Talk:Tim Russert

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MOderated Meet the Press for 17 Years, not 16 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.15.1 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Political Orientation

I remember reading in a Reader's Digest article that Tim Russert is a lifelong Democrat. If somebody can find the source, I think it would be worthwile to include this information, although he is remarkably impartial on Meet the Press.

Cwenger 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Small thing: I removed the "still" before "An avid Bills fan."

Where did "with conservative leanings" come from? He worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo who certainly weren't conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LM1234 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He was a moderate Democrat-- he was no far-Lefty. But best of all, he kept his positics out of his reporting to a large degree.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers

I removed the whole section about newspapers and Kinght Ridder. I love newspapers as well, but this really doesn't belong here, especially with the strange time refernces ("Tuesday", "last week").

Election Night 2000

Shouldn't there be something about Election Night of 2000 and the now famous whiteboard lesson on the American election system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.154.52 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Prosecution Rests in CIA Leak Trial of Former White House Aide

WASHINGTON — NBC's Tim Russert deflected criticism of his ethics and credibility as the prosecution rested its case Thursday in the obstruction and perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250846,00.html Crocoite 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on spelling of Iraq

Someone had put on there that he once misspelled Iraq as "Irak." That says nothing about him, and um, I think it should be self-evident why you don't put random occurences of a journalist misspeaking unless it is a major gaffe or part of a pattern. Also the user linked to YouTube. Shouldn't links to YouTube be banned here? 1.) it's not news and 2.) as time goes by, the videos on YouTube will eventually expire and be removed and so it makes no sense to cite something to a non-permanent source like that. 71.150.251.192 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Is "faux everyman image" really something that should be in the article? If you click on the reference link, it doesn't seem like a credible source. Wuzee (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, the reference link is an editorial piece, and the criticism is more of a personal attack than a real genuine criticism.

ajiav 23:07, 25 February 2008

• The idea that Russert was a journalist is also just "opinion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.67.236 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Journalist" has an objective meaning, which TR unquestionably meets, and a subjective one. WP uses the subjective sense only when quoting. Yr opinion of whether he met your version of the subjective sense doesn't even belong on this talk page, let alone in the accompanying article.
    --Jerzy•t 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    
• The term "f.e.i" is hopelessly subjective, and unlikely to be widely believed in the case of a guy who was first in his or any preceding generation of his family to go to college, and who got to law school because one of his dad's buddies, a chronic winner at gin or pinochle, gave him a sack of cash for the purpose. If there was a chorus of it, it could be covered, but we'd need not a ref that proved it was said, but at least one highly respected source who described that chorus.
  --Jerzy•t 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  

Death

Is there any credibility to this death notice or are we dealing with another case of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.176.234 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drudge has it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.154 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also on NYTimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.1.83.181 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw it on the NYtimes website before MSNBC reported on their website or on air Jim (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun-Tines is reporting it on their front page as of 3:32pm Eastern time. "Details developing: Sources have reported that Tim Russert, longtime host of NBC's "Meet the Press" has died of a heart attack. He was the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, and hosted Tim Russert, a weekly interview program on MSNBC." (Stevenamos (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

The page currently says: "Tim Russert passed away of an apparent Heart Attack June 14, 2008."! HOLY SHIT! WE BETTER WARN HIM TO GO SEE A DOCTOR! Fdgfds (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad they caught it in time! Thank you, Mr. Time-Traveler! I hope he gets better. D: 72.224.14.144 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a note in there about the heart attack being "obesity related?" There's no medical information that indicates his weight was an issue in his heart attack. 64.81.139.190 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CBS is reporting that Russert heart attack was diabetes related, perhaps it should be included. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/06/13/tim-russert.html?ref=rss

RIP  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogf (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 

I request a semi-protected tag to be placed on the main page of this article. After he died, vandals are making inappropriate comments about his death. Thanks, and in advance, Harold26 (c) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ding dong the witch is dead!" yeah I'd say that was inappropriate. Also the picture of him is unflattering 169.132.18.249 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that "Liberal piece of crap finally died" is more inappropriate :/ -76.172.41.63 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the exact time that MSNBC REPORTED his death? Why is that notable? I could possibly see having the time of his death (though even that is not important), but the time it was reported to the public by one media outlet?. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no one knows what he died of yet, that line that says heart attack should be removed until actual cause is known, NY Daily News doesn't know anything, they are making it up on the fly and just guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.67.105 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The buffalo news confirms heart attack, citing the NYT and Post, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The NYTimes is reporting a coronary embolism, actually.Choiniej (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to mention that Williams broke down. Can someone change it? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He was a beautiful man. It was comforting to see someone in a position of power who so clearly had a big heart.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments to improving the article and avoid commenting on the subject himself. See WP:TALK for more info. Nufy8 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence stating that Russert's wife and son were in Italy when he died (which has mysteriously disappeared) can be confirmed: "NBC's Tom Brokaw says Russert's wife and son, Luke, were in Italy at the time, celebrating Luke's graduation from college." From: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003816530&imw=Y Although I have an account, I cannot edit the page. Can someone add the citation? The sentence about celebrating Luke's graduation, which also says [citation needed] can be confirmed by the same article and many others. J.A. Hurley (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the president made a comment about Russert's death and legacy. Can someone please write something on it?Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should note that Mr. Russert's death occurred on Friday, June 13. The day of the week coupled to the date is significant for superstitious people. Fredric100 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)--Fredric100 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that a link be but on Sally Quinn's name. 70.190.85.156 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the article - "breaking with this tradition the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia announced his death nearly 30 minutes before NBC." Nobody cares about this. Please remove it. It might be appropriate in an article ABOUT how much faster or braver or something that Wikipedia is, but it has nothing to do with Tim Russert.

Cause of Death

Is it a coronary embolism or a heart attack? MSNBC and most other sources are reporting the former, while the New York Times is reporting the latter. — BrotherFlounder 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources, and would be fine in themselves. Maybe a line "The cause of death was reported as either a Heart Attack ^[1] or a coronary embolism ^[2]." would satisfy both sides, as there are legitimate reports going either way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to confirm the New York Times says coronary embolism? I'm not seeing anything on their site. Nufy8 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find it, but it looks like both MSNBC and the NYT have removed the apparent cause of death from their respective articles. Looks like we'll have to wait a bit. — BrotherFlounder 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC has removed the cause of death entirely from their article, now simply stating "died Friday after being stricken at the bureau," "Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said," and "no further details were immediately available." I suspect any "cause of death" reports mentioned in articles are speculation by lay observers at this point. I suggest waiting until there's a more authoritative staement of the cause of death (like, from a doctor/medical examiner/coroner) before citing a cause of death at all. I suggest stating something like the following:

Russert collapsed and died while recording a voiceover for Meet the Press in Washington, D.C. on June 13, 2008. He had just returned from family vacation in Italy, which celebrated his son's graduation. News of his death was reported live on NBC and MSNBC by Tom Brokaw. Despite early speculation of a heart attack or coronary embolism, the cause of Russert's death is not yet known.

--Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that a coronary embolism is one possible cause of a heart attack - the two don't need to be mutually exclusive. Why don't we just wait until there's some consensus or more information in the media. 155.212.202.250 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Kevin.

(EC)I'll see what I can find... but wait a tic, wouldn't a coronary embolism (a blockage moving through the body and getting caught somewhere) cause a heart attack (a blockage of blood vessels in the heart causing cardiac arrest and muscle death in the heart, which stops blood pumping and causes death)? Maybe we're arguing the same point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how news can report a young man dying of a heart attack without reporting on what could have led to that! such as his lifestyle. The medical phenomenon is even more interesting than his professional life.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk • contribs)

A note, Wikipedia ain't the news, so it's not our place to speculate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but if they end up calling this death 'from natural causes', that would be completely silly.

Heartattack, as far as I know, according to CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News --Roadgeek9 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC has backed away from stating any cause at all. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CNN is now speculating that it is cardiac arrest. --Roadgeek9 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculation isn't reliable. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

as of right now, any cause of death listed here or elsewhere should be prefaced with the word apparent.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to avoid stating anything until the cuase is more than "apparent." I'm of the opinion that no information better than wrong information, plus there's WP:CRYSTAL. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A coronary embolism and a heart attack are the same thing. As someone who has a bit of expertise on this subject, I believe what they meant to say is pulmonary embolism. CH52584 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a coronary embolism and a heart attack (myocardial infarction) are *not* the same thing. An embolism in the coronary artery can cause a heart attack, but they're two different physiological events, and a pulmonary embolism is something different all together.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that a pulmonary embolism is completely different. In layman's terms, coronary embolism and heart attack are used interchangeably--if you want to get ultraspecific, MIs never cause death...it's what the MIs cause that ultimately causes death. I read in the article that he just got back from Italy: long flight ---> venous stasis ---> DVT ---> pulmonary emboli. That's why I believe they may have meant pulmonary embolism, not coronary. CH52584 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that they're often used interchangeably, even though technically it is incorrect to do so. An embolism is a blood clot that gets stuck while traveling through the bloodstream and leads to the MI. And you're also right that a long flight can indeed lead to a DVT, which leads to the embolism, which leads to the infarction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the reports that his death was sudden and that there's no obvious cause of death (choking, poisoning, trauma, etc), the odds are exceedingly low that this cause of death would be anything other than a form of sudden cardiac death or pulmonary embolism. I don't think it would be against wikipedia policy to go ahead and state that a form of sudden cardiac death was the apparent cause of death. That would be specific enough that it explains what the experts expect the autopsy to uncover, but general enough so that it isn't pure speculation. CH52584 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:NOT#OR. Be patient, the sources will come soon enough. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim's physician is on MSNBC now saying that, according to the autopsy, he died from a coronary thrombosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

His physician almost mentioned him having an enlarged heart and a history of coronary artery disease, so I would say it's almost certainly coronary thrombosis. Rest in Peace, Mr. Russert. -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean "almost" mentioned? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he/she meant to say "also" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "also mentioned" -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

As I can't, someone change the official cause of death. Nobody dies of coronary thrombosis. Coronary thrombosis caused a myocardial infarction (read: heart attack), which killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.252.62 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim didnt die while recording voiceover tracks. He actually took a break from the recording and went down to the NBC cafeteria. It was on the way there that Tim collapsed. An intern administered CPR and 911 was called. The intern continued CPR until the medics arrived. Tim was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. This is important because there are rumors that there is a recording of his death. There is NO recording of his death. Thank you for your time and I hope the page gets updated with the proper information. 72.74.194.36 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Rob G. Georgetown

If you have a verifiable source for that information, why don't you update the page yourself? --Crunch (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I Don't Know How...  it shows a lock where the edit would be i think... TrentIsSmoking (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Rob G.

Page protection

AndonicO has protected the page to prevent edit warring. Any chance we can go pull back to a semi-protect or just deal with edit warrers directly? A lot of people may be visiting Wikipedia for the first time to read this article and it would be nice if their first exposure to the project wasn't a big warning. This isn't a criticism of the protect decision, btw, it's just an attempt to start a dialogue or discuss protect related issues for the main article. Cheers! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should be semiprotected. Edit warriors, on a breaking news article that is already semi protected, should be warned and blocked if necessary. The article is likely to see the most improvement in its history during this time if it stays semi-protected. Commented to this effect in the thread at AN/I. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on the semiprotect for the reasons stated by Avruch Digx (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring appears not to be a true edit war, but rather good-faith attempts to correct inaccurate information. Various early sources have reported the cause of Russert's death as a heart attack or coronary embolism, and it appears that various editors have "corrected" the ariticle to state one or the other. MSNBC has backed away from including a cause of death in their aticle, so I suggest we do the same (see above). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored semi-protection (will expire the 18th of this month). · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A breaking news story should not be full protected for more than a few hours... full protection of 3 days here seems to contradict the spirit of protection policy. --Rividian (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, the information really isn't out there. some of the references people are citing are themselves changing, removing information, so the references themselves conflict.

if we wait a few hours or a day until there is some solid information, we won't have the issue of 2 people, who can both cite their edits, warring. -TinGrin 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but protecting the article assumes that the ONLY edits that will be made are ones inserting bad information. Wikipedia isn't structured to accommodate that. It interprets that as damage and routes around it. I'm confident that we have the skill and tools to deal with the situation without locking the page down completely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Within 3 minutes of the death hitting the airwaves, this article was vandalized several times, including once being turned into a copy of the article Pretzel. Classy though that may be, it's not acceptable - so Semi Protection is justified, I think, if only to prevent what is now a high-traffic page from being covered with "cocksdickslol". UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the day when 'cocksdickslol' is of such unimpeachable quality that it must actively fight vigorously to avoid being successfully nominated as a Featured Article. Tim Russert, I agree, is not that article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protection is also wrong because I can't edit it. I am not a newbie. However, Coren didn't like my name and blocked it. He asked me to create a new name and disabled autoblock. I did but the computer thinks I am a newbie and won't let me edit. Thanks a lot, Coren. HRCC (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In general, i trust the judgment of my fellow admins, and i this case, i'm unwilling to say that Coren was wrong to disable the autoblock. On the other hand, this user is tendentious in their response to the courtesies extended to them, well beyond their right to fork their content, and their right to go away, and is blocked for 24 hours.
  --Jerzy•t 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  

Delete that picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjohn1386 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a longtime user and cannot edit this page. I can verify information that says [citation needed] but I can't add it. I agree that this is unfair. J.A. Hurley (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Jill

It's probably because you have very little edit history (only 2 edits). Unfortunately the article had to be semi-protected because of a run of rather nasty vandalism. Your best options are to either wait a day or two for the block to be lifted, or post your proposed edits here and another editor can merge them in for you. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an error next to Tim's wife's name.

Please remove the "-2008" next to Tim Russert's wife's name on his page. She is still living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.39.234 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that refers to the period in which they were married. Nufy8 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes it seem like they were divorced earlier this year; or is otherwise morbid. I've clarified this to only the marriage year per the IP. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tribute

The only word that has come down from the network thus far (I work at an NBC station - and am sitting in the newsroom now), is that Tom Brokaw will host a special tribute edition of Meet The Press this Sunday. Nothing else has been stated one way or the other regarding any other hosts. --Mhking (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was reported on msnbc that Tim was the person who suggested that the Newseum, facing the National Mall, have the first 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution etched into stone on it's face. Sitting among our national monuments, this tribute to our first amendment was brought to us by Tim Russert... --karenm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.147.146 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien didn't make the usual "cool" entrance and the monologue on the 13 June 2008 show of Late Night with Conan O'Brien, instead showing two pieces of one of the many interviews he made with Tim. One was about a Tim's visit to Pope John Paul II and the other about Tim's son being an intern on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Conan stated that he was a true friend and that was one of the few that supported him in the first years in NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattao (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Russert & David Simon

Russert & Simon were both journalists, and Megan Russert, introduced in 3rd season of Homicide: Life on the Street, was clearly named to support the guest appearance bringing together TR playing himself in a cameo and his fictional detective sister MR as a regular member of the cast. Is a friendship between TR & DS documented somewhere? My exam'n of search results for

"Megan Russert" "david simon" "tim Russert"

was discouraging, but not exhaustive. Anyone?
--Jerzy•t 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Even if they were and it's documented, is it notable enough to be worth listing in either article?
  --Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt we'll know for sure before we've seen the coverage of it.
    --Jerzy•t 15:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    

Widow Maker

I edited a sentence in the death section, including the term "widow maker". Russert died when his left coronary artery, or some part of it, became clogged, cutting off blood supply to the left ventricle. This ventricle, one of four chambers in the heart, is the most powerful chamber, and responsible for pumping blood to the entire body. A blood clot stopped blood flow to Tim's left ventricle, therefore halting the pumping action required to perfuse the rest of the body and all major organs. This explains the term "widow maker", as death is usually quick due to electricle pathway damage and cardiac cell death. Veracious Rey (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Final few paragraphs

Are the final few paragraphs, where people like Obama and McCain comment on Russert's death, really all that necessary? Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I feel the quotations should be taken out. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 24.186.96.84 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think tributes to his life and legacy are entirely appropriate, but they should be contained to a few pertinent ones. The president's tribute, for instance, speaks to the impact his career had on Washington. Al Hunt brought him into journalism, so his tribute should probably be included along with some of his colleagues from NBC News. But while Sens. Obama and McCain are both important figures in American life, their tributes aren't any more significant than anybody else's—even if one of them is destined to be the next president of the United States. I'll leave it to other editors to make the final decision, however. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 0:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
• I think these tributes are entirely unnecessary. This wiki has articles on presidents and saints, nobel prize winners and popes, kings and princes and virtually none of them from featured article Franklin Delano Roosevelt to revered figure John Paul II have a section with random quotes from mourners saying what a great guy he was. Whenever someone who had a visible or important role in human society dies, people are going to say nice things about him because, in Western culture at least, this is generally expected. These comments often distort the importance of a person's legacy and are inherently POV because they are made by close friends and colleagues looking back over all the good times as they come to terms with their grief. These tributes really have nothing to do with a person's life or career and belong in newspaper headlines, not encyclopedia articles. Indrian (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not remove other people's stuff. If the news devotes 100% of the show to the man, the least we can do is devote 33% of the article to his death. I agree, not 100% of the article should be about his death, but at least quite a bit. Last week, he wasn't even mentioned at all. See, his death is a very notable part of his life. Presumptive (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's fine to say we shouldn't remove other people's stuff, but it's a little absurd to see the text of McCain's, Obama's, and the Clintons' warm statements removed and replaced with a mere mention, while excerpts from Limbaugh's statement are expanded to an entire paragraph. Either include tributes or don't, but there should be some balance and equity to it. Beeeej (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington Week

I added a bit on Gwen Iffil's remembrance of Russert - he dared her to go into broadcasting and helped her along. Sources will come from here: http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/transcripts/

I know, I know original research, but it did happen... just add the link when it comes up --SuperWiki (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --SuperWiki (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote on death date

Do we really need that? It's intrusive, in that it interrupts the flow of reading, and also utterly unnecessary, since the fact that he died yesterday is all over every major news source. john k (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests that we don't really need to proviate a citation unless the claim is likely to be challenged. As you said, his date of death is easily sourcable and non-controversial, so I've gone ahead and removed the citation. Warren -talk- 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some non-editors may in fact be using the pop-up tools to decide which lks to follow, or to read just the lead at a lk'd article. My impression is that footnotes in the lead currently cause the pop-up tools to truncate the preview of the article, meaning that such early footnotes, when unnecessary, are bad beyond even the visual clutter.
  --Jerzy•t 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  

Diabetes

I've taken a look at this article a couple of times today, and both version mentioned (in different ways) a connection between diabetes and his death or autopsy results. When you click through to the references, if diabetes is mentioned at all, it's in a very broad sense. A quick google news query about his death found nothing that specifically says he had diabetes or that someone of note said diabetes was a contributing factor.

Either supply a reputable source for diabetes being a contributing factor, or remove it from the article. Thanks. 72.244.206.56 (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Agreed with last comment. I watched several hours of discussion on Fox News and MSNBC and I heard nothing about his having diabetes.

On Greta Van Susteren's Fox show, she discussed the cause of death with a physician who seemed knowledgeable about Mr. Russert's health and no mention of his having diabetes ever came up. If this doctor had read the autopsy report, it certainly would have been noted if the deceased suffered from diabetes. As part of the disucssion was about "warning signs" and precautions to avoid suffering the same fate, it's hard to imagine diabetes wouldn't have been mentioned.

The physician did say that the long flight might have been contributory to the heart attack.

Therefore, I agree. Unless a source is suppled, it will have to be removed from the article.

PainMan (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article remains semi-protected. Could someone be bold and make the necessary changes? 67.101.5.197 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Done. Tvoz/talk 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly approve, Tvoz. You merely beat me to the punch. I just wanted to check the AP story sourced and, as the father of an eight year old, I got distracted and didn't get around to reading the referenced story.

Bravo.

PainMan (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And someone added it again and I removed it. What is going on here? Tvoz/talk 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who readded it, but it was sourced earlier in the death section on this page. It doesn't say that his death was diabetes related, but it does state that he has diabetes. The link is http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/06/13/tim-russert.html?ref=rss --Dnvrfantj (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement I saw, did say it was a factor in his death--which it was not. As I wrote above, the doctor who appeared on Fox News, who'd seen the autopsy report, would have certainly mentioned it, had it been a factor. He had the "Widow-maker" heart attack. It might have been caused by the long flight from Italy, it might not have (given Russert's wealth, I certainly hope his widow doesn't sue the airline! But this is America. Somebody dies, someone else must pay!). But diabetes wasn't a factor.

I don't see the relevance of adding that he had it. Lots of people have health conditions that neither kill them nor affect their work or their place in history; are they all to be listed in every biographical article?

PainMan (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Full text of Limbaugh statement

Since Rush Limbaugh's statement of condolence* will certainly soon be taken down, I post it in it's entirety here to preserve the source:

Rush Limbaugh Statement on Tim Russert's Death: "It's just a shame. Tim was a regular guy with that perpetual smile he wore naturally all the time. He loved life and got everything he could out of it. Whether it was at dinner here in Florida while his son was taking golf lessons, or on the set of Meet The Press, Tim was always the same with me: genuine. He never condescended to anyone and was the consummate professional. He will be hard to replace. He was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist."

Also, I didn't want to stir up any undignified "partisan" rancor on this sad occassion. While Limbaugh's concluding sentence is certainly true, Mr. Russert's bio article was not the place, nor this the time, to post it. After the passage of time, certainly it can be added in a discussion of Mr. Russert's legacy as a journalist. But a revert war today would be juvenile at best.

• (Posted on his home page: [1] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html)

Rush will almost certainly begin his Monday, 16 JUNE 2008 show with an elegy to Mr. Russert. Perhaps, under Fair Use, or permission from Mr. Limbaugh, a portion of it can be added to wikipedia's soundbite collection.

PainMan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So, as probably an editing faux pas, I added the entire statement before seeing this message. I think, when it comes to tributes upon someone's death, we can look beyond the partisanship of the political world and honor the individual. But, I'll fully understand if someone removes the addition. Rockhound (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There will be a time when more, if not all, of Limbaugh's statement can be added. I just don't think it would be dignified to get into a partisan edit war when Russert hasn't even been laid to rest. Later I most certainly will add at least Rush's last sentence. Surely, the collapse of anything like impartial reporting, and the Big Three networks news departments have become nothing but the press offices for the DNC and Liberalism in general.

But not right now.

And given Russert's stature within the Left-wing Media monolith, he certainly should be a part of any discussion of this fact. Though he largely succeeded in laying a veneer of an attempt at the mythical journalistic "impartiality" (if it ever existed, it died a painful death, long ago; it should be remembered that the first modern newspapers began in England and were used--and funded by--politicians to present their faction's views to the fraction of people who had the franchise).

PainMan (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many statements

The deaths section is fast becoming a repository for every statement released by anyone notable, currently spanning 9 paragraphs. Can we just reduce this to a paragraph listing the names of the notables who released statements, but not give the text of every one? --Rividian (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse that suggestion. If you look at other important people who dropped dead, you will find Jean Cocteau has but one paragraph on his death, and Nelson Rockefeller two. The crucial difference is that Wikipedia wasn't around when they died, but really, I'm quite sure we can do with 1-2 paragraphs here, and without the standard condolences. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Another crucial difference is that Russert's death happened yesterday, whereas Rockefeller's death happened thirty years ago. Also, the fact that Russert was a prominent media guy means that the TV news is giving it a ridiculous amount of attention. john k (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We generally strive to avoid recentism though... we should strive to write as if it happened 30 years ago to keep it encyclopedic, as we aren't a news site. --Rividian (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but there's little point in doing much in this regard right now. People will just add stuff back in. Best to wait a couple of weeks, when everyone stops being interested in it, and then purge. It's not as though an enormous number of Wikipedia articles haven't had much more serious problems for far longer periods of time. john k (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

concur. it's geting out of hand. we're all agreed it's a sad occasion, but wikipedia is not for funerary observances.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting it down would certainly be appropriate. In previous points, other editors have suggested that the quoted remarks are entirely inappropriate, and while that may be true with regards to any sort of "tribute" on wikipedia, some of the quotations are probably relevant as far as his influence and within the context of the media-politics relationship (and Russert's role) in this particular election cycle. 12.216.236.213 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But you've cut out the comments by political figures completely and left long ones for some other journalists - I think it's been cut down too much. Politicians were his adversaries as much as other journalists were his competitors and some feeling of what they had to say on his death is of interest. Tvoz/talk 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason not to let it be fairly large and inclusive at the moment. In a month or so we can cut it down mercilessly. john k (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz what I did is just intended as a start... a lot more trimming still needs to be done in my opinion, I was hoping other people would help out, I was just trying to get the ball rolling. Waiting a while is okay but I think we should try to make the article good now when probably thousands of people are reading it every day. --Rividian (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - but we could use the same argument (that many people are reading it) as a reason to have a more balanced and comprehensive listing of the tributes. As much as I agree we aren't wikinews, there is usually a tacit acceptance of going too far in talking about the circumstances, responses, etc, to deaths which are trimmed after a little time passes. I don't know if you were here when Kurt Vonnegut died, but there was quite a stir over this, including dozens of reverts and reinstatements of "So it goes", his famous fictional send-off from Slaughterhouse Five - eventually things calmed down and a more appropriate level of detail and tributes was reached. Same happened when Heath Ledger died. I think we should just hang back a bit and let it play itself out. People do come here to see the news whether we like it or not, and our article now, in my opinion, appears slanted away from the thoughtful comments that political figures made and are making. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I've never really gotten into editing a major recent death article... and I'm not going to edit war over it, in fact I don't think there were any objections here yet when I made my edit. I personally think it looks better to just have 1-2 paragraphs about tributes rather than 10, whether the subject of the article died yesterday or 5 years ago. But I will do as you say and let it just play itself out. I am glad I started a discussion here though. --Rividian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of tributes to three from objective journalists (Walter Cronkite, Carl Bernstein and Gwen Ifill) and two from politicians (Barack Obama and John McCain). I agree with many others posting here that a few such tributes are sufficient. Objectivesea (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about the tributes more, but you also, probably inadvertently, reinstated errors such as the diabetes references that I had removed and the rearrangement of his personal life section - I don't know what version you were working with, but I went back to the one I had just worked on which had clarified and corrected a number of things that yours reinstated. As for the tributes, I think including the current and former prsident along with the current candidates is not too much. Tvoz/talk 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree that there shouldn't be laundry list of "tribute" quotes; I don't think praise from his Ninth Grade journalism teacher would be informative. But a statement from Rush Limbaugh is absolutely appropriate. Both for the fact that he is the dean of Conservative Media and Russert was, arguably, the dean of Left-wing Media and the fact that they were friends. And make no mistake about it, Russert was an opinion-shaper, subtle though his technique largely was.

Re-inserted excerpt from Rush Limbaugh's statement. Whatever one's personal feelings about him, it is an indisputable fact that Limbaugh is the most popular political analyst in the United States. Arguably, he's the most influential as well. Given the incredible effect his injection of himself into the Democratic primary process ("Operation Chaos"), he almost single-handedly extended the contest for months.

A quote from Limbaugh is far more relevant and pertinent than one from the very obscure Gwin Ifill (except to we News Junkies, and don't even try to argue that one!). But I left the Ifill quote in place. I suppose wikipedia should strive for the equally mythical "balance."

To reiterate, he and Russert were also friends (as the former's website statement says). He also said Russert "was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist." From Rush, that's high praise indeed for a reporter working for the Left-wing ("Drive-by") Media.

PainMan (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the suits at General Electric are clearly running an enterprise designed to ultimately destroy the capitalist system and America as we know it. It's shocking that they found someone as objective as Tim Russert to run their Washington news bureau. Rush Limbaugh should be pretty low on the list of people who should be included - I'd think that, besides the five left by Objectivesea, and the two more suggested by Tvoz, that remembrances from his colleagues at NBC would, at the very least, be of significantly greater importance than Rush Limbaugh.

You, of course, couldn't be more wrong. There are few people more important than Limbaugh in American politics and political analysis today. And this fact is simply indisputable--as the outstanding success of "Operation Chaos" amply demonstrated.

On the Conservative side, he is the leader. (The Leader of the Opposition as National Review called him once (in 1993?). Given his immense audience (more than 20,000,000 daily radios tuned in), influence, his importance is a given--he is far more important than the faded and largely moribund Walter Cronkite (who has drifted so far to the Left, to paraphrase Reynaldus Magnus, he's Left reality) and the completely irrelevant Bruce Springsteen.

As for GE, the only thing GE's demanded of NBC's news division is (OH MY GOD, HOW DARE THEY?!!?) that they actually turn a profit! Of all the evil, money-grubbing scoundrels!!! The so-called "suits" have done nothing to alter NBC's role as a part of the Liberal-Socialist/DNC PR machine.

PainMan (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

Tom Brokaw's name is misspelled in the death section. 24.215.235.184 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly? --Dnvrfantj (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim's Mother

Can someone please write something about Tim's mother..What happened? Why no mention of her or siblings? Just father who doesn't really speak... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.35.123 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

66.65.35.123, why don't you write something about Russert's mother if you can make it appropriate. If people think it's not, you'll see it--and quick.

But don't just wait around for someone else to do something that you think important. Do it yourself!

Joining the fray is more than half the fun 'roun' he'ah.

PainMan (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- but have been unable to find any any details about Tim's mother - will keep looking ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph overtly partisan

The following paragraph:

During the trial, another witness, former Cheney communications director Cathie Martin, testified that she "suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format", allowing the administration to "control the message".

This is obviously intended as an attack on the Vice President and the Bush Administration. It implies that only Republicans would try to "control the message." I don't anyone over 8 actually believes that.

If it is felt necessary to demonstrate Russert's importance as journalist and interviewer, et al, another example, or balancing examples, should be used.

At least as written, this paragraph is just a blatantly partisan attack. Removed.

PainMan (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed after being reverted. To reiterate, it is nothing more than a partisan attack on the sitting VP and, by extention, the President. Not only is it irrelevant to Russert's involvement in the so-called "Leak" case, his name isn't even mentioned in it!

(How exactly can you "leak" the "secret" identity of someone who drives to Langley everyday?! [Was she so covert she was invisible?] But the farcical stupidity of that trial, and the havoc wrought by politically ambitious prosecutors pursuing weak-to-baseless cases to get their faces on tv, is to be discussed elsewhere.)

PainMan (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have no business getting into the rights and wrongs of the case here, so please don't use this as a forum to discuss whether or not PLame was outed, etc. But there's no doubt to me that this testimony is directly relevant to an article about Russert - it is Cheney's person saying how they viewed Meet the Press and therefore Russert, and is a notable and interesting point. As long as we have a reliable source that she said it, I think it certainly belongs in. Tvoz/talk 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA "leak" case and Russert

After reading Russert's pdf'd statement asserting his refusal to comply with a prosecutorial subpoena (i.e. testify), it occurs to me that there's no mention how he avoided the consequences of this action.

In other words, has anyone run across how he avoided a contempt citation for refusing to testify?

Unlike a few states, California and New York, for example, there is no Federal Journalist's Shield Law; i.e. a statute allowing reporters to refuse to disclose the names of sources.

It should be remembered that a former NY Times reporter was cited for contempt by the District Court for doing exactly what Russert did. I believe she briefly served jail time in an attempt to compel her testimony.

Be interesting to know why the disparate treatment.

PainMan (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his judge was more enlightened than the one that put Judith Miller in jail. I'm going to try to find some sourcing on what happened with Russert regarding this. Tvoz/talk 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gridiron Club membership

I wanted to add this, but since my only source is a broadcast journalist, I don't know how to properly reference it.

I heard NBC's Tom Brokaw state to Today Show host Matt Lauer that Tim Russert's respect among print journalists was so great, that Russert became the first broadcast journalist admitted to the Gridiron Club, the venerable Washington, D.C. members-only club comprised of Washington newspaper bureau chiefs.

The Wikipedia article on the Gridiron Club mentions Russert's membership, though.

I think that this is a significant enough milestone both in Russert's career and in the media culture to warrant inclusion in the Tim Russert page. CrashRiley (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He was the first TV journalist so admitted and thus it should be included in his bio.

PainMan (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Springsteen tribute

Bruce Springsteen is neither a journalist nor a political figure of any stature or weight.

Therefore, posting a statement by him is both irrelevant and out of place.

PainMan (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Springsteen statement is relevant. It shows the breadth of Russert's influence. Kingturtle (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Russert's impact was broad and deep, extending from the traditional politicos, to sports teams, and yes, even to rock musicians. The Springsteen tribute should stay. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a statement from Springsteen is notable and should remain in the article - especially since we talk elsewhere in the piece about Russert's connection to Springsteen. Tvoz/talk 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A future event announced in an article?

I removed the following section:

A public wake is scheduled for June 17 at St. Albans School in Washington, following by a private funeral mass and burial on the morning of June 18. A private memorial service will take place on the afternoon of June 18 at the Kennedy Center and is scheduled to be televised live on MSNBC.

This event should, imo, only be entered into the article after it has occurred. This is, after all, wikipedia and not wikinews.

It can surely wait until tomorrow to be entered.

PainMan (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "newsy" to report when the memorial mass is scheduled to be held. It's one thing that makes this project better than paper-based 'pedias: it's FAR more responsive to events as they happen. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh a "friend"?

I looked, but couldn't find any sources to back up the "friend" wording. It's apparent that Limbaugh respected the man, but he doesn't even mention "friendship" in his statement. Springsteen was a friend, as was Brokaw, which the sources back up. But I'm not sure about wording Limbaugh as a "friend." S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article in the news

"Remembering Russert: The Wikipedia Question". Quote:

But before NBC or Drudge or any other outlet, there was Wikipedia. Businessweek's Jon Fine writes about a Wikipedia edit made at 3:01pmET to Tim Russert's page, adding the date of death and describing his work in the past tense (Fine reported the time to be 2:01pmET, but because GMT doesn't switch for daylight savings, there is currently a four hour difference with EST).

The edit raises questions over who jumped the gun in reporting the news, albeit via Wikipedia. One commenter writes: "That IP address belongs to Internet Broadcasting Systems — the company that runs (for now) the websites of NBC's O&O's."

Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the very early reports of his death could (and probably should) have been reverted, since they were totally unsourced. In this case they turned out to be true, but a common hoaxing technique is to use a Wikipedia article to falsely claim that a celebrity just died. --Rividian (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Son Luke's Name

Tim Russert said he named his son Luke after Saint Luke the Evangelist, who wrote, “To whom much is given, much is expected.”

- this is a quote from MSNBC/Today Show article from June 16. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25186698/

Please make the change regarding the origination of Luke's name. Mags777 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tim said is that St Luke is his son's namesake, which can mean "named after" or can mean "has the same name as". The NFL source seems rather certain that he was named after the Bison's player, but not clear what he bases this statement on. My guess is that both informed the naming - I think we should either remove it completely or put both into a footnote and out of the text. Tvoz/talk 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)