Jump to content

Talk:Ed Schultz: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 33: Line 33:
== Did Schultz Perform any Military Service? ==
== Did Schultz Perform any Military Service? ==


Schultz graduated from high school in 1972, and combat operations in Vietnam continued for that year and the next. If Schultz was a football player and had some athletic ability, and given his obvious interest in public service, what did he do about military service? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.44.149.170|70.44.149.170]] ([[User talk:70.44.149.170|talk]]) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Schultz graduated from high school in 1972, and combat operations in Vietnam continued for that year and the next. If Schultz was a football player and had some athletic ability, and given his obvious interest in public service, what did he do about military service?


==Header==
==Header==

Revision as of 18:32, 26 May 2011


Did Schultz Perform any Military Service?

Schultz graduated from high school in 1972, and combat operations in Vietnam continued for that year and the next. If Schultz was a football player and had some athletic ability, and given his obvious interest in public service, what did he do about military service?

Ed's great, but this is about as NPOV as a typical presidential attack ad.

What exactly isn't neutral? I see nothing here that is not an accurate recounting of fact.

Obama press conference

What about his appearance with Helen Thomas at the first Obama press conference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.71.142 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This article requires better structure and expression. The "Political Views" section needs to be expanded, with verifiable evidence to support the assertions made. I'll try and find some time to do it myself, but I've tagged it anyways. Any assistance with this would be most appreciated. Jackk 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I believe the political views section is a little misleading. Ed is a little more conservative and that is why I like him but "against abortion" makes it sound like Ed is not Pro-Choice, which he is according to his producer. And Ed is for gay rights, although I'm not sure of his position specifically on gay marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.132.39.166 (talkcontribs) .

Under political views, "against guest worker programs" is cited as a departure from progressive politics . . . a large proportion of liberals are opposed to guest worker programs, as they are harmful to unions and lower-class citizens; guest worker programs have typically been a conservative movement in the recent past, spearheaded by the president himself . . . again, this whole section needs cleaned up.

I just read the discussion of the "Whiskey Bottle Incident", and it's overstated and misreported to say the least. First of all, I don't believe there any glass shattered in the announcer's booth as a result of the bottle toss. My recollection (and I was there - Ed attacked me and my fraternity brothers in the stands) is that the bottle went through an open window. I also do not recall the bottle having ever hit anyone. Statements made immediately after the event did not report anyone having been struck by the bottle.

As for Ed's political leanings - find which way the wind blows hardest and you'll find Ed's political leanings. In the 1980s, Ed was a staunch Reagan conservative. At that same time he was the Voice of the North Dakota State Bison. When Clinton came into office, and became popular, Ed realligned his political leanings to fit those of the times. At about that same time, Ed became the voice of the University of N. Dakota Fighting Sioux (the Bison's greatest rival).

Should we split this?

I'm wondering if we should split this article into two. One for the host and one for the show. There is a lot more information about the show that could be put into it, but it goes beyond the host. Chadlupkes 21:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Go right ahead. Lots of hosts have two articles: one of themselves, and one for the shows. See Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show; Stephanie Miller and The Stephanie Miller Show; and Al Franken and The Al Franken Show. --Asbl 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone had already, but then merged them. Let's see how it goes. Chadlupkes 23:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your host Ed, Just like the Rep. who love wars Coming up with his own cheery picking druming for a war against Iran. Amazing he calls himself as better and different from the Rep war mongers.

Dog shooting

I have removed the bit about Schultz shooting his dog. I don't see how an unsourced rumour is "interesting and relevant." Rumors don't belong in Wikipedia. An encylopedia is factual...not filled with rumors. Even if this rumor was backed up with sources, I'm not sure that shooting your dog is the kind of thing worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is he blows up whenever someone says, "Hey Ed, how's your dog?" I don't know how you'd cite that, but it's true. And the reason people do it is because they know the rumor. And the fact that people do it and he reacts to it pops up on the air every once in a while. It's a self-perpetuating mini-controversy. But...whatever. Keep it deleted.Spottacus 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I could find on it is a little blurb in the Fargo Forum archives from a Q and A article dated Thursday, Aug 10, 1995. Monkeysocks2 (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

appearance listings

He has appeared way more times then this at both the primary and general election stage. I remembered he was on Larry King, im guessing in the panel section atleast at a dozen times. So let's eliminate the section or only list something when its notable.--Levineps (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is he ranked 5th?

I know the lib who put this in is desperately searching for a successful "progressive" host but he is ranked "11th" by Talkers (actually about 16th most listened to when ties are accounted for). Anyways... [1] Mr2b (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Clean-up

I'm not sure what citation style was being used specifically, but the previous use did not abide by any (that I know) guidelines for in-text citation. I only changed those in-text citations to MLA rules, which are: (Last Name Page Number/Year of Publication). There's no space between the author's last name and page number (e.g. Smith 320). Also, the period follows the citation, not before it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just a neater means of citation (other widely used citation styles are fine too, it just seemed as if the author of this article was using something akin to MLA).

To the author(s) of this article: I would also like to state that a citation comes after information being referenced, not before. While there are, indeed, a variety of citation methods, I know of none that use a citation at the beginning of a sentence. As such, I would like to suggest that the citations be placed at the end of the sentence prior to the period. These citations in the article all appear to be in-direct citations, but they should be properly cited nontheless. Hence, the citation should look something like this: The duck walked across the street with her ducklings (Smith 320). NOT: (Smith 320) The duck walked across the street with her ducklings. If the author is, in fact, using an appropriate means of citation, then I do apologize. However, I do not know of any means of citation that uses such a format as is now used in the article. Anyway, thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.70.154 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Lock This

Let's please lock this article and clean it up - it is the subject of a ton of vandalism lately. It's all "socialist this" and "socialist that"... --Iron Chef (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a little thin

Ed Schultz is, in many respects, as controversial as Rush Limbaugh. Just last night, he called Sarah Palin by the term "Caribou Barbie," and Rush Limbaugh as "the Drugster". His political views are well documented to be as far to the left as Limbaugh is to the right, and has made a call for President Obama to act in very constitutionally unlawful ways to "get the job done" on everything from health-care to the BP spill. I wish I hand the time myself, but I'm sure there are those that can fill in the gaping holes in this article. --151.201.148.142 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any edits to the article if you are going to approach it with bias. --Iron Chef (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue

In a 2003 Sports Illustrated article on North Dakota, Schulz, who was viewed as too loud and opinionated, was tied for second with George Stienbrenner as an "Enemy of the State" with 5% of the vote. Brett Favre was first with 39%.[8]

seems to be WP:Undue. --CarTick 00:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I was just fixing it to correctly represent the source. However, it is true that Schulz is very much disliked in ND. Arzel (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i will be surprised if any newscaster of his type would be liked in ND. please feel free to remove the content, i dont care if he is enemy of the state. --CarTick 00:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Why is there no controversies section? In order to be fair, this article must have a controversies section just like ANY CONSERVATIVE FIGURES biographies have? It won't be very difficult at all to dig up dirt on this guy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.115.174 (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections are discouraged in any bio because they tend to attract endless additions, violating WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. It's much better to integrate that information into other parts of the article. If you have very well sourced information about a controversy, feel free to mention it at an appropriate place in the article, bearing in mind that the amount of emphasis it receives in the article should be proportional to the person's entire public life. In other words, if there is a minor controversy that was briefly mentioned in a widely distributed and unbiased news source, it might be appropriate to make a brief mention. If there is a major controversy that was discussed extensively by a wide variety of sources, it might need a little more emphasis. Read the blue links in my post for more details. I strongly suggest discussing major controversies on this talk page, with appropriate sources, before adding to the article. And BTW, if there are controvesy sections in other bios, and especially if they are overweighted, feel free to discuss changes on those articles' talk page. Cresix (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]