make pithy remarks on the news) and in the process completely watered-down the meaning of what a "news anchor" does. Yet they DO (for whatever reason) label him thus. My objection to the inclusion is therefore withdrawn.K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

hardly worth it then, was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.207.31 (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A.D.D.?

Does Keith Olbermann have A.D.D.?[14] after 5 mins in.. (might be a joke though) --ShadowSlave 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a joke since I doubt his whole staff has ADD. Anyway, if it were true, you would need another source other than a joke during an MSNBC promo. Gdo01 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why only one picture that covers his face?

If that can be found, shouldn't there be a better picture of him at the top of the article?--Occono 09:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "Wears a toupee" from Television Appearances

Fake hair is hardly relevant, and even if it was, why would it belong in a section titled Television Appearances? --Mbruno42 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't always caught when it first happens. Thanks for removing it. --Bobblehead 17:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm a bit new to this (read a bit as that was my first edit haha). --Mbruno42 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Levin

Mark Levin was criticized by Keith Olbermann for nominating Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize. Keith Olbermann named him the “Worst Person in the World." Levin his radio show criticized Keith Olbermann harshly by calling him "Keith Overbite" and moked him by pointing out his low ratings and calling him a pervert. He also criticized his looks saying it was a joke that he won an internet poll for best looking news show host and accused him of being bald and wearing a wig on air.

I reworded that section to remove weasel words and improve tone, but realized it doesn't belong on the page at all. Keith names hundreds of people Worst Person in the World. Levin struck back and this, if a significant event at all, would belong on his page. Goodnightmush 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

Should there be something here about his personal life -- the allegations of sexual harassment, his relationship with a much younger woman, etc.? If you're going to bring up things like his comments about Rita Crosby, which aren't necessarily a part of his professional life, then don't other elements of his personal life belong here? PolskiSaysWhat 05:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We're confined by what can be properly attributed in reliable sources. The Rita Crosby flap made it into a reliable source so it was left in. --Bobblehead 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That same "reliable source" re Cosby was the same source re the groupie story. So why is one allowed in and not the other? Olbermann has never denied the story. And it is true that he lives with a much, much, much, younger woman, 23 to his nearly 50. And that has been in countless publications, straight from Olbermann's mouth. So why is it not there?

Even if true, the Karma story would not qualify as sexual harassment. It would be a one night stand. You can't harass someone by refusing to see them or speak to them again. In that situation, Karma would be the harasser. CuteGargoyle 09:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings trends

It seems that there is a disagreement about how to present Olbermann's ratings. One side wants to mention the large increase from a year ago and the other wants to mention the drop from Novemeber '06. I think both are valid to mention but it should be dedicated in its own section. It seems to be used as a POV battle in regards to how he's performing against O'Reilly. Just state the facts in proper context and be done with it. MrMurph101 23:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MrMurph101. If ratings are to be used in the O'Reilly feud section, they should really stick with a comparison between O'Reilly and Olbermann. If the intent is to compare Countdown to the other shows at the 8PM timeslot, it should probably be moved to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article.. --Bobblehead 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Olbermann's ratings being included in the article, but I'd like to make a two points:

• If ratings are to be specifically placed in the O'Reilly feud section, to avoid violating WP:OR, they should come from a source that mentions the ratings with regards to the feud.
• If we're just going to include general ratings statistics then they should be placed in a more general section, like where User:Goodnightmush just put them. Lawyer2b 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do the Olbermann fans cherrypick the data? Why are you afraid of the actual stats? Just show them. Hobo-nc 23:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"I'm a liberal"

Why is this being reverted?

http://olbermannwatch.com/audios/liberal.mp3

Keith clearly states "I'm a liberal."

What is "unreliable" about this sound byte. It's about reliable as it gets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualO (talk • contribs)

First of all, I do not trust anything that comes from "Olbermann Watch," and, since it is a partisan website, it does not meet Wikipedia qualifications for verifiability. That aside, if one actually listens to the sound file, one can hear that Olbermann is being ironic. He is responding to the accusations from conservatives that he is a liberal, i.e., "Oh, I believe in child labor laws, but, oh yeah, I'm a liberal." This is not a situation in which Keith clearly states, with no equivocation, no irony or self-mocking, and no joking, "I am a liberal" or "I subscribe to a liberal philosophy," etc. This is not an acceptable reference for the assertion that he is a liberal. ---Cathal 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Olbermann is a liberal, it shouldn't be difficult to find a neutral, reliable secondary source that describes him as one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming "Olbermann Watch" can't be trusted since it is "partisan website," ALL of the "Media Matters" sources on Wikipedia should be removed too using the same logic. However, in this case if the clip is taken out of context then it should not be on here because it would be misleading.Cobrapete 17:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters is not an equivalent organization to Olbermann Watch. Olbermann Watch is an opinion site by a guy who doesn't like or respect KO or facts in general. Media Matters only deals in facts, and does not allege bias ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.139 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Media Matters only deals with facts and doesn't allege bias? That's news to me! I can't play the audio on my computer, but I visit Olbermann Watch regularly and while biased, it does seem to be pretty reliable. I believe that both Olbermann and Media Matters have very little respect for facts and are no doubt biased, but that doesn't mean everything they say is a lie. Both websites (Olbywatch & MM) are politically skewed but both happen to provide facts as well. We have to be careful to check where those facts are coming from due to the nature of the websites. By the way, Media Matters alleges bias on a regular basis (and almost all of their targets, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. label themselves as conservatives). As far as the clip, if he was being sarcastic than that should absolutely not be used to label him. However, IMHO, Olbermann is, by just about anyone, a liberal in the modern sense and if there is any evidence of him non-sarcastically labeling himself as one he should be labeled as such in his biography. SouthJerseyConservative (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters explicitly states (http://mediamatters.org/about_us/) that their purpose is to correct Conservative misinformation. As such they would appear to have a partisan agenda. That doesn't mean that what they say isn't true. It doesn't mean that they don't deal in facts. But it is their aim to selectively choose what they do and do not deal with, from an explicitly non-conservative viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.1.202 (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost fell off my seat reading that media matters only deal in facts. Yeah, right and Keith Olbermann does a lot of overseas reporting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.226.92 (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Audio isn't reliable to begin with, at least not in the real world. Markthemac 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

KO was named the 67th "most influential US liberal" by the Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/liberals61-80.xml --CSvBibra 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a piece by Robert Parry appearing in the Baltimore Chronicle that identifies Olbermann as being on the "Left side of the scale". - Crockspot (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, as long as it is written neutrally, and sourced. As far as I know, they aren't really disputed facts about either Hannity or Olbermann. "Liberal" may be seen by some as un-PC, so left-of-center is probably more appropriate. - Crockspot (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Hi Helper2008, if I could take a moment to explain my take on this. . .I have seen some KO footage of his Countdown show (don't have cable so not a whole lot), my impression is that he is more anti-current WH administration policy than he is 'liberal'. One would not have to go back very far to find people on the right-wing end of the spectrum espousing the same type of views: 1) distrust of expansion of federal power (surveillance), 2) secret courts viewed with suspicion, 3) wish for less 'world policing' or international entanglements. Perhaps he actually is liberal, I think that will become more self-evident as time goes by. Particularly if a Democratic candidate is in the White House. It would be interesting at that point to see (if there is any) the re-alignment of republican positions, and with regard to KO: how that re-alignment relates to KO's own commentary. I could be convinced at this point in time if KO's views on issues more typically associated with left vs. right (e.g. public housing, the poor, affirmative action, education and health care) were known, and had multiple reliable sourcing. R. Baley (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just said below that I wasn't going to argue the point, but reading your reply, I cannot help myself. You are engaging in an original research thought process as your rationale for opposing this inclusion, while we have two reliable secondary sources that characterize him as a "liberal" and as "left of the scale" respectively, plus we have a primary source of KO actually calling himself a "liberal" on audio. Observing how he behaves if a Democrat takes office as a justification for allowing this in or not is also original research. It matters not one bit what we observe. What matters is what reliable sources say, and we have two secondaries and a primary saying he is a liberal. Can you find any reliable sources that dispute this, and say he is not a liberal? - Crockspot (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder, do claims from Olbermann himself count? Because I can find several off the top of my head, though I'm not sure if everyone would count that. In his own words' defense, however, considering him a partisan the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc is flawed logic, as they themselves are personally-avowed Conservatives, whereas Olbermann insists otherwise. --Ademska (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing the sound byte was just made up by right-wing nut jobs.

Ah yes, he pulls the "I'm not a [insert political ideology here], I'm neutral, I'm just rational". I suppose if Ann Coulter came out and said she was not conservative but neutral and went on bashing liberals the way she does you would believe her too.

How about this article?[15] Does it meet your standards? --Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is named America's 67th most influential LIBERAL-[16]--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann is a 'liberal hero'-[17]

Keith Olbermann disproportionatly criticizes conservatives over liberals-[18]

This man is clearly a liberal-[19]

Whether he admits it or not, he IS a liberal.--Lucky Mitch (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Salon link simply is an interview with Olbermann revealing his deep distrust of the Bush Administration. Hardly a strictly liberal view anymore, despite what the likes of Media Research Center and The Daily Telegraph would have us believe. This issue has been discussed on this talk page over and over. The general consensus appears to be that we do not slap a liberal label on Olbermann because 1) its clearly an arguable point, 2) Olbermann himself does not self-identify as such, and 3) the "Accusations of Bias" section adequately addresses the issue.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Whether he admits it or not, he IS a liberal"?! Wow; replace "liberal" with "communist" and this sounds like it came right from the mouth of McCarthy. The article's fine the way it is. Sjenkins7000 (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the world's leading authority on Keith Olbermann, let me just address this rather odd discussion. The audio clip is a direct link from a post which explains that it is a clip from ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick Show. The clip was taken from a podcast on espn.com. As is my policy, I am not going to reference that or edit the entry because editors like Cathal will simply revert any entry that does not comport with their goal of using this entry to promote Keith Olbermann. Keith does not say, as is claimed despite the audio evidence, that Keith said "Oh, I believe in child labor laws, but, oh yeah, I'm a liberal." That's not what he said. The statement was simply "I'm a liberal".

I have to agree it is laughable to claim "Media Matters is not an equivalent organization to Olbermann Watch. Olbermann Watch is an opinion site by a guy who doesn't like or respect KO or facts in general. Media Matters only deals in facts, and does not allege bias ever." First, the notion that Media Matters does not have an agenda is absurd on its face. It is true they "deal in facts" but the organization was created specifically to mimic Media Research Center which also "deals in facts". Both sites take facts - excerpts from print publications, audio or video clips - and then present those facts in a way that is intend to support a specific agenda (MRC=right-wing; MMFA=left-wing). At is happens Olbermann Watch also "deals in facts". I would defy the editor who disparaged Olbermann Watch to find a single post out of the 4,000 written over the past 4 years that is not "dealing in facts". We watch the show, report what happens on the show and then offer our take on the facts of what happened on the show. We provide accurate, in-context quotes, link to transcripts, provide audio and video clips, link to other news web sites and blogs, etc. That someone here does not like the conclusions that we draw from the facts is irrelevant. Anyone who doubts the veracity of this audio clip is more than welcome to google for the original post then use that date to pull up the podcast from the ESPN archive and listen for themselves. As noted by other editors above this is hardly necessary because numerous additional sources have been cited confirming what is obvious from watching Keith Olbermann on TV - that he is liberal. Or maybe you think that Keith is blogging on arguable the most aggressively partisan liberal blog in the world - Daily Kos - because he couldn't find anywhere else to post blog comments.

I would close by once again noting that Wikipedia entries are not meant to be fan sites.[[User:rcox1963] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcox1963 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Depth Perception

There's no mention of his eye injury on this page, though it is on the Countdown With Keith Olbermann page. In 1980, he ran headfirst into a subway door, permanently damaging his depth perception. It's also mentioned on his IMDB page.

Controversies: Osteopathy

I removed this new section for the following reasons: First, it was poorly written and its tone was not encyclopaedic; Second, the press release from the AOA did not respond specifically to Olbermann's comments, but to the general media attitude that Paris Hilton's osteopath was not compitent to be offering psychiatric advice, and was not "really a doctor"; Third, as compared to the other material in that section, this is very minor indeed. If other reputable sources exist indicating a specific response to Olbermann's comments, then a short entry could be written about this, but I would still question its importance in the larger scheme of things. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

MSNBC First mention

"Olbermann wrote a weekly column for Salon.com from July 2002 until being rehired by MSNBC in early 2003. On his return to MSNBC,... " I cannot find anywhere earlier in the article that mentions previous employment at MSNBC. I question why these two sentences say "rehired by MSNBC" and "return to MSNBC" without earlier mention of a previous employment at that network. I would edit the page but it might merit discussion if there is in fact missing information that should mention prior employment with MSNBC. Regularjohn44 07:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I realized it might be just a wording error, maybe implying that the "rehire" and "return" was not referring to MSNBC, but to television. In either case it is confusing. Regularjohn44 07:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had not noticed it previously, but on looking again, the sentence is certainly unclear. A rewording is in order. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentences difficult to understand

Could the following be reworded for clarity:

However, in February 2007, Olbermann launched a new blog, The News Hole. Countdown's format, per its name, involves Keith Olbermann ranking the five biggest news stories of the day or sometimes "stories my producers force me to cover" as Olbermann puts it. This is done in numerical reversal or counting down with the first story shown being ranked fifth but apparently the most important. The segments ranked numbers two and one typically are of a lighter fare than segments ranked five through three. The first few stories shown are typically government/politics/world events. The last two typically involve celebrities, sports, or the bizarre. On February 15, 2007, Olbermann and NBC agreed to a contract that would keep Olbermann at his current position as host of Countdown through 2011.[8]

--Anchoress 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for President's Resignation

Seriously, this is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia entry? I don't get it. I mean, every time he makes a "special comment," it should be added to an encyclopedia? It is out of place. Hobo-nc 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. When a national news anchor calls for the resignation of the President and Vice President, it's highly notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, he's not a "news anchor." Second of all, he is a partisan on the order of Rush Limbaugh. Every time Rush calls for someone to resign, it's notable for an encyclopedia? I understand that liberals cream their jeans over Olby, but get real already. This is unfit for the article. Hobo-nc 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Olbermann is a national, primetime news anchor on a mainstream cable news channel. Yes, his opinion segments have increasingly taken on the current administration, but again, it is highly notable that an anchor on a prime-time newscast is calling for the resignation of the President. Only a partisan bias could deny this plain-as-day event. This was not inserted as "agreement" with the position. It was presented as a notable fact. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When a news anchor looks into the camera and says Mr. President resign i'd say its pretty important Gang14 16:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

His show is not news but "news commentary" or "analysis." He's a TV equivalent of a newspaper columnist. But more importantly, I ask you this: if it is sooooo noteworthy, as you claim, then why has not a SINGLE major newspaper reported it? The "biggest" article was by the Orlando Sentinel's TV columnist on his online page, so this is neither news reportage or in print, nor is it in a major publication. No LA Times, no NYT, no Chicago papers, no WaPo--nobody is reporting it. Get a grip: Olby preaches to the choir of his 700K viewers and the DU. A big lefty circle jerk is not for an encyclopedia entry: it's simply not news and no one besides the Olby fans care. Hobo-nc 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"I don't like it" is not a rationale for removal. It's clearly notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, you have weakened your position by using politically biased language -- this will naturally color how anyone views any action you take in the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stevie: so what if I used biased language on the talk page? You still didn't answer the question. "Because Steve says so," is no more a standard than, "I don't like it." What are your sources or criteria for noteworthiness? Again, it has not been reported in a single major newspaper. None. Nada. Zip. Please explain, and cite examples. The burden of proof is on you, since I already illustrated it's LACK of noteworthiness, since no one is taking note except you. What are the criteria? Hobo-nc 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't care if KO said it or not--I just don't think it's encyclopedia material: it is too granular. Perhaps a whole section on KO's criticism of the President is called for instead. That has been his M.O. for several years at Countdown, and it would make for a much better read. Then, this one un-noteworthy editorial is contextualized in KO's whole schtick, and it makes the article make more sense, flow-wise. As part of a larger section, it may make sense (c.f., Politics of Bill O'Reilly). Hobo-nc 19:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you where we agree first: Granularity. Certainly, a "Criticism of the Bush Administration" (or similar) section would be a good idea, with this blurb in it. Otherwise, some things have obvious notability -- it's not that I say so, it just is due to the straightforward magnitude of it. A highly notable person calling for the resignation of the President is a notable event. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He's not notable (low ratings, uncited sources, incredibly biased) for one thing. And every time he makes a 'special comment' being critical of the Bush Administration is so common place you could fill 10 pages of the nonsense he expresses as his opinion. It should be removed. Tanninglamp 16:00 9 July 2007

(outdent)Just because a notable person says something, it does not mean that the statement is notable, it's the coverage that the statement got that makes it notable. Besides Olbermann, the only people I've seen noticing Olbermann made the demand are liberal and conservative bloggers, neither of which are particularly reliable sources. That seems to indicate the "Special Comment" isn't particularly notable. This is especially true for the amount of space it eats up in the article. I can see it being a sentence in a larger section covering his criticism of the Bush Administration, but as that section stands now, it's really only worthy of a link in the External links section, if that.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The event was responded to by many notable blogs of the left and right, and look at the editorial in Investor's Business Daily. You cannot discount blog response from notable blogs when the response was as widespread as it was. Blogs in the year 2007, esp. highly notable ones, are not chopped liver. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference that could be added as to the time when Keith Olbermann "enveloped" President Bush"? I don't recall that happening, and I've researched post-9/11 coverage and do not find any evidence of it happening.2candle 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Article's Organization is a Mess

Anyone want to take a stab at cleaning it up and making it more coherent? It is completely disorganized, and the headings are not parallel. For example, "Return to sports broadcasting" is between "Feud with O'Reilly" and "Controversies," and it is given equal weight as a main heading. And then it goes into "Baseball," "Smoking," and then "Ratings"? WTF? Another example, "Career at ESPN" is one heading. Why not a "Career at MSNBC"? Why is that called "After Sportscenter"? Really, the whole article is organizationally a complete mess. Hobo-nc 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How about making a main heading for all of his sportcasting--ESPN, Fox Sports, the new Football gig, etc., and the having all of his news/commenator stuff as another main heading? Hobo-nc 03:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think controversies should all be categorized together? Hobo-nc 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy sections tend to behave like trivia sections and tend to be a sign of a poorly written article. Ideally criticisms/controversies should be integrated into the existing prose in order to maintain NPOV and hopefully improve the overall quality of the article. The ultimate intent is to include the criticism/controversy in the article, while not giving it undue weight at the same time. Other than that, the layout changes you've implemented are an improvement over the cluster that existed before. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about Olbermann having his appendix out, even though it was cited. Having an appendix removed is hardly an uncommon or notable achievement unless there are complications. Also, an event that happened in 2007 does not belong in the "Early life and career" section. And in the same section, the paragraph starting with "The 6-foot-4, 250-pound broadcaster" may need to be removed if it cannot be cited, if the paragraph is kept in the article, it should say what year the weight problems happened. Windsorwindsor1 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article history

Am I the only one experiencing a very strange problem with the article history? When I click back through the flurry of recent edits, I get transported from here ([[20]]) to here ([[21]]), where the title at the top of the page says: Wikipedia:Wikipedians, Keith Olbermann. Obviously, this makes no damn sense. Any ideas what went wrong? ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia wide problem.[22] From what I've seen, it's only if you try to select the article page while viewing a diff. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

California

Can anyone explain why this is part of the California project? FWIW, Olbermann isn't a Californian nor a personality that folks associate with California? The tag is odd at the top of this page. Can we remove it? Hobo-nc 22:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing projects from a page tends to annoy those on the project, so best to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to find any indication, Hobo-nc, that you followed Bobblehead's advice and inquired over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California about this issue. Therefore, I have reverted your deletion of the WikiProject California template. In future, please consult with others before making such changes. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 14:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For someone who calls himself an anarchist, you sure are a fascist. Typical. Anyway, I have added a magical request to the High and Mighty California Project People, before whose puissance we must all bow. I told them that if they don't object by the end of the week, I am removing the tag. That project is pretty neglected, so I won't hold my breath. Anyway, what's wrong with the facts being sufficient in this case? Why does possible "annoyance" of someone trump the facts and truth? Otherwise, anyone can tag anything they want and no one is allowed to remove it, no matter how inane it is? I might as well tag this article as part of the One-Legged Inuit Hairdressers' Project. Don't use facts to argue against this new tag--someone might get "annoyed," apparently the biggest violation of wikipedia. Hobo-nc 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't the least bit of interest in your bloody opinion, so sod off. ---Theoldanarchist_Comhrá 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, telling people what to do. Why don't you live up to your declaration and take your wikibreak? I guess this makes you a liar and a fascist both. Congrats. Hobo-nc 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. --OnoremDil 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody over there raised an objection. It's gone now. Hobo-nc 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

what up now theoldanarchist? good work hobo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.49.98 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Caught Tampering with This Page

Fox News has been caught tampering with Olbermann's biography on wikipedia. [23]. THAT is a low blow... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drobert bfm (talk • contribs)

The edits they're talking about happened in 2005. --Onorem♠Dil 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It actually happened here on Jan 16 of this year. It was only 4 (3 just tidying up) edits that just added a link to the now non-existant mention of the Malmedy controversy in the Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page. Does not seem like much tampering from what easily could have been done. MrMurph101 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This same person/persons have also been making edits to remove potentially embarrasing information from several Fox News personalities, including deletions of references to their criminal/civil court experiences. I'd also add changing text from "some conservatives" to "conservatives," (implying all of them) to just point to one example, is more than just "tidying up." It clearly changes the meaning of the article, and when you review all of their edits on this and Fox News personality pages in context, they're designed to cast more favorable light on Fox and cast a more critical light on Fox's arch-enemy Keith Olbermann. That's closer to page vandalism and censorship at worst, major conflict of interest at best. Their edits should be exposed for readers to let them know a Fox News employee was responsible for making them. I suspect the new Wikipedia Scanner tool will expose a whole lot of this kind of thing. Of course, that this happened at all guarantees it will become an issue on Countdown.wny 1628, 15 Aug 2007

I think you have totally missed the point. "Tidying up" meant minor edits to correct links and grammar, not smoothly change the context of any particular phrase. I apologize for not being more technical. I found these edits through wikiscanner by the way. These four edits to this article are pretty mundane in the grand scheme of things. IP's from Fox News have about 5000 edits to wikipedia and a lot were random subjects and many not even remotely political. This does not mean that Fox or any other organization is comprosing wikipedia with any type of POV pushing. The great thing about wikipedia is that any of us peasants can carry the same weight to this project than any elite group can. They can try but they'll never be able to dominate what content is here as long as wikipedia stays the way it is. MrMurph101 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• This whole wikiscanner controversy is a bit overblown. Judge the edits by WHAT THEY ARE not who posted them. It is extremely easy to see if someone is gaming an article no matter what IP they post from. Follow wiki guidelines, maintain NPOV, and be civil and no edit will ever be a problem that can't be fixed, especially on a high profile page like this one. --Rtrev 14:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you there. MrMurph101 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• but snarly personal remarks by a badly sourced news corp isn't exactly what wikipedia needs either, it's an encyclopedia not a person attackopedia. Markthemac 02:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro

If we introduce Glenn Beck as conservative, we will introduce Olbermann as liberal. Weatherman90 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The introductions on other pages are irrelevant here. According to WP:A, Olbermann should be described as he is by reliable third party sources. Cite them if you continue to add this, something that has been inserted constantly for as long as I've watched the page and removed by dozens of different editors. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The MRC is not a reliable source. It is already cited in the allegations of bias section, where it is presented with the accurate caveat that it is a conservative watchdog group, and not an independent and reliable source. Keith Olbermann is not a liberal presenter. Goodnightmush^Talk 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A passing and unsubstantiated 3 word reference in that one source isn't enough to justify such a claim in a BLP, but I'm not going to continually revert. At the very least you'll want to change the link to Liberalism in the United States from Liberalism, until it is removed by another editor. Goodnightmush^Talk 03:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed liberal tag. The Glenn Beck reference is ridiculous, as Beck is a self-described conservative and nobody on this planet would disagree with that description. Although I understand that other articles aren't necessarily "template" material, please see the Bill O'Reilly page for how to deal with someone whose political leanings are allegedly ambiguous. While most people tend to agree that O'Reilly is a conservative, O'Reilly self-describes himself otherwise, as do several editors who will revert any attempt to insert that descriptor into that article. As this article makes clear, Olbermann does not agree with the liberal label, so we can't just slap that descriptor into the opening paragraph as indisputable fact. Let the reader decide. The article does address the issue with the "Allegations of Bias" section. Please don't revert w/out further discussion. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 13:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So because Beck has the integrity to call himself what he is, Olbermann's conceit MIGHT be in denial of strict facts (and the only people who will call him on it are the people who are Partisans and don't like him anyway), that means the comparison lacks validity? That's crazy shit. For crying out loud, Olbermann was practically sucking on a certain Presidential candidate's private parts last night. Wikipedia has no integrity on this point which is why I rarely waste time trying to make a change. --209.172.30.158 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a perennial problem with political commentators. (I edit several pages of controversial political figures) The usual way to deal with this is to use the descriptors that sources cited use. Otherwise you are inserting your own opinion (even if it is a widely held opinion it doesn't matter). As far as the intro goes it is best to use discretion. Let the content of the article make the case for his political biases. There is no need to explicitly label. I even have a bit of a problem with the way they handle it on the O'Reilly page. It would be fine to discuss political party affiliation but not necessarily in the intro. That at least is my take. --Rtrev 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

stats about viewership

I slightly tweeked this to try to remove the color commentary and tried to stick to just the numbers/percentages. Anyways, --Tom 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

regarding coughlin/olbermann

deleted what I originally wrote because Olbermann corrected himself during the half-time show. (NBC Sports)

ADL letter

The ADL, while a respected organization, does not seem to fit into the category of a WP:reliable source. Should this be here? Dlabtot 18:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why no pictures?

Wikipedia just doesn't like consistency from one article to the next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.204.10 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we hate consistency, of course. ¶ dorftrottel ¶ talk ¶ 23:46, December 6, 2007

Proposed change to lead

I propose changing the sentence

He currently hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, an hour-long nightly newscast that reviews selected news stories of the day along with political commentary by Olbermann.

to

He currently hosts Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, an hour-long nightly newscast that reviews selected news stories of the day along with left-of-center political commentary by Olbermann.

Notes

The last two notes in the reference list (Telegraph and Baltimore Chron) are the only ones related to this change, and they actually source the entire sentence (which is currently unsourced), not just the "left of center" part. The others notes are displaying from further up this talk page, ignore them. Comments? - Crockspot (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The wikilink that "left of center" links to can be to Progressivism instead, if people prefer that. I had it to Liberalism initially, but that links to a more worldwide perspective of liberalism. - Crockspot (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, lets leave the lead paragraph the way it is, without the POV interpretation. Inserting this is no different from slapping the "liberal" descriptor in the lead. The "Allegations of Bias" section exists to address the issue, and does so adequately.-Hal Raglan (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Sean Hannity being referred to as a "conservative" rather than a "neoconservative" because that is how he identifies himself. The word "liberal" has a negative connotation, and no hard and fast criteria for identification that is universally accepted. If Olbermann does not accept the label, I don't think it should be applied in this context. Snowfire51 (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing Olbermann's political commentary as "left of center" is the same as saying he is a liberal. This is a not-so-sneaky way of attempting to insert the same labelling into the lead.-Hal Raglan (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How does "liberal" have any more of a negative connotation than "conservative"? Have a look at the Liberalism, Modern liberalism in the United States, and Progressivism articles. I see no negativity there. Also note that Canada has a "Liberal Party", as does the UK, and I believe Australia as well. It seems like a double standard to me. Olbermann has called himself a "liberal", which is on tape and linked above. It's not a big secret. But I'm not going to argue the point. I presume from the comments above that no one will have a problem if I work those two sources into the "charges of bias" section. It would be a pity for them to go to waste after I formatted them up and all. - Crockspot (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that one is already used in the section. I'll work the other one into that paragraph. - Crockspot (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Keith Olbermann does not identify himself as a liberal. In fact, he's very vehement (as he usually is) about not being a liberal. I could cite a thousand sources, or you could just Google it. --Ademska (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I like your contribution to the “charges of bias” section. Thank you for your time, effort, and research. I’ve really appreciated your participation in this discussion. Helper2008 (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly rating mention

I've taken this to his user page, so I thought I'd also bring it up here. User:Badmintonhist is repeatedly adding the fact that O'Reilly's ratings are larger than Olbermann's to the article, alleging the ratings difference causes the enmity between the two men. I'd just like clarification on the current consensus, since this has been removed several times. My take on this is that although the ratings fact is true, it is not relevant to the Keith Olbermann article. If you're saying the ratings are a factor (no pun intended) in the enmity between the two broadcasters, that has to be reliably sourced. Otherwise, it's original research. Without explaining the significance of the fact, it doesn't belong on the Keith Olbermann page. Thoughts? Redrocket (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it is a factor in Olbermann's anger toward O'Reilly. Mr Olbermann gets angry at just about anything that violates his exquisite sensibilities. His lower ratings could hardly bother O'Reilly, by the way, much less "cause enmity." The point is obvious, and hardly "original research." Hosts of a more popular show don't want to give their competitors free publicity. Hosts of a less popular would be more inclined to criticize their more popular competitor as a way of creating a "buzz" about their own show. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything you've said could very well be true. However, without a reliable secondary source, it's still original research. Someone would have to prove the ratings differential caused the enmity, and that it's not just a matter of two people who differ in their political opinions, station affiliations, or anything else. Redrocket (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By your "logic" then one. should also remove the fact that Countdown occupies the same time slot as The O'Reilly Factor. Someone would have to prove that this fact caused the enmity, and that it isn't some other factor. Stop being ridiculous. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. It's not ridiculous to assume Olbermann and O'Reilly never got along, based on their political viewpoints. Does Olbermann also have a rivalry with everyone else in his timeslot with better ratings? That's a lot of rivals.

Saying one thing caused the other is sill WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, unless it's properly soured somewhere else. Redrocket (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that that both Olbermann and O'Reilly's pages make frequent references to Olbermann's tirades against O'Reilly, mentioning that they are competitiors and that O'Reilly has higher ratings is by no stretch out of line. I'm sure there are no shortage of sources that will testify as to who has higher ratings. Alternatively, we could scrub Wikipedia of references to their feud, if neutrality is suddenly a key issue here. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is being missed here. If you want to say that they occupy the same time slot or that O'Reilly has higher ratings, that is fine. These are verifiable facts. But saying that one of these is a factor in their "feud" (or whatever it is), would be drawing a conclusion. That is original research. I think that's the issue here. Henrymrx (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they are feuding yet occupy the same timeslot is incredibly significant, and not original research. That is like saying that if a man is caught murdering an acquaintance he caught sleeping with his wife, then assuming that the infidelity played a factor is "original research." Rather, without evidence to the contrary, it would be safe to assume that the infidelity played a role, just as one can assume that O'Reilly and Olbermann's proximity to one another is a factor here. It's an obvious point, yet one that does not assert that the only reason they feud is because of their timeslot. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not assume things on Wikipedia. Our original research policy, along with our rules against synthesis and our requirements of reliable secondary sources, prohibit making such assumptions or drawing such conclusions. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning that O'Reilly and Olbermann share the same time slot and/or that O'Reilly's ratings are higher is not the same as concluding that it is a factor that has caused the one who wears glasses to insult the one who doesn't on a nightly basis, but it is a bit of information that is worth knowing in that context. Incidentally, I was the one who removed the "time slot" information from that section of the article. Editors such as Redrocket and Hal Raglan who objected to the "higher ratings" information, curiously, had no apparent objection to information that would fail to pass the same absurd test that they applied to the "ratings" information. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's not the same as concluding it caused the rivalry, then why is it relevant to the article at all? If Olbermann catches O'Reilly in the ratings, should that be mentioned on the O'Reilly page?

And again, please be civil. Please discuss things politely to try and reach consensus. There's no reason to call someone else's side of the story "ridiculous" or "absurd".

Civility and Olbermann are strange bedfellows indeed. To answer the last question, if O'Reilly engaged in nightly tirades against Olbermann on the night after Countdown's ratings passed the Factor's ratings then it would be obligatory to mention the ratings development in discussing the tirades development! And, yes, it would be absurd not to. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, civility and you is the combination I'm asking for. On articles like this one, and O'Reilly, and Hannity, and the like, things get very heated from time to time. Civility is necessary to keep things encyclopedic.

And as for the discussion, calling that scenario absurd is still your personal opinion. An encyclopedia is based around secondary sources, and not speculation, original research, and synthesis. From an encyclopedic perspective, assigning emotional responses to outside stimuli is a bit of all three. Redrocket (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By that logic in reporting ,say, a physical assault by Bill O'Reilly upon Keith Olbermann one shouldn't mention their feud. To do so would be "assigning emotional responses to outside stimuli." Not encyclopedic. Badmintonhist (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, that would certainly be noteworthy. Not sure what you're trying to say with that one. If you said that O'Reilly punched Olbermann because he didn't like him calling him the worst person in the world, that's WP:OR unless it's properly sourced. Perhaps he slugged him because he took his parking space, or wouldn't stop talking about baseball, or any one of a thousand other reasons. In any case, if it's not sourced properly, it's not verifiable and not encyclopedic. Redrocket (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Red, if you refuse to be intellectually consistent then we can't reason together. I'll give it one more try. Mentioning the prior feud between Olbermann and O'Reilly in the event of an assault by one on the other would indeed be "noteworthy" and relevant. In and of itself, of course, it wouldn't explain the whole thing. There would be all sorts of other specific factors, perhaps, that led one of them to put a headlock on the other. It would even be possible, if not very likely, that the fight had nothing to do with with their prior feud, but a reporter on the scene, or even an encyclopedist, would surely mention the feud. The fact that Olbermann's show runs directly opposite O'Reilly's and that it had a far smaller audience than O'Reilly's show might have had nothing at all to do with the fact that Olbermann picked a(n as yet not physical) fight with O'Reilly, but it is certainly a fact worth mentioning. Badmintonhist (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been consistent in my reasoning on this matter. I'll give it one more try also. No one knows when or where the feud between these two men started. Saying Olbermann hates O'Reilly because O'Reilly has better ratings is original research.

Neither I nor my pal Dr Strangelove have said That Olbermann hates O'Reilly simply because O'Reilly's ratings are higher. Are you actually reading our statements? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for calling anyone who disagrees with you a "quasi-cultist pretending to be objective." [24] That's a good way to show you're unbiased, and willing to work with civility and respect for your fellow wikipedia editor.

It is impossible not to label this discussion absurd as that is what it is. Absurd. Information about their timeslot and ratings is 100% relevant to a feud between two commentators that share a timeslot.

I've notcied this nonsense a lot on Wikipedia, where it is okay to dedicate entire pages to people who criticize someone on the right while anything that simply isn't favorable (doesn't have to be negative) towards someone on the left is promptly scrubbed by an array of editors who insisit their neutrality despite loads of evidence to the contrary.

It should be stated again: mentioning O'Reilly and Olbermann's timeslot and ratings is NOT irrelevant to the article. If the tables were reveresed and Olbermann had vastly superior ratings and O'Reilly were the one going on regular rants against his opponent, then it would still be quite fair to mention this. Like Badmintonhist aptly pointed out, mentioning this is NOT the same as concluding that they only fight because of ratings, but in absence of some definitive source that can magically spell out exactly what caused their arguments, their timeslot and ratings war is a KEY piece of information. A reader with no knowledge of either man would greatly benefit from knowing these facts.

If it were known that, say, O'Reilly once slept with Olbermann's girlfriend, or that Olbermann hates Irish names, or that O'Reilly thinks only geeks like baseball, then those could be included too, because they'd be relevant information to a reader having to make their own case. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is if ratings is really that important for the Keith Olbermann article, or if it should be contained in the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article instead? If the answer to that question is that it should be included in the Keith Olbermann article, then the only thing that can be included in this article is that they share the same timeslot and that O'Reilly's ratings are X, while Olbermann's ratings are Y. Drawing a conclusion from that information is a synthesis of information and violates the original research policy.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Before the information about their respective ratings was deleted no conclusions were drawn. It was simply stated. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with simply stating their shared timeslot and ratings as a matter of fact. Really, I don't even see how one can have a big section on both O'Reilly and Olbermann's page without mentioning AT LEAST that they are competitors, while the ratings is simply listing a fact about their viewership. It is wholly possible that even if Olbermann were crushing O'Reilly in the ratings that he'd still regularly devote huge portions of his show to O'Reilly, and that O'Reilly would still pretend Olbermann doesn't exist.

I think of it this way: if I were a student assigned to write an article on their feud relying entirely on Wikipedia, what would I want to know? Their timeslot war and the ratings of their programs would be key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrangelove57 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In every school I've ever been around, Wikipedia is not a valid reference. Situations like this are the reason why, and that's why wikipedia has rules of reliable sources and original research. Redrocket (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not technically getting any disagreement from me Redrocket. The fact remains that info about their timeslot and ratings is verifiable, and is valid in a discussion about Olbermann and O'Reilly. If someone puts it up and adds commentary to the effect of "It is certain that O'Reilly and Olbermann's feud stems from their status as competitors," then go ahead and scrub it. However, a properly sourced line revealing this information in a neutral manner is perfectly acceptable. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Best way to include ratings information for "Countdown" is to include it in a separate section in the article. To include it in the "O'Reilly - Olbermann Feud" section, especially as previously written, undeniably creates the impression that the ongoing feud "stems from their status as competitors".-Hal Raglan (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the inclusion of that info automatically creates that impression. It's an obvious bit of information but, as has been argued before, isn't conclusive on its own.

If it were to be placed in another area, though, I'd suggest listing his CNN competition as well. 16:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it would most definitely leave that impression. In fact, that appears to have been Badmintonhost's intent, based on his edit summaries. At one time, the "Countdown" article listed the ratings of Olbermann's show and his competitors. That same info could simply be copied and placed into this article. As long as it is done w/out any editorial asides, that should resolve any POV problems.-Hal Raglan (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a stone fact leaves that impression, then I guess that says something about the scenario. But nonetheless, it appears we're sorta quasi maybe edging towards some sort of agreement. Should someone place the three shows and their ratings in a neutral manner, are there any objections? Also, if this was done here, I see no problem doing it on the other entries, such as O'Reilly's. Drstrangelove57 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just re-read this article and the ratings issue is already addressed in the "Return to MSNBC on Countdown" section. I think the POV can be toned down by simply using some basic facts/figures, but other than that I believe the issue should be considered resolved.- Hal Raglan (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just done a "cut and paste" of an earlier version. However, somebody needs to do some research for more current ratings info.- Hal Raglan (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

O'Reilly comments to a listener

Aside from the fact that the March 2006 comments from O'Reilly do not necessarily relate to Olberman, it should be noted that radio shows such as that of Bill O'Reilly are often on a time delay. The intent is to prevent inappropriate language or comments. Therefore the reason that O'Reilly talked about Fox Security cannot be adequately ascertained. The only reliable sources of what Mike said would be the show staff or the caller. MMfA did not accurately report on this fact. The comment should either be removed or edited. Since any newsworthiness would be removed in editing, I believe it should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biccat (talk • contribs) 21:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any objections to this, so I went ahead and made the suggested change. Biccat (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush Administration and Clinton Campaign

Why do two of the special comments, one regarding the Bush administration and one regarding the Clinton campaign, warrant their own sections on this page while the rest are covered on the List of Special Comments pages? I propose removing the Clinton campaign criticism section, at least, as an unnecessary content fork for the Keith Olbermann article. Goodnightmush^Talk 11:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think the Clinton criticism section needs to be expanded. Watch his show. It's at least 30 minutes of bashing Hillary Clinton and fawning over Obama.--Lindsay (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

External News Links

I can't see any precedent for just tagging the article with two links to collections of news stories, and have reverted the change. As per WP:EL, wikipedia isn't just a collection of links, external links should be used sparingly. Collected stories could be found simply by Googling the subject, there's no need to include specific collections on external sites. Is there a precedent for adding news article collections to BLP pages? Redrocket (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Such stories are potentially important sources of information for public figures like Olbermann who are frequently commented upon or criticized by such organizations. Such links are not the equivalent of google searches, but are instead specifically targeted collections of resources. I have seen such links in plenty of other WP articles and I expect to find links to such resources there. Also, EL should not simply contain merely links to the official websites of the subject and such outside views make EL a more complete and more neutral resource. Gamaliel (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't "simply contain links" to the official website of the person, it contains a wide variety of reliable secondary sources. Besides, choosing certain sites as ELs that house "specifically targeted collections of resources" housed by organizations that are commented upon or criticized by the subject of an article doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOV. Redrocket (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to replace Google. Anyone who is sufficiently interested in what other information about Olbermann is available on the Internet can use a search engine. As an encyclopedia, we generally want to limit our use of external links to providing specific sources for specific statements in the article, plus a link to an "official site", plus perhaps another link or two for specific things that we can't include in the article for copyright reasons. Wikipedia:External links discourages the use of external links that simply point to aggregations and search results. Linking to lists of articles from two opposing organisations (from a political perspective) is a bit gray-area, but, in my opinion, it's likely that it won't last too long in the article because someone will perceive it as not meeting WP:EL... -/- Warren 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The comparison to google makes little sense to me beyond the superficial aspect of "it looks like a list". I think a centralized collection of articles from an organization which frequently mentions the subject of the article would be more useful than a list to a couple of articles, and individual articles shouldn't clutter up EL anyway unless they are ones of particular value or importance. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

tax section

Hi Gamaliel -- I'm a pretty sporadic contributor, so I won't try and fight you too hard on this, but I don't think you're making a very convincing case to rm the tax section. "Importance" and "Encyclopedic notability" are fairly vague, but I certainly think a Yahoo News article on the subject meets Wiki's criteria for notability. Frankly I'm concerned that NPOV is being compromised here. --Kangaru99 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I said when you posted this same message on my talk page: How is NPOV "being compromised"? One yahoo news article doesn't make an issue encyclopedic. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Athiest? Where's the proof?

Where's your source that says he's an athiest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.25.104 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not saying he isn't an atheist, but there is no citation and I did a couple of quick searches and came up dry. Suggest removing the label if evidence can't be produced. 24.149.19.166 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

new yorker article

Lengthy article in the New Yorker on Olbermann. Lots of useful information in there, could be a good source for future article improvements. Warren -talk- 16:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann Tax Problems/Removing Anti-Smoking Section

I put up a section on Keith's tax problems. Not surprisingly it was removed. Why? This story was widely covered including an AP wire story. I would also like someone to explain the justification for the "anti-smoking" section. This was three years ago, Keith did a handful of mentions of his "campaign" and then never mentioned it again. Why would a few brief segments from several years ago belong in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.23.241 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Smoking section seems like trivia, and I don't think that is so important to his biography that it deserves its own section. Switzpaw (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Claims of bias

It seems to me that the section now titled Ideological orientation and claims of bias should be retitled simply Ideological orientation or Ideological viewpoint or something else along those lines. Claims of bias, though better than accusations of bias is a rather silly description for a couple of reasons. First, it implies a question when no question really exists. Anyone with an IQ above winter temperatures realizes that Keith Olbermann both has and displays political biases on his program and in other forums. Secondly, however, it also implies, without warrant, that there is something wrong with this. Claims of bias or accusations of bias is pejorative. It connotes that someone may be doing something that he or she isn't supposed to be doing. Accusations of bias derives from the fact that when Countdown first aired it was not overtly ideological, thus turning the program into an overtly ideological one seemed to be bad form or unfair play to some people. That ship, however, left port a long time ago. The section title should reflect present reality. The section text actually does this pretty well. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that most of the section is devoted to people calling him a liberal when he denies he is, I'd say that "ideological orientation" is insufficient. I see your point about "claims of bias"; perhaps there is some middle ground to be found. "Perceptions of ideological orientation", perhaps? Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But surely, Gamaliel, you realize that these "accusations" and "denials" are just a game on both sides. Why play into it? Of course Olbermann is a liberal in the sense in which that term is commonly used today (His criticisms of Hillary Clinton, incidentally, came when she campaigned at times like a conservative against Obama. He has never criticized her for being too far to the left, only for being too far to the right). But if he wants to deny this, fine. The facts speak for themselves. Whether or not the specific term liberal is used shouldn't much matter. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the terms we use, the fact remains that 99% of the section discusses how other people define him and the title of that section should reflect that. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions of ideological orientation sounds even more stilted than my title Ideological orientation. How about Olbermann and the "L–word"? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it sounds stilted, but it's a start. Your suggestion goes the opposite direction, it isn't encyclopedic in tone. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about Disputed liberalism or Alleged liberalism? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll chime in here and say that I don't think we want to go throwing "liberalism" into the title, especially when the subject rejects such claims. It may not the the best solution, but so far "claims of bias" or something similar ("purported bias" ?) seems the best choice... certainly better than playing into the "accusation/denial" game, as badmintonhist notes. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had a thought... how about "ideological perspective" ? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty similar to my Ideological orientation and Ideological viewpoint suggestions. However, I also have had a thought. How about Ideological perspectives (plural)? That would encompass "both sides" so to speak. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the subject is Olbermann's perspective, I don't see how the plural would apply... each person has but one perspective; we're not referring to the perspectives of the viewers, critics, or other parties. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the section's subject is not simply Olbermann's perspective. It is also about other people's perspective on Olbermann. That is why it is currently titled Perceptions (note the plural) of ideological orientation, and why it was previously entitled Allegations of bias, Accusations of bias, etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Olbermann, and the criticisms (or allegations, however you want to think of it) all are about Olbermann's bias (or lack thereof, depending on whom you ask). We're not detailing the observers' (again, substitute appropriate word) personal perceptions, we're detailing what they assert to be Olbermann's perspective. Hope this helps clarify what I mean. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has a section entitled "Perceived bias" and Bill O'Reilly's article says "Political views," implying that Olbermann has only been accused but O'Reilly's bias has been proven. Blatant bias in Wikipedia. --Doctorcherokee (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with O'Reilly's article, the place to deal with it is the talk page of O'Reilly's article, not here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Regarding this revert, as mentioned above the word "Accusations" has an inherent bias associated with it, and placing it in quotes has the effect of predisposing the reader to question the validity of the accusations entirely. I don't believe the best answer is to say "Accusations" of bias, which seems like double spin to me. I still suggest that "Ideological perspective" is the most neutral suggestion made thus far. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, we want to avoid sections that only contain criticism. One way forward would be to have a section on Olbermann's political views, and then spread the criticism of those views through that. This would let us have a section titled simply, "Political views".

It's also worth mentioning that criticism directed at Countdown, the show, doesn't really belong in this article, because segments like Worst Person In The World are a production of the show and its team as a whole, not just Olbermann himself. Warren -talk- 22:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I make no assertion that the content contained herein is appropriate or relevant. My only intent here is to ensure that the title remain neutral while it does exist. For what it's worth, I agree with Warren completely. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Subsections within Career at NBC Universal section

Do the subsections dealing with content of Countdown need to be so long? The first paragraph in the Perceptions of Ideological Orientation subsection ("Although it began as a traditional newscast, ..") gives a good short description of the editorial content of Countdown. If I could edit this article any way I wanted, I'd keep that paragraph in this article and move the content of the following sections to Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

• Perceptions of Ideological Orientation
• Criticism of the Bush Administration
• Feud with Bill O'Reilly
• Criticism of Fox News
• Criticism of the Hillary Clinton Campaign

Olbermann is an opinionated commentator, and these sections are just going to bloat as time goes on. Switzpaw (talk) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me Switzpaw. Some duplication in the two articles is unavoidable, but there is much more than needed in these two. In both articles, however, there are similar "accusations of bias" (or some similar title) sections in which anti-Olbermann contributors stubbornly insist on labeling Olbermann a liberal, while pro-Olbermann contributors even more stubbornly insist that he has no discernible political bias (even though he has become a hero to them largely because of his bias). The whole thing is pretty silly. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal life (2)

On the Wikipedia page for Bob Tur, it states, "His daughter, Katy, a reporter with WPIX in New York, is living with MSNBC news anchor Keith Olbermann[9]. The source[9] is "Limbaugh for Lefties," from nymag.com, 4/16/2007. At that time, Katy Tur was 23. She is now 24. The New York Post has written about Katy Tur in Page Six, to which Olbermann himself called specific attention on "Countdown" by refuting its claim he was taking a medication for RLS that has sexual side effects.

How is his status not relevant when so many other people's on Wikipedia are? I updated Olbermann's status, as well as corrected his age, under Edits. Someone removed them in record time. I didn't refer to the age of his significant other. I simply repeated the statement about Olbermann and Tur living together as found on the Wikipedia page for Bob Tur. I wonder if it's been removed.

I think it would be appropriate to have a Personal Life section that includes the existing text on his early life. Why not include his early career in its own section? I hope I signed this correctly this time. Mrs. Peel (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Moore comment

Wikiport (talk · contribs) added a "controversy" section regarding Michael Moore's (fairly tasteless) comment about Gustav, and comments about concerns expressed by Olbermann about his safety at the RNC.

In the case of the Moore comment, I don't see any evidence that it was notable. The sources listed are "Nationalreview.com 29 August, 2008" (which isn't specific enough to be a useful reference), a Danny Shea article at HuffPo, and something called olbermannwatch.com. I think it's safe to assume that the last one isn't a reliable source. Shea's HuffPo article doesn't mention Moore at all, (inaccurately?) asserts that Olbermann was going to "stay in New York to cover Hannah", and quotes the New York Post's Page Six...which isn't exactly a reliable source either. The sourcing isn't strong enough, IMO, to pass WP:V; there's nothing there that suggest that this is in any way notable information. "Michael Moore says something that offends people." That's about as noteworthy as "Keith Olbermann hosted Countdown on [some specific date]". Guettarda (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I added the controversy section as a completely legitimate heading to serve as an acceptable forum to host this knowledge. The content that I added meets the test of reasonableness as most of it is common knowledge to anyone who is able to use the most basic of search engines. There is no doubt that the information I provided is found on the links/footnotes I provided; for instance, olbermannwatch.com (admittedly a biased source) DOES host the actual video of the controversy currently surrounding Olbermann, which is completely relevant. The credibility of the source must be judged on the basis of the information it provides and the weight it holds; anything to the contrary, Wikipedia itself would be compromised. In research of the recent reversals and the individuals responsible for them, it is becoming more evident the an objective view of Olbermann is not something quite represented here. Wikiport (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Wikiport

Well, you may think it's reasonable, but that isn't relevant. The citation must comply with Wikipedia's policies. That link above to the policy on verifiability was put there to help you. Please read it. Also, I really don't see how Michael Moore making an outrageous statement even belongs in this article. Shouldn't it go into Moore's article? Henrymrx (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia, not a random compendium of information. We can't include a section on every comment made by a guest on Countdown that offends someone. We need to stick to material that's notable.

For starters, this wasn't something Olbermann said. Moore said it. If it were somehow worthy of inclusion in a Wikipedia article, it would probably belong in an article about Moore. Maybe an article about Countdown. But this article? How so? More important though is the question of verifiability. "Nationalreview.com 29 August, 2008" isn't a source - it's a website and a date. When we are talking about controversial information about living people, the standard of sourcing is higher than for average articles. So the first thing you need to do is provide a real source. Then we can decide on whether the information is notable, and where it belongs.

Your statement that [t]he credibility of the source must be judged on the basis of the information it provides and the weight it holds; anything to the contrary, Wikipedia itself would be compromised suggests that you don't understand Wikipedia's mission or sourcing policy. Please take a look at WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The material written was regarding Olbermann's reaction to the Moore comment, on air; it also illustrated published opinions regarding the fact Olbermann is in New York to cover recent storms and the current public opinion that has been expressed in reaction to that fact. A relative statement can be considered factual, as you see examples throughout the existing text of the Olbermann entry here on Wikipedia. A citation linking directly to the source fits the criteria for a reliable source, granted a reader may be required to actually read in order to find that information. The definitions of generality and specificity do not deviate according to one's interpretation or lack thereof. Here is a separate link to the video which spawned controversy, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lrAf_TE-1I - It is the same video listed in my citations, actually a more complete version. This material is just as relevant to feuds with O'Reilly for example, which is listed on the existing Olbermann page. [User:Wikiport|Wikiport]] (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The basis of wikipedia is not truth. It does not matter whether this event happened but rather its relevance can be referenced by secondary, verifiable sources. So far you've provided only primary sources to 'prove' that the event happened, which doesn't explain the need to include it here or why it will stand out as a relevant part of Keith Olbermann's life. Another person making a comment on his show is unrelated to Olbermann; an 'open smile' is hardly worthwhile material to be discussing. The 'safety issue' hasn't been discussed by any mainstream news source and doesn't seem to be something multiple organizations are covering, so I don't see why that's important either. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So true. If the sole criterion for inclusion in a Wikipedia article were that the information be true, I'd be fighting to keep these edits in the article. :-) Tomer^talk 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make a subjective interpretation of primary source material - please consult our policy on original research. But that aside, you need to show that this is notable information. It appears to be trivia, coming from a gossip page known for its almost non-existent journalistic standards. Dubious trivia does not belong in any article, but it's especially inappropriate in an article about a living person. Guettarda (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it possible to show anything is "notable," when there are users like you that just interject their own opinion and call it useless. I don't see how you are the authority or judge that users have to appeal to just to show that something is notable. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.52 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a guideline on notability. In a nutshell, the page says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. This topic does not appear to meet that standard. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LA Times Quote

Removing this quotation as there is no reference for the quotation, and per this. Goodnightmush^Talk 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC says Olbermann, Matthews won't anchor

I am not sure if this has been discussed here before. Does this mean that Countdown is scrapped? Docku^Hi 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It just means Matthews and Olbermann will not be anchoring MSNBC's election news coverage any longer. They will still host their weekday shows and appear as analysts on the election news coverage, they just won't be the guys sitting at the anchor desk during the coverage. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to have Olbermann's and Matthews's removal as anchors of the election coverage mentioned twice in the article? If the current content in Return to MSNBC section isn't enough, expand it there. An entirely new section really isn't necessary. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted back to remove the section and add back the original mention. The new section was unnecessary, out of place and very very biased. He also wasn't 'demoted' as far as the source says. I mean, his primary role on MSNBC hasn't changed, this was sort of just a temporary thing anyway. NcSchu_(Talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "Demoted" isn't supported by the ref. And don't you like the little "this and the fight with Joe Scarborough led to the demotion"? Conveniently placed after the ref. Guettarda (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't what this page is for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh, and they all jump to Olbermann's defense. What a shocker! Thank God you all added the qualifier 'percieved'. Because it isn't enough until Olbermann rips off his jacket revealing his Obama '08 T-shirt on camera until you'll all stop billing him as a down the middle journalist. --DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your unhelpful, unrelated comment. NcSchu(Talk) 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hey, no problem. I figure, with dozens and dozens of comments here trying to be helpful but being shot down because they don't fully support Olbermann, why try? You guys a rock solid.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think it is quite obvious that a small handful of users here are "protecting" Olbermann's wikipage, under the guise of being un-biased. I have seen so many reverts and edits from NcSchu and Guettarda it is really starting to get old. The humorous aspect to it is, it's so evident! Seriously, get off your soapbox and let authors contribute a truly un-biased view of the chap! Anyone with a heartbeat can do a google search and find loads of credible information that is relvant or "notable" information that belongs here. Sorry, but you don't always get to decide what is "notable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.54 (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I don't recall ever trying to remove this information from the article...I merely toned it down. Yes, he and Matthews were removed from this coverage. No, they weren't 'demoted', this wasn't 'punishment', it's merely the conclusion of an experiment by MSNBC that didn't work. Olbermann's status at the network remains unchanged. I merely corrected the statement with what was explicitly stated in the source and removed sensationalist drama and POV statements added in by people with obvious biases in attempt to smear this person. NcSchu(Talk) 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC) By 'toning down', you mean removing any negativity from a fact that is inherently negative. For example, and I'm not sure if you played a part in this, there's a segment in the bio about Olbermanns association with the Daily Kos, the leftiest left that ever lefted website. Where they celebrate the deaths of Republicans, ban those who don't support Obama completely, ban members who mention the Edwards scandal, and get giddy at the mention of McCain's torture. From all that, you summed up his association with a single sentence, calling one of the most hateful websites on the web a site that... tends to be pro-Obama. What? If you want to be a News Anchor and play yourself off as unbiased, you don't blog for Daily Kos. It's a damaging fact hidden and, to someone unaware of Kos, without any impact. I'm sure you'll counter with a 'wikipedia has an article on Kos, anyone can look.' The comment is made and implied that it's about as bad as a Hello Kitty website - what urge would they have? Simply pointing of the negativity in a situation like that doesn't need to be 'toned down.'--DystopiaSticker (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC) No, I mean removing information that's not inherently negative but was purposely written to make it seem like so. You're obviously biased given your little rant about the Daily Kos above so I don't really concern myself with your opinion. You're a new editor, and so I also doubt your knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. NcSchu(Talk) 11:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [personal attack removed]. It's so convenient that you can hide YOUR biases under the claim "I'm just toning things down." How lucky. Everyone on this planet has a bias, but if Keith Olbermann murdered someone and someone like me, who is biased against him, pointed it out, will you discard it? No. You wouldn't. You'd tone it down so people would need to read twice before they realize it's about Olbermann murdering someone, but you'd put it in. What the hell is the difference with other controversies revolving around Olbermann? Does someone need to live it a grey house and say "Average-bye" when they leave a room for you to accept their citations? These are rhetorical, by the way. Your biased opinion doesn't really matter to me.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Some people are better at putting their biases at the door when they come to actually improve this encyclopedia, which given your edit history is contained to only this talk page, you are not very interested in doing. Instead you talk of liberal conspiracies and tell people to shove ideas up their asses. How nice. I don't think anyone, including me, has actually tried to remove the information off the page. There would be no reason to do so since it's significant. But when editors come here after seeing something remotely bad about somebody they dislike and add to their article with all their hatred and bias injected, it's the job of experienced editors to come and take that out. If the source actually used words like' demoted' then that should have been translated to the article. But that's not so. Wikipedia is based on the reliable sources that are included with information. NcSchu(Talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) How about we stop feeding the troll. It would appear that DyostopiaSticker is not willing to have a civil discussion on this topic and therefore it is a waste of everyone's time to continue this discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I have seen so many reverts and edits from NcSchu and Guettarda it is really starting to get old. Well, the simplest way to avoid that is for people to stop adding unsuitable material. The standards applied here are Wikipedia standards, not my standards or NcSchu's. Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) This is to the point of absurdity. In my opinion it is quite evident to witness biased censorship in many areas of this discussion and the original page of Olbermann. This is what happens when you give some people "wiki-power" and they end up running away with it. This is a relative statement, keep in mind. Wikipedia is not the authority on Keith Olbermann, there is no shortage of anti/pro Olbermann pages out there. Bomb-bombwiki (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologize for mistaken deletion, I had a different version on my screen..Bomb-bombwiki (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you all can help me understand... Absolutely NO criticism of Mr. Olbermann is allowed, even by well sourced, credible news organizations, right? This prohibition also seems to extend to this talk page... Seems to me that Mr. Olbermann's removal as "anchor", and the reasons for his removal, might be notable. Can someone please tell me why the following edit, with proper citation, was deleted:

"A Philadelphia Enquirer editorial criticized MSNBC and the Olbermann-Matthews duo, saying "MSNBC went too far by putting blatantly biased commentators in the role of news anchors," [19] leaving the network open to "valid criticism of having a liberal bias." [19] The editorial also referred to David Gregory as a "legitimate news broadcaster"[19] and NBC anchor Brian Williams as a "serious news reader," [19] implying that Olberman and Matthews were neither. The two will remain as analysts during coverage of major political events.[18]"

Cheers y'all and enjoy the weekend!E2a2j (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an editorial, not a news article. The paper it's from is irrelevant, it's still an editorial, which means it's an opinion piece by the writer. This isn't a criticism article, so there's no reason to include criticisms by every single person that has ever criticized Olbermann. Even if the editorial was praising the duo I still wouldn't see reason for its inclusion, but I bet it would be rare for someone to add a positive item to this article, anyway. Olbermann being appointed and then removed from the anchor chair is important, that's why it's included under his history of being at MSNBC, but why does it matter that this person disliked the coverage? NcSchu_(Talk) 00:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Consensus That Olbermann Is a News Anchor

Clarification is needed here. Is Olbermann a news anchor because he hosts his own show, or is he anchoring news coverage outside of Countdown? Switzpaw (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Both, by all accounts. MSNBC refers to Countdown as a news hour, and Olbermann as an anchor. Additionally, he's anchored several primetime events (conventions, primaries, etc.). With regards to the article you referenced in your edit summary, the source only deals with the pair's roles during political coverage. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit, another editor did. Given recent news articles that say "MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as Anchors" (though they are specific that it's about election coverage), the lack of identification of Chris Matthews as a news anchor in his Wikipedia bio, and a reference to a consensus that was established over a year ago(?), I think it's completely understandable why people are making those edits. That being said, I see your point. Switzpaw (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't pay closer attention to the editors making the edits. I certainly understand why there's been recent activity surrounding the issue, though I don't think it's a definitive change in the broad context of a biographical article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, called Olbermann a commentator and analyst in a recent conference with New York media, carefully omitting the term "anchor." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.214.55 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since he has been a news anchor of sorts I don't object to that description appearing in the introduction. It should not, however, be the first job description listed after his name. If Olbermann were basically a news anchor in the way that term is ordinarily understood few would be making a fuss over him, pro or con. It is precisely because he has become a political commentator, an extremely polemical commentator I would add, that he has become something of a honcho on the political scene. Therefore I recommend that we change the job description order and list political commentator first. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Polemical commentator, Do you have any reliable source which calls him that way. if you dont and it is entirely your opinion, it would mean to indicate that you tend to have a rather strong dislike for the subject. Remember such comments might make people question your intentions here and not take your arguments serious. Good luck. Docku^Hi 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that he be labeled a polemical commentator or polemicist as a job description, Doc. I'm proposing that he be labeled a political commentator (which he already is) first, rather than second or third. Incidentally, "polemicist" is not ordinarily used as a derogatory term. It means someone who engages in, and is often skilled at, argumentation. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports Collectors Bible

I'm not sure why this was removed. A simple fact template would do. 'Credited' can mean a lot of things, including given recognition to someone (hence the 'credits' at the end of a film). A google search yield two results: this one, where the quote was probably originally from; and this one, which shows that Olbermann wrote something that was published in 'The Sports Collectors Bible'. Actually, upon further research, it seems Olbermann was probably just a source for information in the 'Sports Collectors Bible'. NcSchu_(Talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence the term "credited". Thanks for the legwork, NcSchu. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The credits at the end of a film, however, actually inform the viewer as to what someone involved in the film is being credited for. Let's face it, it was a crappy sentence and one borrowed almost verbatim without attribution. I've noticed a lot of this in Wikipedia and particularly in the Olbermann and Countdown articles. Lots of the copy, although less so now I suppose, came unattributed right out of the MSNBC web site and other sites with a pro-Olbermann slant, helping to explain the booster tone of the articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not really any part of the definition of the word, so I think it was a bit much to remove that whole statement because of your incorrect perception of what the word entails. I've changed it to 'referenced'. NcSchu_(Talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No offense NcSchu, but isn't it a bit absent minded of you to enter copy about someone being credited or referenced without crediting or referencing your own source, especially since I brought up the topic in my previous comment. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a life..that's probably why. Editing using an iPod Touch during lecture is very difficult, even more so when you need to copy and paste a reference. I figured since it's here that someone would care to add it later, as you did. NcSchu_(Talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gradual?

It doesn't make sense to say that Countdown has made a gradual move toward punditry if the program was on the air for only a few months when Olbermann started criticizing the Bush administration (in the run up to the 2004 election). Also, NBC executives have carefully avoided calling him a news anchor on more than one occasion since September 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.214.55 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the word 'gradually'. We don't need it. We don't need 'quickly', either. If, however, there are multiple outside sources characterizing it as one or the other, maybe it would make sense. --Elliskev 14:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't propose to add it right now, the adverb "increasingly" would probably state the matter most accurately. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Left leaning

I propose including the term "left leaning" or similar to modify his title as "political commentator." Although he will not call himself as such, his reputation is evident at this point. For sources, any of the stories from the Olbermann-Matthews demotion or last year's New York magazine article qualify as outside sources. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we usually try to avoid use of such labels in the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Talk radio hosts are often characterized on Wiki as conservative or liberal political commentators. Bill O'Reilly is called a "self-described 'traditionalist'" on his page. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes have those qualifiers and when was the last time that Colmes called for Bush's resignation? There has to be a point where the mass of his actions make him appear objectively liberal, and I believe that point was reached at the time of the New York article. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is probably one of the things which dont need a reference unless someone here questions the claim he is left leaning. Docku^Hi 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do question the need for it. Do we really, really need to identify someone's political leanings in the very first sentence of the article? Are we really so fucking obsessed with a person's opinions that we need to state that before we state what they do for a living? Olbermann's notability isn't related to the fact that he's "liberal". It's related to the fact that he has been television broadcaster for a number of years. Words like "liberal" and "left leaning" are pretty murky terms, anyhow, since (and I know this is a really, really difficult concept for many partisan Americans to grasp) a person's collected opinions of things don't fall neatly into a bi-chromatic rainbow of "liberal" or "conservative". It's always more complex than that.

Wikipedia is best served by side-stepping this problem altogether, and just focusing on describing what the person does. Anyone who believes we need to say that someone is "left-leaning" or "liberal" before we actually describe who they are, is here to push an agenda not related to the improvement of the encyclopedia, and is kindly encouraged to sod off. Warren -talk- 22:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And anyone trying to paint Olbermann as neutral and without a party clearly doesn't have an agenda? It's so cute when you guys get upset over criticism of your idol.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, then. Carry on. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I disagree, and agree with Warren. We've been through this before on this page many times, if you guys will check the archives. Unlike the others, Olbermann doesn't identify himself as anything, and maintains that he appears liberal because of the current political climate. It's very similar to the con/neo-con debate that's gone on over at the Sean Hannity page. Generally, we identify people with what they claim to be and not what our own feelings are. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Warren. Labels inflame passions, are subjective in nature, and poison the well. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann's notability has increased due to the fact that he's "liberal" political commentator who sometimes acts as "neutral" news presenter. --CSvBibra (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's synthesis of thought based on a questionable premise -- certainly not justification for subjectively labels in the lead of a biography. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my two and a half cents here, I think that the dispute is something of a tempest in a teapot. The most important "fact" about Olbermann is surely not that he's a liberal; it's that he's a self-infatuated zealot getting worse by the day (and one that many liberals are now quite uncomfortable with). That can be demonstrated well enough by "describing what the person does" as Warren aptly puts it. On a related issue, I don't think that "news anchor" should be the very first description the reader sees of what this particular person does. Certainly Countdown, his "signature" claim to fame, is no longer a "newscast" in any way worthy of the name. It is now utterly dominated by anti-Republican polemics, often extremely vituperative polemics, without the merest fig leaf of even-handedness. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second here. When I proposed this change, I was advocating consistency, not political positioning. Most of Olbermann's commentator peers are, in fact, labeled. Olbermann has repeatedly criticized the ideology of the American right and the Bush administration in specific, while generally praising the policies of the left. So, if Olbermann's record and reputation can in fact outweigh his stated beliefs, then he should also be labeled (liberal, progressive, left-wing, or insert appropriate term here). On the other hand, if my argument is in error, then we should remove these labels from the pages of all American political commentators from Rush Limbaugh to Al Franken to Bill O'Reilly to Chris Matthews. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a side note, the Chris Matthews page didn't have an ideological qualifier until you added it, which I took the liberty of reverting. To reply to your general comment, I think that consistency is very important. I get the sense that editors aren't patrolling a set of articles on news commentators as a whole but selecting choosing what articles they want to edit, and the end result is an inconsistency that is embarassingly apparent to the reader of a hyperlinked system. It would be great if this general issue would be addressed some how, maybe as a Wikipedia project. Switzpaw (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad behavior elsewhere is no excuse for it here (or anywhere else); the answer certainly isn't to ignore policy and replicate it. The single purpose of some of the proponents of ideological labeling gives credit to Switzpaw's concerns. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blaxthos here, which is why I also agree with using identifiers on the basis of self-identification. It's far easier for one side of the political landscape to use those terms than the other, and simply being against one side does not make you a member of the other. Dayewalker (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue gets muddled. This is a very simple question to me: Shall we be consistent in labeling a TV or radio commentator's ideology when he or she hosts a program mostly driven by his or her opinion, or not? If so, it has been made clear that Olbermann, on Countdown, operates far to the left of almost any show of its kind on radio or TV... although "liberal" may not be the correct word to describe him. (By contrast, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin host shows far to the right of most shows on radio or TV... and both are characterized on their Wikipedia pages as "conservative political commentators.") If not, then all of this arguing is moot and the job title of "political commentator" should not be qualified in any case. BTW, careful with your biting, Blaxthos. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Your simplification of the issue misses the point I was making. Limbaugh and Levin both self-identify as "conservative" for political reasons. Olbermann does not. There doesn't seem to be any NPOV need to identify him with political labels, as the majority of editors who have been in favor of marking his article have been from one side of the political landscape. As an aside, I see nothing wrong with what Blaxthos said, and conventional wisdom says if you've been here long enough to quote WP:BITE, you're not a newbie. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann has his own, wholly separate, reasons for dissembling when asked about his political affiliation. I can understand that there are opponents who want to paint him into a corner (and supporters also bending the rules in his defense), but eventually a duck has to quack. Through Olbermann's own words and actions, eventually it becomes neither biased nor controversial to describe him as left-leaning or liberal. My question remains: Has it not reached that point in Olbermann's case? (Once again, in response, I've only edited three or four articles. I just like to do my homework.) 68.204.214.55 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It has not reached the point where we, as an encyclopedia, would make a decision about what kind of political beliefs someone has, especially when that designation has actually been denied by the person on several occasions. Although you may personally refer to what you perceive Olbermann's beliefs to be, actually identifying him with your label in wikipedia is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not here to have people vote on where someone falls in the political spectrum. Dayewalker (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is entering the arena of personal beliefs? I'm sure that Olbermann's own palate is quite mixed and complicated, but the debate here is whether he should be classified as simply a political commentator or as a "liberal" political commentator. He earns his living (according to his Wikipedia entry, $4m a year) by hosting a show virtually hinged on his public, stated opinions, which tilt a long way to the American left (there are several examples in his entry to support this, and none to refute it). In any event, we have again left the focus of the debate to entertain marginally noble arguments about political polarization that have no heads here. Does he need only identify himself as a "liberal," "progressive," or "what-have-you" once to end this debate either way? Wouldn't that cheapen the mass of human experience and factual history that an encyclopedia is meant to cover? (Put another way: If Bill O'Reilly announced tomorrow that he identified with the American left and was running for the Democratic nomination for Senator, would that change the general perception of him? Of course not... Wiki editors would go through fits trying to change the lead of his entry to get both conflicting stories in.) Back to Olbermann: It is the mass of experience he has built in five years as host of Countdown that determine his qualifications as political commentator, and it is his own words and actions as host that describe him in that role best of all. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As LBJ used to say, "Come, Let us reason together." While I don't think that Olbermann should be labeled as a liberal, even though he is one, self-identification is absolutely the worst standard that can be used in providing neat, little ideological adjectives for politicians and commentators. Under self-identification Hitler becomes a socialist, Mugabe becomes an agrarian reformer, McCain becomes a maverick ... get the point? Let's see if this works. Scrap the neat, little political adjectives for all of the commentators, whether self-identified or not (though stating that they have identified themselves in a certain way, if they have, is perfectly proper). Don't call Mark Levin "a conservative political commentator," call him "a political commentator," but accurately describe what he says and does. The same for Hannity, the same for Matthews, the same for Olbie, etc. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It should be all or none. 68.204.214.55 (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not wishing to sound presumptuous, does the recent lack of comment here indicate that the recommendation that we scrap the "canned" ideological qualifiers for all of the pundits, whether "self-confessed" or not, is now the "consensus" view, at least in this little circle? As I see it, this would mean that noting that pundit has explicitly identified himself or herself as "liberal," or "progressive," or "conservative," or "libertarian," etc. would be fine. Even noting that third parties have so identified him (her) would be fine. But assuming (i.e. giving the Wikipedia imprimatur to the idea) that either the self-description, or some third party's description, is accurate by simply referring to Keith Olbermann as a "liberal political commentator" or to Michelle Malkin as a "conservative political commentator" would not be fine. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Decisions on this page do not affect other articles. Such broad decisions must go through a Wikiproject or some other discussion. Anything decided on this page is for this page only and cannot reasonably be cited for changes to another page. NcSchu_(Talk) 11:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I more or less understood your point Ncschu, which is why I said "in this little circle." I would reiterate that self-identification (unless it is an objective, verifiable one such as membership in a political party) is a terrible standard for Wikipedians to use in assigning "canned" political labels to people. Under self-identification Stalins and Maos are never dictators and Olbermanns are never liberals. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I rather dislike any labels and I think with things like political affiliation it is a matter of opinion in many cases. You can source things that show that a person's show leans a certain way, yes, but I think when it comes to personal affiliation then it's different. And anyway, what is 'liberal' or 'left-leaning'? Those are like the vaguest possible terms ever. Yes, people identify themselves in particular ways and people you think are just 'liberal' might not like that label applied to them instead of 'progressive' or something like that. That's why I think self-identification is important in this case. I think comparing this situation to Stalin is a bit much. This isn't a leader of a country, it's a political commentator. But if you'd like, the article on George W. Bush doesn't have him labeled as the 'conservative forty-third President of the United States', merely, and a few paragraphs down in the lead, that he was on the Republican Party's ticket.NcSchu_(Talk) 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Realizing that a general discussion doesn't really apply to this specific article, I'm going to throw in my opinion anyway. I think that a reasonable standard is self-identification + consensus. I'm fairly sure that people like President Bush and Sean Hannity self-identify as conservatives and I think we can agree that they are. The same would be true for someone like radio talk show host Stephanie Miller, who is a self-identified liberal. Someone like Bill Maher, on the other hand has self-identified as a libertarian; however many libertarians feel that he is not a "true" libertarian. Check out the talk archives at that article for the discussions on that one. Olbermann has not self-identified as a liberal and there may be aspects of his ideology that are not expressed on his show. In short, we don't know what his ideology because we don't really know how he thinks about every single issue. We only know about the ones he specifically expresses. We can't read the guy's mind and therefore cannot make a fair judgement. Henrymrx (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I work in the business, I've always seen people like Olbermann, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and the like as entertainers first, political commentators second. They're there to entretain and draw ratings, not to run for office. If someone identifies themselves, I think that's plenty good enough for consensus. If Hannity says he's a conservative, then he should be shown as such, despite the people who make the case he's actually a neocon. Otherwise, trying to put them into a category is secondhand research. I'm fine with self ID+consensus, as Henry stated above. Dayewalker (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dayewalker -- Henrymrx's reasoning is compelling. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I like that formulation, too, Dayewalker. It's important to remember that, no matter how much any of us may like or dislike a particular person, Wikipedia's policies implore us to apply neutrality, verifiability, and fairness in our descriptions of people, especially if they are still alive. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is vital reading for anyone who wants to work on such articles.

The focus here shouldn't be to find a source that says "Olbermann is a liberal"; that's pretty pointless given the inherently murky definition of the word. If we stick to describing the significant aspects of what Olbermann has said and done that makes his political positions clear, and provide good and reliable sources for that, then we will have done our job well. Wikipedia policy also insists that we don't WP:MORALIZE. Warren -talk- 17:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

First NBC stint

The subsection First NBC stint ends with Olbermann ashamed, depressed, and crying. It doesn't tell us how that stint ended. I assume he went to Fox Sports because an earlier section of the article says that he arrived there in the same year as his travails at MSNBC (1998). The First NBC stint subsection, however, should inform the reader, at least very basically, as to how that stint came to an end. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Political positions

I changed the heading from "Ideology" to "Viewpoints," as that is more what the section is. Also, "ideology" trypically pertains to politicians or philosophers, of which he is neither. An ideolgy is more of system, and there is no cohesive, self-contained philosophical system presented in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Commentator first

I'm changing the order of Olbermann's job descriptions by putting political commentator first rather than second, and propose that this order should stand until circumstances substantially change. While Olbermann has done some anchoring of shows other than Countdown, his chief claim to fame is his commentary, not his presentation of news. Describing his role on Countdown as that of an anchor is a bit like describing his boyhood idols Bob and Ray as talk show hosts because they used to interview each other. The "news" format for Countdown is now basically a shtick. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel so clean now. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help you out, Blax. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that his official title at MSNBC is "MSNBC Anchor", I believe that you're trying to introduce your personal opinion into the article. The change isn't warranted or necessary, and certainly isn't supported by the primary source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean a subtitle on a web page that hasn't been updated since 2007.. The description of what Olbermann does, based on the primary source, actually supports what Badmintonhist says, and it's not like he's trying to remove that description as anchor. Sounds like you're retaliating against him, reverted your edit per WP:DICK. Switzpaw (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Switzpaw, calling someone a dick is counter-productive. WP:DICK reminds us that it "does not itself license any editor to refer to any other identifiable editor as 'a dick'." So, don't do it. You also don't undo someone's otherwise acceptable edits "per WP:DICK". We make judgements about the inclusion and ordering of content based on sources, notability, neutrality, and BLP requirements, not based on whether we think an editor is doing something we don't like.

The simple reality is this: Olbermann has for five years anchored a "news and commentary" show -- definitively in that order. He has also been a news anchor and sportscaster for far longer than he has been a political commentator. Accordingly, when we describe what his profession is, we start with the news bit. Actually, we should be mentioning both news and sports before the political stuff, because he has won a number of awards in both these areas. Even without his recent fame as a political commentator, he would easily meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for this reason. Nowadays, we have people pushing the "political commentator" aspect because that's what he has become known for in the last two years, and because these same people know him only for that aspect. Olbermann is almost 50; we don't diminish or sideline what he's been doing professionally for 25 years because you saw him on MSNBC (or Youtube) doing something else.

Please review Wikipedia:Recentism for further guidance and explanation as to why we try to avoid slanting things in favour of what's happened recently. Warren -talk- 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would've been funnier if you reverted my edit per WP:DOUCHE. ;) Switzpaw (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, Warren, there must be some reason for the WP:DICK designation. Perhaps it should be replaced by WP:EDDIEHASKELL. Less vulgar. As for the order of Olbie's job titles, it isn't very important in the grand scheme of things, but then, is there anything found in Wikipedia that is? For the sake of authenticity, however, calling him a a sportscaster first is ...well... lame; however Solomonic your intentions. Had Olbie remained a mere sportscaster his Wikipedia article, if it existed at all, would probably be a stub. Take a look at the size of his article before Countdown became overtly political and compare it to what it has been the last few years. Lots of people have achieved a moderate level of fame doing one thing before becoming a cause celebre for something else. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the issue is

Case 1:political commentator, news anchor, and sportscaster.

Case 2:news anchor,political commentator, and sportscaster.

Either way is ok. let us not waste our time over some non-issue. Docku:“what up?” 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to war over it. Warren has a decent point. Badmintonhist also has a decent point, and I don't think that his edit is injecting a personal opinion, contrary to Blaxthos' accusation. Switzpaw (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just thought of something that might satisfy everyone and would certainly not offend the biggest Olbermann fan. I'll try it out in the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretty damn good, if I do say so, myself. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Warren, it's pretty hard for me to argue very enthusiastically that he is a journalist (and as Wikipedia defines the term he isn't one), but to call him a sportscaster first is a like calling the late Merv Griffin (if you're old enough to remember him) a singer first. Olbermann now dabbles in sportscasting. His real claim to fame, and I think you know this very well, is his political commentary. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are bordering laughable... do you know anything about Olbermann other than his recent political commentary? Isn't that the only reason you're here? To recap: "Olbermann now dabbles in sportscasting. His real claim to fame... is his political commentary." Credibility: zero. Let's examine:

1. Late 1980s, three time "Best Sportscaster" from the California Associated Press
2. 1992 - 1997, ESPN SportsCenter anchor
3. 1997, Hosted the 1997 World Series
4. 1998 - 2001, Fox Sports Net anchor & producer
5. 2000, Hosted the 2000 World Series
6. 2001, twice daily ABC Radio sports contributor
7. 2007, Cohost of Football Night in America

To try and say that he's "dabbled" in sportscasting is a severe misrepresentation of the facts, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Olbermann has been an award-winning sportscaster for longer than he's been doing commentary! Your blatant misunderstanding or misrepresentations make it seem like you're only here to try and inject a partisan point-of-view. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, just because /you/ don't know Olbermann as a sportscaster, doesn't mean he hasn't been one almost constantly since the early 1980s. I have friends who are heavy into American football, and most of them know Olbermann's name because of his prominence on ESPN; one was actually really surprised he had taken up criticising Republicans on a cable TV news show. It isn't very well covered here for the same reason that a lot of stuff prior to 2001 isn't covered very well in Wikipedia: Recentism.

(That, and Wikipedia's coverage of living people who work in television news is usually pretty poor. Consider for example what Tim Russert's article looked like in April, before he died, compared to now.)

I realise American politics is a hot subject right now because it's in the news a lot, and Youtube clips and the like get passed around with Olbermann's special comments etc., but the simple fact of the matter is this: Olbermann's relatively recent foray into political commentary does not invalidate or overshadow what he has been doing professionally for his entire career. Was he hired as a political commentator by MSNBC? No. Does he do political commentary in other places aside from his own television show, or in interviews? No, not really. Does some official source identify his position as such? No. On weekdays, he is a newscaster that does opinion & commentary, and on weekends, he is a sportscaster that does opinion & commentary. That's the reality. Any attempts to define Olbermann in another way is an attempt to inject bias into the biography of a living person.

Your attempts to emphasise the "political commentary" aspect of his work seem to me like you've only become aware of him through Countdown, and feel that the part that you, personally, are aware of are the only parts that are important. If you believe that Olbermann's primary notability is for political commentary, that's fine.... but it's wrong.

Further, I hate to have to call you out on this, but this, your most recent edit to the encyclopedia, is a clear violation of WP:NPOV policy, and your use of words like "prestigious" to describe things suggests that you need to get a firmer grasp on how to write in the encyclopedia without injecting your own opinions or WP:PEACOCK terms. You really need to avoid this kind of writing -- it adds problems to the encyclopedia that someone else will eventually have to fix.

One last thing: Lay off with the "biggest Olbermann fan" bullshit. My participation here is to prevent people from turning this article into something that doesn't meet Wikipedia's policies and style guidelines, and as my user page states, I have a keen interest in good lead sections. Warren -talk- 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Political commentator is a label placed by others unrelated to the subject. News anchor is the title bestowed by MSNBC and, presumably, Olbermann himself. We should always prefer official titles over subjective labeling.
2. I wouldn't categorize Olbermann as a journalist -- he is an anchor, a sportscaster, and a commentator; he doesn't routinely report any news himself.
3. I am occasionally a dick, to be sure. Sometimes it's warranted, though offense isn't intended.

-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in what either Warren or Blaxthos have said here effects the rationale that I gave for my most recent Olbermann edit. Of the three job descriptions given in the lead, the longest and most substantive copy in the article relates to his role as a political commentator. That's how we know what his Political positions are. That is the job description that should be emphasized according to WP:LEAD. As for Warren's other points, most of which are assumptions, I'll eventually address them on his talk page where I think it more properly belongs. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

One further note, there is a kind of "recentism" that is practiced in the article, but it isn't what Warren thinks it is. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, you're just plain wrong. Olbermann has been an award-winning sports journalist for twenty years, and only started doing political commentary in 2003 (closer to 2004, really). Given your edit history, it's clear that your interest isn't in improving the article, but rather pushing a POV. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ARE you talking about the edits to the article for which you awarded me a barnstar, Blax?? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD doesn't prescribe ordering of professions in biography articles; it only addresses how the section as a whole should be written, proportional to the amount of information in the remainder of the article. That's the accepted practice. I've done work on the WP:LEAD guideline itself, so I'm pretty sure I understand what the intention is. Warren -talk- 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's right. It gives a general principle which I'm following and you are not. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. This is like arguing over who gets to be the lead name in a show, ie Siskel and Ebert. Here is a simple solution that should satisfy noone, therefore not be viewed as pushing any kind of POV. If the final digit of the NASDAQ today (3/10/2008) is 0-3 then use "Anchor", 4-6 use "Political Commentator", 7-9 use "Sportscaster". Simple and no edit warring. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's use our powers of reasoning instead of parody. If the criteria is "what is Olbermann best known for", then I suppose it's subjective, though it's easily demonstrable that Olbermann's aggregate audience reach during sports broadcasts far exceeds reach during his news career. If the criteria is his official title, it's easily demonstrable that his official titles have been anchor & sportscaster. If the criteria is length in service, his sports career exceeds news anchor, which exceeds political commentator. Any way you slice it, the commentator label is trumped by official titles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I now agree with Blaxthos and Warren on this, it's a pretty good argument for -- sportscaster, news anchor, political commentator. Switzpaw (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I'm disappointed in my colleague Switzpaw for siding with the McBeebe twins on this one. However, I promise not to hunt through his edits on subjects that I have no interest in, in order to find violations of the Wiki canon. Now, let us see if we can apply some reason to the issue at hand. Olbermann is effectively the subject of at least three lengthy articles now in Wikipedia (Keith Olbermann, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and List of Keith Olbermann's special comments) principally because of his decision to do political commentary on Countdown and the notoreity he has enjoyed as a result. Prior to Countdown he was the subject of no article in Wikipedia at all, and only a relatively brief one until he became overtly political on the show. That should really end the debate over which job title to stress in the main Wiki article about him; so why doesn't it?

It doesn't end the debate for some editors for the same reason they didn't want political commentator added to the mix a while back, and have always fought to maintain news anchor in the lead: Because referring to Olbermann as a news anchor (a la David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite) or as a sportscaster (a la Brent Musburger or Al Michaels) adds depth and gravitas to Olbermann's persona. In reality, Olbermann had very mixed success as a sportscaster despite some obvious abilities. He swam in a big pond, to be sure, but he was only a medium sized fish in it, largely because he could not get along with his co-workers and managers. But now editors like the McBeebe twins, who probably had zero interest in Olbermann's sportcasting career back when that was his main gig, suddenly discover that the man had greatness in that field and pretend that after languishing in third place, this should be the main reason for Wikipedia's article on him. That's the real recentism or revisionism that's at work here. File it under WP:NONSENSE. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We've humored your shameless personal attacks and incivility long enough, Badmintonhist. This isn't a battleground, there are no "sides". Your logic is flawed, your facts are dubious (at best), and your entire POV-pushing speech is irrelevant original research. The rest of us seem to have come to a compromise consensus; please step off your soapbox. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, please don't call people names, it's uncivil and distracts from the discussion. I've been MIA for a while, but what exactly is the issue here? Because, uh, it sounds like we're arguing over the wording, is that correct? Can we just put it alpha order and be happy? NcSchu_(Talk) 01:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

About the lead

Regardless of the order given to his job titles, let's not pretend that Olbermann in 2008 is more famous for his sportscasting career than he is for Countdown, or that there's more content in the body of this article on his earlier activities than there is on his post March 31, 2003 activities. One might well get that impression from reading the lead as it presently stands. WP:LEAD: In a well constructed article the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the text. To that end I'm adding a bit the lead paragraph. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source either way that Olbermann's known more for one or the other? Before Countdown he was probably only known for sportscasting, so by placing all emphasis on something he's only done in the past few years we would indeed be violating WP:RECENT. Seriously though, alphabetical order will solve every problem, and I highly doubt anybody would notice the difference between any wording. NcSchu_(Talk) 00:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for your concern NcSchu, however, I'm now pretty much "over" the great "job title order debate". I've "vented". Not nearly as bad as a love affair gone wrong, I can assure you. Now I'm simply pointing out that the emphasis in the lead should roughly parallel the emphasis in the rest of the article per WP:LEAD, and trying to expand on the lead accordingly. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of campaign? I'm having a lot of trouble assuming that this is a good faith effort to improve the article -- given the history of Badmintonhist (talk · contribs), this seems more like a politically motivated effort. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Per relative emphasis guidelines I think newscaster and commentator have to come before sportscaster. Olbermann remains a sportscaster, but pretty much all references to him today in the third party sources, particularly prominent ones, are in reference to his work in newscasting and political commentary. Goodnightmush^Talk 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the references to OJ Simpson today are in reference to him going to jail, but that article's lead lists retired football player first and convicted felon last. :) Switzpaw (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's actually worked on WP:LEAD, I'd like to point out (not for the first time) that the relative emphasis clause doesn't dictate the order in which things in appear. The order of professions is relative to how long they've done something, not what they're best known for. Even still, Olbermann was very well known as a sportscaster for many years before the political stuff came along; the only reason anyone really cares about his political stuff now, and wants to make a lot of hay of it, is because of the 2008 election and his role in it. Warren -talk- 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In all due respect, Switzpaw, Simpson is only truly well known as a criminal defendant because of his football. Otherwise his murder trial wouldn't have been nearly as publicized as it was. There's much less connection between Olbermann.s fame from Countdown and his prominence as a sportscaster. Also, frankly, Simpson was a much bigger figure as an athlete than Olbermann was as someone who talked and wrote about athletes. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is that User:Goodnightmush did not address the WP:RECENTISM argument. If Olbermann is mainly notable for being a sportcaster, as Warren contends, then this article should be trimmed to exclude some of the Countdown with Keith Olbermann criticism and Feud with Bill O'Reilly (and I advocated that a few months ago, see an earlier talk page comment). We might end up with an article that has a lot more meat on Olbermann's legacy as a sportscaster, and WP:LEAD#Relative_emphasis would support listing sportscaster first. Switzpaw (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Hillary Clinton

I asked on April 1 and didn't receive much response, so I thought I'd bring it up again. Why does the single "Special Comment" about Hillary Clinton warrant such significant mention, particularly on a page about Olbermann, not even about Countdown? Goodnightmush^Talk 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Guess it needs to go. undue importance. Docku:“what up?” 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, seems WP:UNDUE. Dayewalker (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good example of WP:recentism when it really happened. Docku:“what up?” 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question I pose, was Olbermann's criticism of the Hillary Clinton campaign notable with respect to his career? Was Olbermann an exceptional critic of the Clinton campaign? Did his viewers come to understand his viewpoints significantly through his criticism of the Clinton campaign? If true, keep, if not, there may be a case for deletion now that some time has elapsed. Switzpaw (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro Needs Work

"The show has since gained a significantly larger viewership amid Olbermann's feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and his harsh criticisms of the George W. Bush administration in particular and rightward leaning politics in general."

I would suggest something along the lines of:

Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a partisan commentator and critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's gained some notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic (sp?) attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show.

The current version is not encyclopedic. It doesn't focus on the most notable aspects of the show. It's also opinionated. And it certainly isn't appropriate for the Intro.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

That doesn't seem much different than what we are currently saying in the intro. We're not saying 'partisan' because Olbermann doesn't identify himself that way (and if you recall, he was highly critical of Senator Clinton). I think the current summary already covers the criticisms for which he's notable. Switzpaw (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"vitriolic" is a POV word, I think it should be avoided. We are using the word "harsh" because in the source for that statement, that was the word describing Olbermann's commentary in a question posed to him, and he took no issue with it. Switzpaw (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Politicized instead of partisan is good. I just think it's weird to have statements like "significantly higher". What does that mean? The source I found was from 2006 (and I had to dig for it). What are his ratings now? Are his ratings a key part of the article that belongs in the intro? If so how do his ratings compare to other news shows? Should it be noted that (for example) O'Reilly crushes him in the ratings? What about controversies and criticisms of Olbermann? Should there be mention of that in the intro? I'm not trying to make a fuss. You can leave it be if you want. I just think it's and a bit of a that could be greatly improved. I like my changes and would welcome the input of others. I agree with you that my changes end up saying much the same thing, but I think they do so in a more encyclopedic and neutral way. But maybe I'm wrong. Oh and you say he's not partisan and give the example of criticisms of Hillary... but that's not indicated from the Intro as is, which I guess goes back to the problems with it I'm trying to get at.  ;) Harsh seems POV and it isn't sourced in the Intro even if it is elsewhere. Would anyone argue that his attacks on Bush aren't vitriolic? Maybe there's a better word.(Wallamoose (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Here's another try. But if y'all think it's good as is I guess I'm wasting my time.

Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a political commentator and fierce critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's also gone after other political figures such as Hillary Clinton, and is seen as controversial for his vigorous expression of his viewpoints. He's gained notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic (sp?) attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Using a word as charged as "vitriolic" is foolish. Why don't we change the lead for the Bill O'Reilly article to talk about how much he loves shouting and cutting out microphones? Why do we have to talk about O'Reilly in the lead of Olbermann's article? We don't talk about O'Reilly's harsh criticisms in the lead of his article. Also, all cable spokespeople are "niches" compared to the traditional broadcast networks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia is being investigated by Admins for stalking me. I'm sorry to see that he's continued this activity on this board. If anyone has any suggestions on getting rid of a pest please let me know.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is complaining to admins about me, but I am not being investigated. In contrast, Wallamoose has a Wikiquette alert filed against him for insulting editors and administrators. If he is rude to you, don't hesitate to complain at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose .RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Established a niche" is interesting (and, I see, supported by a NYT article, at least going by its title). The thing is that the lead needs to reflect the article, so what you should do is try to figure out how we should express that idea in the body of the article. Then we can adjust the lead appropriately. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think the word niche is appropriate and supported by the rest of the article. It's also the most accurate term I could come up with. Is there a question of it being POV? From the article: "a time slot previously held by programs hosted by Phil Donahue and, briefly, Lester Holt". So the niche description to me better describes Olbermann's success in carving out a cable news audience in a competitive arena (where many have failed) and against a lot of competition from other channels and other news shows. Isn't that what the article is about? Anyway, just trying to help. It's not a big deal to me, but I think that portion about his recent career could be better phrased.

For what it's worth regarding Vitriolic:

"–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or resembling vitriol [1) Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc. 2. oil of vitriol; sulfuric acid. 3) something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism] 2. obtained from vitriol. 3. very caustic; scathing: vitriolic criticism. —Synonyms 3. acid, bitter.—Antonyms 3. bland, mild."

That's my vocabulary lesson for today.  :) Seems pretty on target to me, but I'm open on what kind of vocab is used to characterize Olbermann's attacks on Bush and O'Reilly. Harsh actually seems more POV to me, but its similar. I like vitriolic because it seems accurate to me and we might encourage someone to look up vitriolic and expand their vocab.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The word "vitriolic" is too charged, and POV. It paints a negative picture of the speaker. If you add it to this article, I will add it to Bill O'Reilly's, because he gets just as angry.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RRG, don't make threats to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. You seem to have come here and plopped down in the middle of a productive discussion to continue jousting with Wallamoose, who has been pretty easy to work with on this article. Please remain civil. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My coming here has nothing to do with Wallamoose. I came to read the article and then stumbled upon Wallamoose attempting to inject charged rhetoric into the article. I am not threatening to disrupt Wikipedia; but I am pointing out how neutral Bill O'Reilly's lead is, so why should Olbermann's not be? Wallamoose has been very uncivil to me; I'm not the one who merits warning. For more information, read the Wikiquette alert on him, as I'm not here to bring that up.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you not here to bring it up? You've already linked to it once and told people to go there to complain. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)