Talk:Keith Olbermann

"Prominent politicians and public figures"

The sources cited at the end of the lead (the Kurtz and Koppelman articles) don't refer to Olbermann criticizing prominent politicians and public figures in general. Rather, they specifically refer to him criticizing the Bush Administration, John McCain, and Republicans. I would submit that the modification I made at 16:33 on Jan. 16 is right on the mark and should stand. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Your edit is supported by the sources. Switzpaw (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but cherry picking sources in the lead to try and flavor the presentation and then saying "the is edit supported by sources" simply doesn't wash. Gamaliel's reversion is more appropriate than Badmintonhist's. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you support the idea that a wide survey of mainstream, secondary sources comment on Olbermann's critical content from a perspective that does not highlight his criticism of right-ward leaning figures and the Bush administration, I invite you to present those sources. Otherwise, drop it. Switzpaw (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

When googling for Olbermann, beyond hits for the Countdown website, the Wikipedia page, and Olbermann watch, you'll find the following articles in the top twenty:

• Volokh Conspiracy article focusing on Olbermann's criticism of McCain.
• Rolling Stone article focusing on Olbermann's criticism of the Bush Administration and Bill O'Reilly/Fox News.
• Washington Post article on Olbermann/Matthews being dropped as news anchors following complaints "complaints about Olbermann's anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his "Countdown" program".
• Huffington Post article: "Olbermann Slams Clinton in Special Comment: "You Are Campaigning As If Barack Obama Were The Democrat And You Were The Republican"
• New York Magazine article: "MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Finds His Niche as a Bush-Bashing Hero"
• Salon article leading with: "On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment.."

Seriously, the lead does not need sanitizing and the text from Badmintonhist's revision is hardly cherry picking. Please follow up with your own survey of articles commenting on why Olbermann's commentaries have gained notoriety. Switzpaw (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out the unexplained revert here. I must've hacked Google to spit out cherry picked sources. Switzpaw (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was explained, Switz. Blaxthos was trying to restore sanity to the wording. That's what you do when don't have any relevant argument to make. WP:IDON'TLIKEIT Badmintonhist (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can do is laugh, guys -- he isn't famous because he "feuds" with Bill O'Reilly. The intro shouldn't try to color this issue. Reverted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

MORE WP:IDON'TLIKEIT Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Having phrasing that focuses on conservative political figures completely discounts the fact that he did gain notoriety for his attacks on Wal-mart and Hillary Clinton. That's why I support the more politically neutral phrasing. Warren -talk- 15:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to join the fray, Warren. You happen to be wrong, though. WALMART, and you really should know this, is one of the leading hobby-horses of the American left. Pretending that a criticism of Wall-Mart has nothing to do with politics is like saying that an O'Reilly criticism of George Soros has nothing to do with politics. Besides, Olbermann's criticisms of WALMART came long after he had established his bona fides as an icon for the more in-your-face types on the left. As for his attacks on Hillary Clinton ... P-L-E-A-S-E. They fit perfectly into the rubric of criticizing "right-leaning politics". By his specific words Olbermann attacked her because she was behaving as if she were the Republican in her contest with the now President Obama. REVERTED! Badmintonhist (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WalMart is a store, not a politician, and let's leave that with the facts. The source with the O'Reilly stuff talks more about the general hatred between the two and it doesn't pinpoint politics as being the reason. And can everyone just stop responding and then reverting? I don't think we should generalize what comes down to three or four examples that are put up there. Olbermann does focus his attacks on a few individuals quite pointedly, and yes, during the primary Hillary Clinton was one of those, even though Olbermann was attacking her for 'acting like she was the republican', so take that as you wish I guess. NcSchu_(Talk) 16:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating politics and social issues -- these aren't like things. Anyways, whether or not you agree with me, you should at least be able to agree that the sentence form I prefer is neutral -- and that's what we set out to do here on Wikipedia, especially as it relates to biographies of living people.

At this point I'm pretty sure that we're not going to be able to resolve this incredibly stupid debate over a few words on our own. I recommend outside mediation. Agreed? Warren -talk- 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well since it's escalated to blatant edit warring and edit comment shouts, I'd say something along those lines would be acceptable. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend going easy with the freely-thrown accusations, guys. RFC initiated below. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" in the "Political positions" section?

Well? The feud is clearly not based entirely on differing political positions of the two men. Warren -talk- 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It was originally its own section and was merged into the "Political positions" section for lack of a better place. Maybe including it as a subsection of "Return to MSNBC" would be more appropriate? Switzpaw (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To respond in a timely fashion (rather than waiting until an edit that was recommended on a talk page three days earlier is actually put in place, and then deleting it), I agree with Warren on this one. The feud with O'Reilly section was separate at one time and still should be, even though there is a political dimension to it. Their feud isn't really a "political position". It is clearly a big enough part of Olbermann's life to warrant its own section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it under the "Return to MSNBC" section, since the feud is pretty much entirely confined to his television career. Warren -talk- 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Introduction

As with any article of this nature, a dispute has arisen regarding the phrasing of the introduction. The original introduction:

After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and rightward leaning politics in general.

. Two editors have insisted on the following change:

After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and for his pointed criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and of rightward leaning politics in general.

The proposed change (second example) violates several Wikipedia policies. The biggest problem is that it is synthesis of thought, in that it specifically states that "Olbermann gained notoriety for his feud with Bill O'Reilly". This is most certainly opinion at best -- said editors have insisted that this is appropriate due to a sampling of google hits, however it is still original research, as there is no definitive claim made in the source material (nor can there be). Likewise, the proposed change violates the neutral point of view by giving those few examples undue weight as "the" reason Olbermann has established a niche. Though they may be contributing factors, we must be very careful not to establish or imply a causal relationship. Thus, the original wording (which lists examples, but does not make definitive claims) is appropriate. At first glance it may feel like splitting hairs, but the subtle change has a serious impact on the meaning of the phrase (especially in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the RfC. It seems to me that the differences between the versions are not matters to become too upset about, but I do think that Blaxthos has a point. Now I have to say that, on first reading, I thought the second version was better, in that it is more concise, but on closer reading, I think that the logic of attributing notoriety more broadly is, in a strictly logical sense, correct. As for the discussion above about sources, let's just say, for discussion's sake, that in fact the notoriety does just come from the feud etc. -- if that's the case, then that understanding is still not in any way diminished by using the first version. I don't see how anything (other than a very small amount of conciseness) is lost by using the first version, whereas there is a (small) loss of logic using the second. That said, I want to add that where the second version uses the phrase "and of rightward leaning politics" near the end, that is better than "and rightward leaning politics." Also, although it's not part of the question, what really sticks out to me in the lead is "cloud of controversy" in the second paragraph. I think it would be much better to just say "controversy." My suggestions, I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a fairly limited amount of time to contribute to this discussion due to both the range of other things I want to work on in the encyclopedia, as well as off-Wiki activities ... but I'd just like to make a short statement of support for the wording that Blaxthos feels is the best answer. Not all of Olbermann's increased fame and notoriety comes from attacking right-leaning politicians. In addition to having gained attention for his camapaign against Wal-mart last year, as well as criticism of Hillary Clinton, he has also been criticized for how he conducts himself on football broadcasts. I believe that if we keep the language free of observations as to political leanings, and simply present a few examples of targets of his criticism, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. WP:NPOV encourages us to do that exactly that: "Let the facts speak for themselves ... Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think//". Warren -talk- 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell with a nicely worded argument. I'd have given it an A minus were I still teaching. Not an A plus however.

If it is "synthesis of thought", "original research", and a "non-neutral point of view" to assume that Olbermann's now not-so-recent "notoreity" ("fame" would actually be a more neutral word) has come from his attacks on the political right then it is also "original research" et. al. to assume that this fame has been gained by attacking "prominent politicians and public figures" in general. Maybe it is the result of a belated public recognition of his sportscasting prowess, or of his impressive baseball card collection, or of his staunch defense of Fred "Bonehead" Merkle. Maybe he actually hasn't become more famous over the last five or so years. Even using Google, fame isn't that easy to quantify.

The sources, however, from the most to the least reliable, assume that Olbermann has become more famous, and that this rise in fame has come from his attacks on folks such as O'Reilly, the Bush administration, John McCain, and other rightward leaning people and institutions. As the formidable Switzpaw has invited Blaxthos to do: Find reliable sources that link Olby's rising fame to his criticism of prominent politicians and public figures in general rather than just rightward leaning ones. By the way, Blaxthos is correct in saying that this tempest in a teapot has a larger significance and I will eventually explain what that is on Blax's talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

After coming here in response to the RfC, I'm a little disappointed to see that. I think that attributing notoriety to criticisms of prominent people in general is not nearly as much a synthesis as is attributing it to criticisms of specific people, and I said above that, regardless of sources, the slightly longer version in no way negates the conclusions that might be drawn from those sources. I don't want to get in the middle of personal arguments among other editors, but an RfC should not be used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(A quick clarification, in case I was unclear. I meant my comment immediately above to be a response to the comment directly before it, not to the RfC as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Badmintonhist, I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting and the snarky comments -- I went out of my way to present the case neutrally and avoided calling out other editors by name at all. Snark doesn't move us forward, and certainly doesn't advance your viewpoint. It's well to note that other editors have disagreed with the proposal as well, both in this RFC and above. I also note some contributions that could be characterized as votestacking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Both versions of the lead would be "original research", "synthesis of thought", and even "non-neutral point of view" if they were merely the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. However, they are not the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. They are based on reliable sources which clearly say that Olbermann has gained notoreity (beyond what he had before) because of his attacks on folks such as Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush and his administration, John McCain, and others to his political right. Though pretty much any fair-minded Wiki editor would concur with this, one could claim that the sources themselves were making non-objective assumptions. I therefore propose a construction something like this:

According to the Washington Post and Salon.com among other sources, Olbermann has carved out a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoreity for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and for his criticisms of the George W. Bush presidency and John McCain in particular, and of rightward leaning politics in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, do you have specific links to citations that back up your verbage above? Sorry if I missed them. This might help with reliably sourced portion vs original research aurgument --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Elevating any sources for outright mention in the lead section gives them undue weight, and you still fail to recognize your synthesis of thought created by saying "gaining notoreity[sic] for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly" (the whole point of this RFC). You may believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so, and stating it as concrete fact is contrary to Wikipedia's core policies. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the careless misspelling of notoriety. As for more substantive matters, there is nothing in WP:LEADCITE or WP:UNDUE that says that specific sources should not be cited by name in the lead. On the contrary, LEADCITE suggests that this should be done when appropriate. One might consult Warren for an opinion on this point. As for the objection about the assumed causal relationship between Olbermann's "pointed criticisms" of Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc. (why dwell just on O'Reilly?) and his rising fame, the same objection would also obtain in assuming a causal relationship between his "pointed criticisms" of politicians and public figures in general and his rising fame (as I have previously pointed out). My proposed modification above, however, does not present this causal relationship as an absolute fact. Rather, it presents as a fact that highly respectable sources (The New York Times could also be added) have assumed it to be true. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The content of the lead needs to reflect the content of the article. That's the main thing a lead section sets out to do. (Well, that, and making the rest of the article sound like it could be an interesting read!) Statements surely need to be sourced, no matter where they appear, but there should never be things in the lead that aren't properly described elsewhere.

A good rule of thumb, I think, is to be extremely specific when stating where critical and potentially controversial assertions come from. For example, instead of saying, "(Subject) has become notorious for engaging in (Activity)", we would write something like, "(SubjectExpert) has described the show as being notorious for engaging in (Activity)". In this fashion, we identify the source of the idea that the show has gained notoriety. When I was dealing with this on Top Gear (2002 TV series) for example, I found a TV critic and an environmental activist group (both of which have Wikipedia articles of their own) to provide a balance of positive and negative commentary about that show. I think it reads very nicely, if I may say so. Maybe that's the sort of formulation we need to follow here as well... Warren -talk- 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One, that assumes that "(Subject)" did become famous for "(Activity)" -- a tenuous assertion at best, in this case. Two, I stand by my assertion that cherry picking sources to use in the lead absolutely gives them undue weight. Statements in the lead must be supported by the article content & references, but don't have to be sourced in the lead itself; selecting particular viewpoints to include in the lead (especially on matters of opinion) elevates them beyond due weight. I fail to see how any of the proposals thus far are more compliant with policies and guidelines than the one originally in place. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But see, this is why my proposed approach tends to work -- instead of trying to decide whether what some random person's opinion is, you have to find high-quality, credible, reliable sources. With this article, we want to find professional television critics, especially those that cover the field of American news and commentary shows. This is precisely the same as looking to Roger Ebert when in need of an expert film critic; someone like Sydney Pokorny for GLBT media criticism; William Grimes (of the NY Times) for book reviews; and so forth. The Countdown with Keith Olbermann article has a paragraph with criticism of the show from Howard Rosenberg, who is a veteran TV critic. That's the sort of thing that builds a good encyclopedia. You don't have to (nor would you be expected to) agree with what the critics say; the fact that they're reputable career critics is good enough to meet all of Wikipedia's content policies.

As for sourcing in the lead, it absolutely is required if any of the statements made are contentious. Warren -talk- 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the push to make contentious statements in the lead at all? There is no requirement to speculate on why he's famous, and the original wording avoids these problems entirely. Not to mention the (forgotten?) problem with due weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Blax, at this point I think you're trying to be difficult. The proposed construction is about as contentious as saying that some historians believe that Charles Lindbergh became more famous as a result of crossing the Atlantic in a plane. There isn't a question of undue weight because all the sources (except the Wikipedia editor Blaxthos) say the same thing. The "original wording" (if its the one I think you mean) also makes an assumption about the cause of Olbermann's rising notoriety. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren's suggestion is fine with me so long as the increase in fame (notoriety and notorious were once often used pejoratively) is linked to what the reliable sources say it is linked to: biting criticisms of targets to Olbermann's political right. If one editor thinks that the sources are being cherry picked the I gotta tell him that the cherry picking has never been easier because all of the sources, left, right, and center, reliable and dubious, basically say the same thing: Olbermann became better known and his show more widely viewed as he attacked the targets mentioned in my edit. Just where are this editor's non-cherry picked sources? This editor also seems oblivious to a reality that I have pointed out on multiple occasions now, that his objection to the subjectivity of the assumptions made by those sources also applies to his own preferred construction. Strike that, actually. His objection now applies more strongly to his own construction. That's because Warren's construction and my construction openly state that our sources are making the assumption, not some Wikipedia editor on his (her) own. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me step back in here, very cautiously, with two points. First, my understanding of Warren's suggestion is that it would attribute the statement to credible authorities (a la Roger Ebert). Therefore, rather than referring to the Post and Salon (particularly as links to their pages here), might it be better to leave them out of the sentence, and instead, put inline, numbered references to specific articles from such sources at the end of the sentence, citing them as sources of the statement about the cause of notoriety/fame? My second point is to suggest another way of constructing it, that might, perhaps, be a useful way to reconcile the views here: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety (fame?) for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.ref/ref He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain." That treats O'Reilly et al. as important examples, while attributing notoriety in a way that acknowledges Badmintonhist's views about the specific role of criticisms of the right, while also acknowledging Blaxthos' view that it might not entirely be due to that. Just some suggestions, just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally prefer that we identify the reliable sources by name, right in the main article text. That way the article doesn'r read like we're trying to present "our" point of view -- this is still a concern even if we provide sources that back up the assertions. The main downside to this approach is that it weighs down the point being made with a bunch of extra words. Some people disagree with this approach, too -- the Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words essay explains the counter-argument pretty nicely, IMO. Warren -talk- 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Per Typtofish's proposed wording, and Warren's reference concerns, I propose the following:

Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.[REFERENCE 1]. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,[REFERENCE 2] and criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain.[REFERENCE 3]"

There are no weasel words, no synthesis of thought or conclusions, and still references specific examples. Of course, the [REFERENCE]s will need to be supplied where noted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Blaxthos' version here is an improvement over mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This construction isn't exactly my cup of cocoa (rather timid and stilted sounding) but in the interest of compromise and comity I'll accept it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent -- progress is a wonderful thing.  :) On to citations... does anyone have suggestions of secondary sources to be used for the [REFERENCE]s above? I added numbers to make discussion easier. We could add another reference after the word administration if [REFERENCE 3] doesn't cover both Bush and McCain criticisms. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The new proposal doesn't address a single thing I said. Whatever... Warren -talk- 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

True, it certainly doesn't address Warren's main point which is that the reliable source(es) should be directly credited for whatever assumptions are being made. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a proposed construction:

Observers such as [SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO TWO] have credited Olbermannn with carving a niche in cable news commentary by directing his fire principally on rightward leaning politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and pointedly criticized the George W. Bush Presidency, and the 2008 Presidential Candidacy of Senator John McCain.

One could stick in "gained notoriety" somewhere but I don't think it's necessary. Establishing a "niche in cable news commentary" suggests that one's fame is probably growing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take another tentative stab at trying to reconcile the ideas raised here. First, I want to say -- to all! -- that it looks to me like the various possible versions are getting closer and closer together, and that the remaining differences really, truly, are, to an outside visitor, quite small, and all involved editors ought to feel pleased with how this discussion is progressing. As to the most recent points brought up by Warren and Badmintonhist, it strikes me that it may be putting the mention of observers in the wrong place, to attribute the carving of a niche to them. In other words, it is really self-evident that Olbermann has a niche, and no one would argue that he does not have any niche, and therefore it may make better sense to locate the observers closer to where the political right is mentioned. Also, I do appreciate Warren's concern that his suggestions may have been given too little weight, but I also note that he said that there are what he considers to be valid arguments for using the other construction. It seems to me that, while it is strictly true that the use of numbered references does not say, literally, that it is observers rather than WP that have made this interpretation, it is also true that readers generally understand a cited reference at the end of the sentence to mean that the interpretations in that sentence arise from the cited reference, and therefore are not OR or synthesis by editors. (In my opinion, and this is incredibly subjective, it's better to name the observers mainly when they are actually being quoted verbatim.) That said, let me suggest this hybrid version, and let's see where we can go from there:

Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining prominence for his pointed criticism of major politicians and public figures, directed particularly at the political right.[REFERENCE 1, maybe more] He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,[REFERENCE 2] and strongly criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain's 2008 Presidential candidacy.[REFERENCE 3; refs 2 and 3 might not be needed if 2 or more are cited at position 1]

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with either of the versions Tryptofish has now proposed, as they avoid problems with undue weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this doesn't address what I said. While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections. Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to [blank], blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that [blank] actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My reading of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, where it uses the example of the baseball player and advocates a version that states facts, such as the years when the baseball player had certain statistics, is that it actually is in agreement with what we have here: it says that Olbermann has criticized certain kinds of people, then gives specific factual examples that substantiate that statement. I also continue to believe that the presence of citations at the end of the sentence is understood by readers to mean that the sentence is derived from information in those references, not simply created by editors, and therefore is not an assertion of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OR, how about changing the first sentence to something in the format of: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary; according to (name of commentator) at (name of source, such as the Washington Post), "quotation."(ref)"? The quotation would have to be interesting enough to be in the lead, not be so idiosyncratic as to go against undue weight concerns, and capture all of what was in the previous version of the sentence: his criticisms, his particular criticism of the right, and the causal relationship between these criticisms and his niche. But, really, absent a good quote like that, I think that numbered references would be just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact [Keith Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979] it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one [ex: The Republican party is clearly morally superior to the Democratic party] the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Wikipedia is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu. Let's get the citations in place and call this one done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been quiet here for a few days, which I hope is a good sign. As an editor who was not originally a party to the debates preceding the RfC, I'm going to be bold and make edits to the lead in accordance with what I understand of this talk. I'm going to leave it to others to provide the references. Please understand that I'm attempting to reflect the talk here and there is nothing etched-in-stone about my edit, so please no one feel unhappy if you would prefer to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary

NYTimes say's its 4 mil. a year

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After the 2008 Election, NBC Uni and Keith Olbermann has been agreed to have a new-contract which his salary is 30,000,000 US$ in over 4 years (that makes 7.5 million per year). Thus, the info which mentioned at the box is correct. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Saving the trivia section as historical. Though it was (properly) removed at least some of it should be integrated into the article (prose please).

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I, the very-first creator of Mr.Olbermann's Korean language wikipage, cited these figures under the name of 'Other major broadcasting appearances'(그 외 주요 방송출연 경력, in Korean), not as 'trivia'. You may find the solution from it(I hope, personally). Cheers. Thanks. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachelor of Arts?

The article erroneously states that he received a Bachelor of Arts at Cornell in Communications. Cornell offers only a Bachelor of Science in Communications through the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as the Ag School. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the second largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third largest college of its kind in the United States. This is where Mr. Olbermann recieved his degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilly77c (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The "About the Department" page from the Department of Communications website specifically states that it is proud to be part of Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This is not the same as graduating from the ivy league College of Arts and Science which most people think of when one states they are a Cornell graduate. Mr. Olbermann's bio is misleading. Fizix137 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The college is a statutory college meaning it is given money by the state to operate as a public school. It is not the same as the private University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk • contribs) 15:56, March 5, 2009 (UTC)

I have already changed this according to the refs. Thank you. --Ali'i 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't change it enough. It is still misleading and someone might think he received his degree from the Ivy League Cornell which, while he openly boasts of this, he did not. Traumatic (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell

Since it's widely accepted that Olbermann went to Cornell, we'll need a reliable source saying he went somewhere else. It seems like there must have been a column or meme somewhere spurring IPs and SPAs into action, so this should serve as a reminder wikipedia is based on verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What we need is a reliable source that says he went to Cornell University. The Cornell school paper says that he went to the ag school. I've added dubious tags. THF (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct... there is a recent Ann Coulter column deriding Olbermann's use of "Cornell" where she says he went to a different college within the overall Cornell system. I think. Until we can find a different source, it should remain as is. Thanks. --Ali'i 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be a full moon :) Whereever he graduated from, can we please have a citation and list the institution by its proper name either way and then move on. Thank you, --Tom 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell seems to think he's an alumni of Cornell.[1] They don't specify which college within the Cornell umbrella he got his degree from though. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

According to reference number 20 (http://cornellsun.com/node/13424), he went to New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article for Statutory college. This school's web address ends in "cornell.edu" and in order to apply, you apply to Cornell. It looks like this is a component college of Cornell, just as any other University is composed of colleges. Does this statutory college issue degrees on its own or do the degrees come from Cornell? Henrymrx (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, now that that question has been resolved (apparently). Cornell runs and operates CALS. Is there a functional difference between saying he got is degree from Cornell University and he got his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? Or is it more inline with a person saying they got a degree from Harvard University when the degree they got actually says Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In just doing rummaging around the two websites (cornell.edu and cals.cornell.edu) it appears the current relationship is more inline with a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard University relationship than say a University of California, Santa Barbara and University of California, Los Angeles relationship. Cornell lists CALS as being the second largest college at Cornell University[2] and the list of departments at Cornell University and programs at CALS seem to point at the same locations. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this being said, I don't see a problem with refining his degree as being from CALS versus Cornell, but then, I also don't see a problem with saying his degree is from Cornell. It is common within Ivy League universities to have their degrees not actually come from the university, but rather from the "college" that a person's degree program falls under. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A university consists of one or more colleges. It's more like the difference between [[3]] and [[4]] -- they're both part of the same [[5]] (the diploma looks the same)/ WindyCityRider (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CALS website say that it was in fact the New York State College of Agriculture before 1971 when the name changed to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. [6] Olbermann graduated in 1979, so it would have had the CU name for his entire tenure there. The Communications Department is also listed as the Cornell University Department of Communications. [7] DG7812 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More information is better than less, so long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source. From what I have seen, I agree that he attended the Cornell University that has Ivy League sports teams, but it is equally true that he received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the school. Both versions are accurate and both should be included.Tommylotto (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think less information is better. The last thing we want to do is confuse folks, cheers! --Tom 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

More information is better, unless it clutters up the article needlessly and is indicative of somebody pushing an agenda. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Which are all true in relation to this. The information is cluttering up the article, its needless, and its all about agenda pushing by the anti-american fringe. The additionial information only gives fodder to the Ann Coulter fringe of America, this whole dustup is over an Ann Coulter column from today, and we all know how she loves to throw bricks. MehTsag (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We have 2 reliable sources pertaining to Olbermann's education. 1) http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/6.4.98/convocation.html wherein Cornell University newspaper regards him as "Cornell alumnus". And 2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/ which is a bio listed on the website of a major news network. We don't really have any more specific information from reliabe WP:RS and verifiable WP:V sources (blogosphere is not widely regarded as reliable). We should probably just list it as "Cornell University" and not attempt to be any more specific than that unless we find a valid, reliable source. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read Ann's story. It would appear she's set herself up for a hefty lawsuit if what she has written is not true. I think it is misleading to not state the actual college he received his degree from. CALS' acceptance criteria is less stringent than the Cornell University that everyone thinks about when you say, "Cornell University." To allow the two to be confused is, well, misleading.Traumatic (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the bio box it says that Olbermann has a B.S. degree, but in the body it says he has a Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.149 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I removed the redundancy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education: B.S. Communication Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education section is incorrect.

Keith Olbermann received a B.S. in Communications from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The article mentions the Ivy League Cornell University. Mr. Olbermann did not attend that university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the above section. As with many things, Coulter is wrong. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily "wrong"... just has a "different viewpoint". :-) --Ali'i 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is similar to O'Reilly's Levitown/Westbury issue. That's all I'm saying. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Except in this case the entirety of CALS is encompassed by Cornell, so Coulter's declaration that she attended the "Ivy League" Cornell while Olbermann attended the "Old MacDonald Cornell" is wrong.;) The O'Reilly kerfuffle seems to be more due to some fuzzy lines between Levittown, New York and Westbury, New York. Coulter's claim is more like someone claiming O'Reilly wasn't born in New York because he was born in the "uncool" part of New York, so it shouldn't count. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not that the education information is incorrect. It is incomplete or at least can be made to be more complete. The wiki bio should not descend into the Olby / Coulter Ivy League war, but should honestly lay out the facts so that the reader can decide. He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the university.Tommylotto (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And is still part of the "school" so what is the point exactly? Its like some schmuck who went to Penn, but wasn't an engineer or business "tool" as we called em and ONLY graduated from the lowly "college"/CAS with a Folklore and Folklife degree, he still is a Penn grad and alumni.--Tom 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just provide accurate information and let the reader decide the controversy, if there is one. More information is better. Both facts are true Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. If there is a distinction, or even a perceived distinction, more information is better as it lets the reader decide. By not disclosing accurate information that could be the basis of a distinction, the wiki editors are trying the determine the controversy or distinction for the reader, which is not the purpose of a wiki article.Tommylotto (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

huh?--Tom 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not your job as a wiki editor to determine which controversial view point the reader should learn about. Both facts are true. He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. We are only talking about adding 6 words that are unarguably accurate, and the controversy raised by the recent edits and associated discussion make the distinction sufficiently notable to warrant the addition of six words that are unquestionably accurate.Tommylotto (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The College Olbermann attended is, in fact, part of Cornell University. Universities are comprised of colleges, and colleges are comprised of departments. To be most specific, Olbermann attended the Department of Communications at Cornell University. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No you are attempting to conceal accurate information. The Department of Communication is part of the Ag School. See here http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." We are not here to decide the perceived distinction asserted by Coulter. We are here to accurately report the facts and let the reader decide.Tommylotto (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual. If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters. If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it. Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This information is accurate and uncontroversial. The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide. The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information. He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication. Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Windy City, you are in violation of the three revert rule. Please hash this out on the discussion page and avoid an edit war. Are you disputing that the Communication Department is in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? If not, this accurate distinction is certainly notable given today's dust up. What justification do you have for withholding accurate information from the reader?Tommylotto (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I'm not. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual. If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters. If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it. Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This information is accurate and uncontroversial. The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide. The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information. He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication. Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny that a person with 4 reverts would be warning someone else about having 3RR. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Two edits were on an other issue, one was the original edit on this issue. Only two were reverts. Plus, I have been willing to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than just making drive by reverts.Tommylotto (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I count three edits clearly identified as rvs in the edit summary[8][9][10] and one that resets the article to the state established by the previous drivebys changing Cornell University to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.[11] That would be 4, one more than WindCityRider's two clear reverts[12][13] and one edit.[14] If a 3RR report were filed, you'd be the one getting a block, not WindCityRiver. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the number of reverts that I made concerning the identification of the school that he attended. I made an initial edit and two reverts. Then I left the version that I disagreed with intact until the issue could be resolved on the talk page. But why are you wasting effort counting reverts. Please address the substance. Why do you feel it is necessary to withhold six words of perfectly accurate properly sourced information from the reader? Tommylotto (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please address the substance??!!!?!?! You're the one who brought it up! WindyCityRider (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead and WindyCity, please try to build consensus on the discussion page and stop reflexively reverting accurate properly sourced material provided by numerous editors. Thank you. If you believe that the fact that the subject of the article attended and received his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication should not be included, please explain on the discussion page why the asserted fact is inaccurate, not properly source or otherwise should not be included in the article. Thank you.Tommylotto (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This coming from the guy who reverted my edit 3 times in 20 minutes. Rich. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See Olbermann address the issue here. Note the degree being conferred by "Cornell University". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're in the minority here, Tommylotto. The burden to build consensus to include CALS in the article is upon you. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We normally list degrees by university, not by department, college, school or campus. Any reason to deviate from the norm should be based on some reasonable rationale. While it may be normal for Oxford, I've never heard of anyone doing it for American universities. Is there some reason to deviate from the norm? Is there some compelling reason to mention the college? Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: It is indisputable that Olbermann attended CALS. There are seven colleges at Cornell of which CALS is one. Why do we specify birthplaces by city, state and country instead of just country? Because while all three independently would be technically correct, each level of specificity is inarguably more accurate. More importantly, because it seems that one can only earn a degree in Communications from CALS to the exclusion of any other Cornell college, http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/about/departments.cfm, then the only way not to be misleading is to either, 1) remove any mention of the Communications degree or, 2) include from which college he received that degree. Because the first solution is just silly, there is no other way to be truthful, accurate and objective than to include the College from which he earned his Communications degree. I don't know if that's "compelling", but it's certainly objectively correct. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to be objective, truthful and accurate. Forgive me if I am mistaken. --Russcote (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Find and illustrate significant precedent in wikipedia where a public figure's degree is listed by the specific college within the university he or she attended. It's simply not the case, and the only reason Olbermann is being singled out is to advance some agenda stirred up by a blogger (hardly worthy of wikipedia). Further, we don't even have decent reliable sourcing WP:RS for the level of detail you're trying to include. Find precedent, and find sourcing, and maybe you can convince us. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann's Cornell Degree

Degree picture Keith Olbermann held up his framed degree on tonight's Countdown and it clearly says Cornell University at the top and that is clearly his name. Now unless someone is going to seriously dispute that the degree is fake I think we can consider discussion of whether or not Olbermann really went to Cornell University over. You can see the full video here. Looks like User:Blaxthos beat me to the punch -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful; a Bachelor of Science in Communications from the College of Agriculture and Life Science at Cornell University. Problem solved. I agree. Discussion over. --Russcote (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University as the degree says. Problem solved! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fundamentally opposed to this, I simply think it is unnecessarily verbose and doesn't really add any useful information. -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cornell University" "Keith Olbermann". Can we agree to put the "Olbermann didn't really go to Cornell" to rest already? WindyCityRider (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could always just add a new section called "Keith Olbermann degree controversy" and have it all out in the open. --Russcote (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy that I see about the facts. He has a degree from Cornell University. However, it is in Communications, which is inarguably in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Science. See my cites above http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm. Note the only college to contain a Communication Department. The only controversy that I see is between editors who want to include all of the accurate complete information about the school that he attended, and those editors who want (for some unexplained reason) to only include a portion of the information identifying the school he attended. What am I missing? Please explain why the complete information should not be included.Tommylotto (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me about including the extra information about which specific college he attended at Cornell is that it was originally used in an attempt by Ann Coulter to try and tarnish Keith Olbermann's education. -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

However, the extra information that is being discussed is accurate, makes no reference whatsoever to Coulter's effort to tarnish his image, and in and of itself does not tarnish him at all. What it does do is accurately identify where he went to school so that someone attempting to research the "controversy" stirred up by Coulter and others will get complete and accurate information to evaluate the claim, whether made by Coulter or someone else. To intentional exclude this information now would be taking sides in the dispute between him and Coulter and in effect would be trying to protect him from Coulter's allegation with an intentional omission of accurate information. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before I'm not fundamentally opposed to including the information I think it is unnecessary. Just because something bothers me doesn't mean I am opposed to any sort of compromise that includes the information. It also doesn't fit the convention that other articles follow. For example the article on George W. Bush only includes the fact that he received a bachelor's degree in history, not which particular school at Yale he attended. I would ask that you please assume WP:GOODFAITH and I will be happy to extend you the same courtesy -- Gudeldar (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So wait, because you, Gudeldar, find some subjective fault with or ascribe a personally contrived motive, (one many people, myself included, would vehemently dispute) to one commentator's reasons for making a wholly accurate and truthful statement regarding another commentator's education, somehow that makes it bothersome to the point that the information should be excluded from an online encyclopedia? Wow.--Russcote (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to assume good faith but I don't believe you are acting as such, however I do believe you have an ideological motivation given your comments where you deny that Olbermann's degree is even from Cornell University in the face of reliable evidence and the fact you have baselessy accused other editors of lying. -- Gudeldar (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there reliable third-party coverage of this "controversy"? Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the only person it is controversial to is Ann Coulter her column was what precipitated the whole "controversy" -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Russcoot, you wrote: "saying that Mr. Olbermann received a Bachelor of Science from Cornell is simply untrue. At best, it's misleading. At worst, it's false". We have multiple, reliable sources WP:RS (and a photograph!) which suggest it's absolutely true that Keith Olbermann earned his degree from Cornell University. Are you, or are you not, still disputing this? If you can't at least acknowledge that at this point, I am utterly convince you are incapable of objective judgment in this case. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read Ms. Coulter's article, the whole point was to show the demonstrable hypocrisy and insecurity exhibited by a commentator who has made disparaging remarks about other people's educations while simultaneously falsely aggrandizing his own. On the 'missing the point' note, I apologize for not being more direct in explaining that my suggestion above was made tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the point that there is simply no justifiable reason for excluding truthful and accurate information from this or any other page. This discussion shouldn't be a "controversy", any more than Olbermann's education and Ann Coulter's accurate description thereof is a "controversy". These types of blatant political attempts to withhold accurate and truthful information from the site are precisely what gives Wikipedia a bad name. --Russcote (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Coulter's neither a reliable source, nor is she "third party". At this point I can't imagine how this would be notable. And even if it becomes notable, I'd think this would belong in AC's article, not here. Guettarda (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reference to Coulter is unnecessary. She is not being used as a source to identify where he went to school. The only source that is necessary is the Cornell website that identifies the College that he attended. But I agree that no separate section on a controversy concerning his school is warranted. There is no controversy about where he went to school. There is only a dispute as to how much information should be included to identify his school. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Russcote suggested a "Keith Olbermann degree controversy" section. I asked wheterh there were other sources for the "controversy" other than AC, who is neither third-party, not reliable. As for how we present the info - we should present it the same way we present other American university graduates. That's especially important given the interest sparked by AC's nonsense...after all, we can't propagate an implied slur, any more than we can propagate an outright one. Guettarda (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's simply no precedent of characterizing any public figure's alma matter by the college name, rather than simply the university. There's nothing really notable about doing as much. Unless you're trying to push an agenda of sorts? Hmmm? We don't actually even have a reliable source about the specifics of his degree. We have 2 reliable sources which simply list him as "Cornell University", thus I think in the interest of objectivity, we leave it thusly. WindyCityRider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC).

To the contrary, what gives wikipedia "a bad name" is poorly sourced material from web logs like Ann Coulter. Find quality sources for this info, or leave it out. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, some anonymous editor can protect the page because he feels Keith Olbermann is worthy of full protection from legitimate disputes regarding his education. Stay objective Wikipedia! --Russcote (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The person who protected the page was Rjd0060 if you have a problem with his actions I suggest you take it up with him on his talk page -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd think that was far more palatable to Russcote than the alternative solution available to Rjd. Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly interest in the specific college at Cornell that he attended, as is evidenced by Coulter's story and all the activity on this article and discussion page. Given this interest, I simply do not see any justification for excluding a mere six words of accurate properly sourced material. This does not mean that someone need buy into Coulter's attempt to malign the students of that college. Others will read the same information and admire the democratic nature of a Land Grant school education. It is all in the eye of the beholder. This accurate information is unbiased and neutral and allows the reader to reach his own conclusions. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"cleary interest" amongst editors is NOT encyclopedia-worthy by ANY policy or guideline on this site. Further, "interest amongst" a single blogger is also not encyclopedia-worthy. Do you really think 10 years from now anyone is going to care? Does wikipedia contain that level of biographically specific information from any of say, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Rush Limba--- (oh wait, did he go to college?)? I think the "clear interest" is held amongst biased editors trying to push an agenda and that has no place in an objective tertiary resource based on solid sourced material. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment has betrayed your bias and the POV that you seek to push. How is Rush's education relevant to a discussion concerning the proper identification of a school in this article? The mere proper identification of the school is completely unbiased and neutral. The reader can make whatever conclusion he desires based upon the accurate information. The reader can only make one biased conclusion from the truncated version that you have proposed. I will point out that wiki had a separate article for Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences long before this dispute arose. If this identifiable school was worthy of its own wiki article, it is worth of being properly identified in this article too. Tommylotto (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Your comment has betrayed your bias and the POV " incredibly rich coming from you. Please try to stick to the substance of the article, and leave the POV accusations out of the discussion. Thanks. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to be reasonable, I would propose that the short version Cornell University be used in the Bio Box and the full designation Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences be used in the actual text of the article. Both references are accurate and together provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. What say you? Tommylotto (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have at least 2 independent, reliable sources WP:RS that list all that information? Can you find significant precedent in wiki entries where the specific college of a public official's alma matter is listed in addition to the greater university? If not, we should keep it simple: Cornell University. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you could ask for. This separate wiki entry Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences dates back to April of 2004 and contains numerous citations attesting to its existence. It simply cannot be disputed that this was where he attended college and where he obtained his degree. As Cornell's own website makes clear this is where its Communications Department is located. I repeat, if WP has considered this school deserving of its own article for the last 5 years, it deserves to be properly identified in this article.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Find valid sources that say _exactly_ that, and you may at least be factually accurate. As it stands, your case is pretty flimsy. Even still, this level of detail seems like un-needed minutia and doesn't really belong in such a broad article. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And to add, I don't think at this point that there's any doubt that Olbermann earned his degree from Cornell University (Coulter's column is clearly debunked). And though it doesn't really matter which college he attended (to anyone aside from Ann Coulter), we don't really have reliable information on this one way or the other. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is improper to keep bringing up Coulter, whether she is right or not is irrelevant. The question is the proper identification of the school attended and in this case both answers can be considered correct. It does not matter that she was correct in that he was a student in the Communication Department which was part of the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and it does not matter that she was incorrect about her assumptions that flow from that fact. It still remains a fact that it is perfectly accurate, neutral and unbiased to state that Olbermann attended Cornell University and more specifically Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. That is why I proposed to include both correct answers.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See my response below about sourcing: you lack it.

Also, you continue to fail to identify any convention on wikipedia wherein a public official's alma matter is identified by university AND college. This is simply, unprecedented and aimed at POV pushing. That much is clear. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell, not of one particular college at Yale. Quite obviously, we couldn't claim otherwise - unlike some columnists and bloggers, we can't just make stuff up. If we had a section discussing his undergraduate career, it would make sense to discuss the college that granted his degree. Beyond that, it's irrelevant trivia. Given AC's nonsense, it's irrelevant trivia that might mislead readers - after all, it would appear that a lot of people arrived here misled by Coulter. Not only is it our job to restrict our articles to relevant, salient content, it's also our responsibility to avoid propagating smears and misinformation. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See my response above to your repeated references to Coulter's nonsense. We need to cut through her nonsense and report the facts accurately. He received a degree in communications for Cornell. That necessarily means he received it from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences as that is where the Communications Department is located. Both answers are equally correct. Both should be included in the article.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't know that for sure. At the time he graduated, which department was located in which school? You're simply guessing, which amounts to original research (WP:NOR), which is not acceptable. Come up with definitives source for your claim and I'll back it. Otherwise, the article is simply perpetrating Ann Coulter's smear. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue is done; don't feed the trolls (or SPA's who come to Wikipedia to further a single-item agenda). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please leave out the personal attacks and concentrate on the merits. It is not the purpose of WP to protect individuals or smear individuals. There seems to be certain editors of this article that do not like Coulter and want to undermine her by proving her wrong by withholding accurate properly sourced material from the reader of this article. That is not proper editing. She accurately identified the specific college he attended. That cannot be reasonably denied as the Communications Department is located in that particular College by reference to the university and college's own websites. The controversial presumptions that Coulter made about the quality of that particular College or whether it is part of the same university may be dead wrong, but that is besides the point, as that issue is not even addressed in the article nor in the proposed edit. The compromise that I have proposed (of providing both right answers in this article) is the most reasonable way to go. It is also the only way WP can stay neutral in the dispute between Coulter and Olbermann.Tommylotto (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You have proposed NO compromise, rather you have insisted in inclusion of an unsubstantiated and trivial detail that you're attempting perpetuate a smear with. It seems like the consensus here amongst reasonable editors is to leave is simply, and accurately, "Cornell University". You have presented no compelling reasons or basis to identify it otherwise. 75.17.59.85 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is from the Cornell Website. http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm "Cornell University is both a private endowed university and the federal land-grant institution of New York State. Each of the fourteen colleges and schools listed below defines its own academic programs; admits its own students; provides a faculty, and advising and support for its students; and confers degrees on its own students, although all degrees are attributed to Cornell University. Special transcollege faculty units (see "The Faculty of Computing and Information Science" below) draw on faculty members from throughout the university to serve designated needs and accomplish specific missions." Olbermann's degree is from the federal land-grant institution of New York State but is "attributed to Cornell University". Perhaps a solution to this is to just say that somewhere later in the article? Or say Cornell University and the reference links to federal land-grant institution of New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. An article about Keith Olbermann is not the place to discuss the structure and organization of a particular university. A Cornell graduate is a Cornell graduate is a Cornell graduate. It's that simple. WindyCityRider (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Nobody cares about this but Coulter fans. It's a non-issue.
2. Any discussion of the university governance structure of Cornell belongs at Cornell University.
3. At present, the article says this about his education:

   His parents enrolled him at the Hackley School.[7][9] After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts.[3]

   Adding mention of which college he was enrolled in at Cornell would probably seem odd to the average reader; adding a discussion of how Cornell grants its degrees would seriously unbalance the section. If someone wants to write a section about his undergraduate career, and can find reliable third-party sources that address that, then by all means give it a shot. Beyond that, there's nothing to see here. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we stick a fork in these discussions and close it now? It appears that the article accurately reflects his academic history and which University he got his degree from. The only remaining difference seems to be whether or not the specific college within Cornell should be mentioned and it appears the "majority" favor leaving it out as an unnecessary detail that is almost never used in bios. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life

Please do not remove properly sourced material without first discussing it on the talk page. His credits in his last semester are as appropriate as him skipping two grades at the Hackley School. One demonstrates early brilliance, the other demonstrates a time when he was a slacker. We want to be fair and balanced, don't we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the Hackley school per the citions provided. The slacker theory is interesting but not notable. --Tom 00:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the slacker angle is a "theory". I think it was evident from the context of his own convocation speech -- slacker followed by herculean effort to graduate on time. However, I have no problem with deleting both anecdotes. Tommylotto (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)