Talk:Keith Olbermann

www.keitholbermann.org

http://www.keitholberman.org hosts the only discussion forum on the internet devoted to Keith Olbermann. I set it up specifically becasue of that lack.

Please do not trim the external link to my site as it is valid and will quickly become the major fan site.

To trim my site up and leave a link to Bloggerman is not correct--Keith has abandoned Bloggerman and has not posted to it since mid-December when he took on the Sports job with Dan Patrick again. He doesn't have time.

Further, it isn't like Bytes are in such short supply readers can't be given these options. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.215.99 (talk • contribs) .

The Wikipedia style manual says to limit fan site links to one site. I picked the one I did because it seemed to be the biggest. I left the link to his blog becuase it's an official site. --waffle iron 16:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to your site again because:

• It's small and
• It fails WP:VANITY

--waffle iron 16:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is small becasue it is 48 hours old. It won't stay small. It doesn't need to be deleted. The style manual is in error. http://www.keitholbermann.org Is the only forum devoted to Keith Olbermann on the internet. It is unique. That is why I spent money to create it, it is something not available elsewhere. The link belongs. Please enlighten as to your personal agenda against this site?

If you look at the discussion behind that rule page you see the conscensus is this:

"The answer is to be reasonable. If there are only three or four sites findable on the web pertinent to an article, and all of them are fan sites, then linking to them all is reasonable. If there are twenty or thirty pertinent sites then use judgement and link to the best ones, just as in an article on an historical figure, you would link to web pages that were most useful in respect to that article, regardless of whether a page happened to be on a university website or was a good discussion or essay on someone's personal website."

There isn't 20-30 here, there were 4, now there is 1. Deleting my site but leaving another is blatantly unfair. Playing tug of war--which is what we will otherwise do--is childish and non-productive. My site isn't vanity becasue I am NOT Keith Olbermann. It is a serious site which I am seriously promoting.

I did not delete anyone else's site, and I would appreciate it if folks would stop deleting mine.

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote a website you own. You admit you just created it and you are using this to increase your traffic. That's advertising and therefore fails according to WP:SPAM --waffle iron 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all--the fact that I created the site does not prevent me from noting it's existance. I happened to notice it first since I wrote it. It is not spam. Try again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.215.99 (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:SPAM, especially:

Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.

Also, your site has four pages; one of which is a redirect to a more established site's video section.

Reverting.--sigmafactor 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And despite this discussion Olbermann.org is still listed which is why the Keith Olbermann entry is a disgrace; it is nothing more than a fan site for Keith Olbermann full of undocumented, totally subjective statements biased to paint Keith Olbermann in the most postive light. The fact is that Olbermann.org is one of MANY fan sites for Keith Olbermann is not even the most popular. The owner of Olbermann.org has stated their intention is to promote a site that few even know about let along read. This person is also lying; there are numerous "Keith Olbermann" discussion forums on the internet.

reply: wouldn't it be nice if there was an internet encyclopediat that listed all those discussion forums? --147.248.82.145 19:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The only person I see here arguing that this site should be listed is the owner of the site. If no one else is going to defend linking this site I am going to remove it and keep removing it until some better case is made for its inclusion.

reply: The Forum site at www.keitholbermann.org/forum now has a total of 7070 articles and 110 registered users;

I will further continue this discussion on that forum, which not everyone can edit..

http://keitholbermann.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1028

Thanks.--147.248.82.145 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, everyone can edit this, but the history of every edit is preserved for everyone to see. If someone were to attempt to change what you said, for instance, nobody would be fooled into thinking that you yourself had said that, and it would soon be reverted. On a message board on another site, the administrator of the board could edit something and nobody could tell. So I have to say that the Wikipedia has more integrity when it comes knowing who said what when, if that's what your getting at. CuteGargoyle 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If one chose to research it, perhaps, but there are ways to hide even that. I do not believe Wikipedia has integrity as such; it has people with axes to grind, mob rule, people playing power games, and poseurs. These "controversial" sites are completely out of control, and only a firm editorial policy with peer reviewed edits would make wikipedia something usable for the seeker of accurate information on these matters. The wiki design works for butterfly taxonomy, but it is inadequate for politics. If this were an encyclopedia, www.keitholbermann.org would be listed. --DoctorMike 02:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?

I've watched this article ebb and flow for some time and it seems to me that some form of protection needs to be enacted. Look at the history of edits over the past two weeks and a pattern becomes clear: 3-10 consecutive edits by IP users, then one by a registered user to clean up POV issues. I can't stand the anti-Keith waves and their accusations or the Keith fanboys who try to lash back and insert links to their favorite fansite.
Is anyone else with me on semi-protection? --sigmafactor 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection should only be used to stop persistent anonymous vandalism. It shouldn't be used to prevent new users from editing articles, even if their contributions are opinionated. Rhobite 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we last spoke, there have been three or four obvious instances vandalisms and POV hijacking. Is that much activity in less than a week warrant semi-protection? --sigmafactor 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for leaving an article up for editing by new users, but there has to be a way to stop these constant back and forth edits between the O.o and the OW crowds. --129.22.127.32 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a promising dialogue has been established. However, it will be difficult to discuss things here because the page is getting unwieldy. Does anyone object if I remove this "Semi-Protection" section? I will wait at least five days for an objection before I delete it. Thanks. CuteGargoyle 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Generally, talk page discussions aren't deleted, unless they're really irrelevent. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to weed out the things that seem like that may be irrelevant. This issue of semi-protection hasn't been futhered for quite some time. I think a lot of discussion is going to have to take place on this page in the near future, over POV questions, and I'm trying to clean the page up a bit since it's getting to be so long. I'm hoping that putting out a request for objections before I remove stagnant stuff will be a considerate way to achieve that. What do people usually do when talk pages get too long? CuteGargoyle 21:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually there are achives created at Talk:ARTICLE/archive1 and so on. --waffle iron ^talk 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. --waffle iron ^talk 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the section I added just yesterday but kept this old one? I was suggesting we delete this semi-protection one, because it's ancient, and now it's one of the only ones still here. CuteGargoyle 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not deleted, it's on the archive page. I just assumed that all sections are added on the bottom of the page by using the "+" tab. Feel free to move it back by removing the section from the archive and adding back here. --waffle iron ^talk 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entries Are Not Fan Sites

The entry for Keith Olbermann in Wikipedia as it stood on March 31st when I first read it was a disgrace. It is little more than a fan site. The entry is rife with unsubstantiated, subjective, unfounded statements. I have made edits to the most egregious as a starting point towards a more objective entry. Not suprisingly, the primary editors of this page appear to be Keith Olbermann fans and do not like these edits.

I can site numerous examples but one section of the entry will serve to illustate my point. The entry did not just gloss over but ignores Keith Olbermann's well-earned reputations for being a prima donna and destroying a host of professional relationships in his career. The entry presents a fantasy version of Keith's departure and subsequnet relationship with ESPN and the show for which he is most widely known - SportsCenter.

KEITH LEAVING ESPN

The account of Keith leaving ESPN is one even Keith Olbermann himself would disown. According to Wikipedia Keith Olbermann left ESPN because he didn't like the commute or the social scene in Bristol or some such blather. These things may be true but it not why Keith Olbermann left ESPN. He left, as has been well documented, because he alienated almost every employee of ESPN and his position there was no longer tenable.

In numerous interviews, including most recently a Q & A interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN Keith Olbermann had this exchange, Keith has acknowledged the nature of his sudden departure from ESPN:

LAMB: We’ve about a minute left here. There’s a quote, one of my favorite quotes that I found from a fellow at ESPN, Mike Soltis.

OLBERMANN: Mike Soltis.

LAMB: Soltis. This was in one of your alleged difficulties with ESPN.

OLBERMANN: No, this was after I left, in fact.

LAMB: ”He didn’t burn his bridges here. He napalmed them.”

OLBERMANN: Yes, that’s a pretty good one. I liked my version of that better. I had said, when Tom Snyder asked me did you burn your bridges there, I said, ”No, I burned the bridges and the river.” I’m the only person to have done that.

How bad was it?

When ESPN held a "reunion week" for the 20th Anniversary of SportsCenter, a show Keith Olbermann put on the map, he was not invited to appear. John Cotey of the St. Petersberg Times wrote:

"We didn't want to bring him into the workplace," said ESPN executive vice president Mark Shapiro. "The damage he could do in one day in the newsroom could put us in damage control for two years."

and..

Olbermann had written an apology of sorts, published on Salon.com, for some of the things he said in Freeman's book.

There was hope then, Shapiro said. But others at ESPN weren't so eager to forgive.

"I was blown away by how much that one meeting ... how people reacted to me even taking the meeting," Shapiro said, adding he had no idea how many "bodies were buried along the way."

He was undeterred, though, until a short time later. Just six months after Olbermann's mea culpa on Salon.com, ESPN/ABC president George Bodenheimer hired Lisa Guerrero for Monday Night Football, and the final piece of the bridge demolition disintegrated into ash.

"It's a complete repudiation of Monday Night Football's tradition," Olbermann was quoted as saying. "(John) Madden and (Al) Michaels should walk, and Bodenheimer should be led away in handcuffs."

And so ended Shapiro's flirtation with Olbermann.

"Personally I couldn't get past that," Shapiro said. "Even though he did leave a tremendous legacy and helped chart the course of the show, there was too much bad stuff that came with it, unnecessary bad stuff."

and

Shapiro said. "There's probably a lot of people inside and outside that disagree with the decision. But we want this to be meaningful. We want to look back at (SportsCenter) fondly and not contentiously."

Shall I continue or can we engage in a thoughtful discussion about how an NPOV Keith Olbermann wikipedia entry read? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcox1963 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that the parts about ESPN are a bit rosey, but you make the whole heading of Leaving ESPN read:

Keith left ESPN in 1997.

Instead of trying to rewrite the section, you deleted it wholesale. That's unfair to all editors. I suggest you make one edit at a time and discuss it on the talk page instead of changing the whole article. --waffle iron 23:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

William - the entire post, as I found it on March 31, was replete with the same kind misinformation. It sounds like you would propose that I start by leaving ALL the misinformation in the post and debate each sentence with the same Keith Olbermann fans who posted this dribble in the first place. The post is trainwreck. It should be nuked and rebuilt from scratch using real facts and written from a NPOV. However, I am willing to make a good faith effort to clean up this entry to make it bear some semblance of balance and objectivity.

Since you agree that there are problems with the Keith at ESPN section why don't we start there. The only accurate statement in that section was that Keith left ESPN in 1997. The rest not only has no citation but is even contrary to Keith's own words about the situation at ESPN. What do YOU suggest that the section on Keith leaving ESPN should say? Erasmus PS, I don't know how to time stamp my comments so what I did here will have to do.

William - you asked me to discuss changes to the entry before making changes but when I discuss those changes as you requested you don't reply. So what is your REAL point. Could it be that you don't want changes that do anything other than paint Keith Olbermann in the most positive light? Seems to me that if you are going to complain about my edits, ask me to discuss them first and then not respond when I attempt to discuss them there is little point in paying attention to your concerns.

William - it's been a week and still no reply. Robert Cox Rcox1963 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Link to Keith Olbermann "Katrina" Video

There is no particular logic or reason for linking to this video except for reasons of political biase (anti-Bush).

• Video and audio of Olbermann lambasting the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina on MSNBC, September 5, 2005, and a transcript of that segment.

If someone wants to link video of Keith Olbermann they ought to link video of him on SportsCenter uttering some of his famous phrases or showing the interplay between him and Dan Patrick. SportsCenter is where Keith Olbermann first gained national prominence and a show for which he is still most widely associated.

Entire Keith Olbermann Entry Massively non-NPOV

As I have noted previously, the reason I made comprehensive edits to the Keith Olbermann wikipedia entry is because it is replete with errors, misinformation, political bias and self-serving promotion. I believe it should be erased rebuilt from scratch.

I have been asked by a couple of self-appointed editors of this entry to refrain from such comprehensive edits and to "discuss" edits on the talk page. I suspect that this is a waste of time and that the real purpose of people editing this entry is to advance their own political agenda, promote certain left-wing web sites, and as a way for Keith Olbermann "fans" to demonstrate their unquestioning "support" for Keith Olbermann. That said, I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt so perhaps I will be proven wrong.

Here goes...

INTRODUCTION

In the opening paragraph, the line "He can also be heard on The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio weekdays at 2:00 PM EST" is an advertisement for the show. An NPOV way to express this would be "He is also a regular contributor to The Dan Patrick Show on ESPN Radio."

EARLY CAREER

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

Keith earned his Bachelor of Science degree in communications arts from Cornell University in 1979

• served as sports director for WVBR, a student-run commercial radio station in Ithaca, New York.
• began his professional career at UPI and RKO Radio
• joining the nascent CNN in 1981.
• In 1984, he briefly worked as a sports anchor at WCVB-TV in Boston
• Los Angeles to work at KTLA and KCBS.
• eleven Golden Mike Awards
• Best Sportscaster by the California Associated Press three times.

OLBERMANN AT ESPN

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• In 1992, he joined ESPN’s SportsCenter, a position he would hold until 1997.
• His edition of SportsCenter was often hosted together with Dan Patrick,
• two became known as one of the popular SportsCenter anchor teams. 
• Olbermann quickly became known for his wit, reporting style, and catch phrases, as well as his tight chemistry with co-anchor Patrick.
• In 1995, Olbermann won a Cable ACE award for Best Sportscaster while co-anchoring the “big show” as he called it (often referencing the Sunday night SportsCenter). 
• The entry reads "quickly became known for his wit, reporting style, and catch phrase". This is entirely subjective and fawning. It might be acceptable if such a statement was attributed to some authoritative source such as a well-known TV critic or sportswriter. On its own, and without any supporting citation, it is little more than promotion in the form of opinion.

New Ventures There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• While at ESPN, Olbermann was instrumental in helping to launch ESPN Radio and ESPN2
• designed at its outset to be the younger, hipper ESPN
• most notably opening the first program on the latter network...stating, “Welcome to the end of our careers.”

The section Olbermann would later co-author a book with Patrick called The Big Show about their experiences working at SportsCenter is in the wrong place; this occurred AFTER he left ESPN. There is a section called AFTER SPORTSCENTER so this either belongs there or the AFTER SPORTSCENTER section needs a new title or perhaps a new section such as "Keith Olbermann - Author"

LEAVING ESPN

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• he became increasingly unhappy commuting to ESPN’s studios in Bristol, Connecticut
• due to the area’s remote location
• lack of an active social scene
• whispers that he could be difficult to work or get along with contributed to his departure from ESPN in 1997.

Keith Olbermann on ESPN with Brian Lamb

The account of Keith leaving ESPN is one even Keith Olbermann himself would disown. According to Wikipedia Keith Olbermann left ESPN because he didn't like the commute or the social scene in Bristol or some such blather. These things may be true (we don't know because there is no citation) but it not why Keith Olbermann left ESPN. He left, as has been well documented, because he alienated almost every employee of ESPN and his position there was no longer tenable. In numerous interviews, including most recently a Q & A interview with Brian Lamb on C-SPAN Keith Olbermann had this exchange, Keith has acknowledged the nature of his sudden departure from ESPN:

LAMB: We’ve about a minute left here. There’s a quote, one of my favorite quotes that I found from a fellow at ESPN, Mike Soltis.

OLBERMANN: Mike Soltis.

LAMB: Soltis. This was in one of your alleged difficulties with ESPN.

OLBERMANN: No, this was after I left, in fact.

LAMB: ”He didn’t burn his bridges here. He napalmed them.”

OLBERMANN: Yes, that’s a pretty good one. I liked my version of that better. I had said, when Tom Snyder asked me did you burn your bridges there, I said, ”No, I burned the bridges and the river.” I’m the only person to have done that.

Keith Olbermann Not Invited to ESPN'S SportsCenter Reunion Week

When ESPN held a "reunion week" for the 20th Anniversary of SportsCenter, a show Keith Olbermann put on the map, he was not invited to appear. John Cotey of the St. Petersberg Times wrote: "We didn't want to bring him into the workplace," said ESPN executive vice president Mark Shapiro. "The damage he could do in one day in the newsroom could put us in damage control for two years."

---

Olbermann had written an apology of sorts, published on Salon.com, for some of the things he said in Freeman's book. There was hope then, Shapiro said. But others at ESPN weren't so eager to forgive. "I was blown away by how much that one meeting ... how people reacted to me even taking the meeting," Shapiro said, adding he had no idea how many "bodies were buried along the way." He was undeterred, though, until a short time later. Just six months after Olbermann's mea culpa on Salon.com, ESPN/ABC president George Bodenheimer hired Lisa Guerrero for Monday Night Football, and the final piece of the bridge demolition disintegrated into ash. "It's a complete repudiation of Monday Night Football's tradition," Olbermann was quoted as saying. "(John) Madden and (Al) Michaels should walk, and Bodenheimer should be led away in handcuffs." And so ended Shapiro's flirtation with Olbermann. "Personally I couldn't get past that," Shapiro said. "Even though he did leave a tremendous legacy and helped chart the course of the show, there was too much bad stuff that came with it, unnecessary bad stuff."

---

Shapiro said. "There's probably a lot of people inside and outside that disagree with the decision. But we want this to be meaningful. We want to look back at (SportsCenter) fondly and not contentiously."

OPINIONS (WHY NOT KEITH OLBERMANN AND BASEBALL?)

I don't understand this section at all. The only "opinion" I see here is "Olbermann is a dedicated baseball fan and historian of the sport". The rest of the section is statements of what appear to be facts, although there are no citations. It seems like this section should really be called "Keith Olbermann and Baseball", that it should state that "Olbermann is a dedicated baseball fan and historian of the sport" and support that statement by providing citations to the statements below.

• Member, Society for American Baseball Research.
• He has argued, for example, that New York Giants baseball player Fred Merkle should not be denied inclusion into the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because of a single baserunning mistake.
• Olbermann also took documentarian Ken Burns to task about the accuracy of Burns’ television series Baseball, pointing out dozens of factual and anachronistic errors in Burns’ documentary.
• In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history; this documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive such compendium.

The phrase "took documentarian Ken Burns to task" is NPOV.

AFTER SPORTS CENTER

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• In 1997, Olbermann left ESPN to host his own primetime show on MSNBC, named The Big Show (this is also a misleading statement as noted elsewhere)
• The news variety program covered three or four different topics in a one-hour broadcast.
• Olbermann also occasionally hosted the weekend edition of NBC Nightly News
• he was the co-pre-game host (along with Hannah Storm) of NBC Sports’ coverage of the 1997 World Series.
• When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, he began hosting another news program, White House in Crisis.
• Olbermann says he became frustrated when the Lewinsky story constantly consumed his regular show.
• He left MSNBC after 17 months to return to sportscasting (Keith was dumped by MSNBC as a result of his infamous Convocation Speech at Cornell)
• he has said that even if Lewinsky never happened, he still would have left to return to sports. In 1998, Olbermann became an anchor and executive producer for The Keith Olbermann Evening News, a nightly sportscast similar to SportsCenter, which aired nightly on cable’s Fox Sports Net
• While at Fox, Olbermann was again a host of the World Series and also Fox Broadcasting’s baseball Game of the Week.

The ESPN section states "Olbermann would later co-author a book with Patrick called The Big Show about their experiences working at SportsCenter is in the wrong place"; as this occurred AFTER he left ESPN it belong here or in a new section such as "Keith Olbermann - Author"

The entry reads "In 1997, Olbermann left ESPN to host his own primetime show on MSNBC, named The Big Show"

As noted in my comments on the ESPN section, Keith Olbermann left ESPN because he had created such bad will that his position at ESPN was no longer tenable. I would not add the next statement to the entry but the fact is that Keith was run out of ESPN on a rail because all but a handful of employees hated his guts - and still do to this day (see, SportsCenter Reunion).

In would be more accurate to say:

"In 1997, after leaving ESPN Olbermann was hired by MSNBC to host his own, hour-long news show,The Big Show."

The entry reads "he has said that even if Lewinsky never happened, he still would have left to return to sports."

I'm not sure WHY this is here. He may have said this (there is no citation) but the fact's don't bear him out. Since leaving his ESPN his primary job has been MSNBC, Fox Sports (briefly serving out the remainder of his MSNBC contract when they dumped him), ABC News and MSNBC. I know he is with Dan Patrick now but the fact remains that one of Keith's rants at ESPN was about how he wanted to be taken seriously (i.e. do hard news not just sports). It seems given the choices he wants to be a newsman not a sportscaster. This statement is dubious, at best, has little relevance and ought to be dropped, especially given there is no citation.

The entry reads "He left MSNBC after 17 months to return to sportscasting"

Where is the story of Keith giving a convocation speech at Cornell which resulted in MSNBC canceling his show and "trading" him to Fox Sports. This is a well-known story - that a news anchor publicly attack his network - and something Keith Olbermann has discussed many times in the press.

RETURN TO REPORTING

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• Olbermann left Fox Sports in 2001 for “other opportunities” and kept a relatively low profile. (he was fired and out of work)
• He worked for a time as a regular contributor on CNN
• provided twice-daily sports commentary on the ABC Radio Network.
• The attacks of September 11, 2001 provided the impetus for Olbermann to return to full-fledged news reporting.
• He won an Edward R. Murrow Award for reporting from the site of the attacks for 40 days on ABC Radio.
• Olbermann was rehired by MSNBC in early 2003 as a substitute host on Nachman and as an anchor for MSNBC’s coverage of the war in Iraq
• His own show, Countdown, debuted shortly thereafter on March 31, 2003 in the 8:00 p.m. ET time slot previously held by programs hosted by Phil Donahue and, briefly, Lester Holt. On October 13, 2004,
• Olbermann launched Bloggermann, his Countdown weblog, hosted on MSNBC.com.
• Olbermann leverages the open format of the blog to expound on facts or ideas alluded to in the broadcast, to offer personal musings and reactions, and to break news at odd hours.
• As such, he has distinguished himself by making inroads into the blogosphere and bridging the gap between the “mainstream media” and the “new media.”
• Olbermann and Chris Matthews’ Hardball, also on MSNBC, tied for 1st place on MSNBC (and 21st place in all of cable news) in February 2006 with 400,000 viewers each for the month, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN and FOX News Channel’s top programs for the month were Larry King Live with 901,000 viewers and The O’Reilly Factor with over 2.2 million viewers.
• In June of 2005, Olbermann returned to ESPN Radio every Friday, co-hosting with his friend and former colleague Dan Patrick’s three-hour weekday program.
• On November 28, 2005, Olbermann’s co-hosting duties expanded to Weekdays, 2:00-3:00 p.m. ET.

The entry reads "Olbermann left Fox Sports in 2001 for “other opportunities” and kept a relatively low profile.

It would be more accurate to say that Keith burned bridges yet again and was basically fired from Fox Sports. They were so unhappy with Keith that they took him off the air while paying him $1mm to do nothing. After his contract was up he found a job working for ABC News Radio. I am open to suggestions on how best to phrase this but failing to note that Fox Sports paid Keith $1mm for 8 months to do nothing seems more than relevant.

The entry reads "However, he usually only reports on these stories when there are, or have recently been, developments."

This is so far from accurate that simply labeling this statement false is a disservice. On a near nightly basis, Countdown covers stories when there is no news. It is one of the most often cited criticisms of the show. Ironically, this in a way reminiscent of Keith Olbermann's original stint on MSNBC but this time with regard to stories that are or can be portrayed by Keith Olbermann as negative for President Bush, U.S. policy in Iraq, the Bush administration, Fox News and Bill O'Reilly.

The entry reads "has distinguished himself by making inroads into the blogosphere and bridging the gap between the “mainstream media” and the “new media.”

The entry reads "leverages the open format of the blog to expound on facts or ideas alluded to in the broadcast, to offer personal musings and reactions, and to break news at odd hours".

On its own, and without any supporting citation, it is little more than promotion in the form of opinion. If this "laundry list" is going to be used it ought to be complete and note that Keith has largely abandoned the blog since late 2005 and that he routinely fulfilled his blogging obligation to MSNBC by copying/pasting portions of his script from that night's show into his blog.

The entry reads "Olbermann is unusual from other news anchors in that he is sharply critical of the Bush administration."

Most news anchors at national new networks are sharply critical of the Bush administration. The issue with Olbermann is that he only presents one side of any news story about the President - the "contra" side.

The entry reads "Olbermann frequently reports on scandals concerning conservatives"

The term "scandals" is non-NPOV and should not be used.

OLBERMANN "FEUDS"

The entry goes on at great length in a totally subjective manner about Keith's Olbermann's so-called feud with Bill O'Reilly and has, in various incarnations, included Keith Olbermann's feud with Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center. This section goes to great lengths to present the issue in a light favorable to Keith Olbermann and the opposite for Bill O'Reilly and appears to be little more than an attempt by critics of Bill O'Reilly to further Olbermann's agenda. Keith Olbermann has spoken openly (C-SPAN, L.A. Times, Washington Post) about his belief that segments based on criticizing, mocking or otherwise attacking Bill O'Reilly are good for his ratings.

If the entry is going to list famous Olbermann feuds there ought to be sections for the Media Research Center, Olbermann Watch, ESPN, MSNBC, Fox Sports and many others. That the entry only focuses on this one "feud" and do so in such a biased banner suggest that it should be removed - or broadened in such a way as to cover the many other such "feuds" which are the hallmark of Olbermann's broadcasting career.

That said, regarding the section as it stands now there are numerous problems with the section.

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• An open and mutual feud exists between Olbermann and his direct competitor on the Fox News Channel, Bill O’Reilly.
• Olbermann has named O’Reilly his “Worst Person in the World” sixteen times.
• O’Reilly has openly petitioned for the ouster of Olbermann from MSNBC and the return of Phil Donahue to Olbermann’s time slot.
• The feud stems from Olbermann's public happiness and joy during Bill O'Reilly's harrassment suit where he jokingly kept track of money his viewers pledged to buy the tapes from O'Reilly's accuser. Olbermann ran a "Save the Tapes" campaign complete with parades and fanfare in an attempt to embarrass O'Reilly.
• Since then, Olbermann makes various references to the law suit and its details in most of his comments on O'Reilly.

For the "phone call" part of the section, there is a citation, the only one in this entire entry, but this part of this section is little more than a one-sided account a prank phone call which has not one but two links promoting a left-wing web site. This part of this section is really about a matter between Bill O'Reilly and the bloggers over at Calling All Wing Nuts who just happened to mention Keith Olbermann before getting cut off. It does not belong in a Keith Olbermann entry.

• In March 2006, Bill O’Reilly dropped a caller from his live radio show, for mentioning Olbermann's name. O'Reilly accused the caller of being part of a larger group of individuals who has been calling O'Reilly with the sole purpose of mentioning Olbermann. The customary seven-second delay for live radio feeds prevents us from knowing precisely what the caller said, other than, "I like to listen to you during the day. I think Keith Olbermann--." O'Reilly responded to "Mike" as follows:
• "We have your own phone number and we're going to turn it over to Fox security and you'll be getting a little visit. [...] When you call us, ladies and gentlemen, just so you know, we do have your phone number, and if you say anything untoward, obscene or anything like that, FOX security will contact your local authorities and you will be held accountable. Fair?"
• On March 9, while being interviewed by Olbermann, the caller, Mike [1] stated he was part of a group called www.callingallwingnuts.com. Mike further explained that he had been in contact with other callers from www.callingallwingnuts.com who had been called by Fox Security. See [2]
• (In fact, it is Westwood One who broadcasts O'Reilly's radio show and not FOX). On a subsequent Countdown, Keith had "Mike" on as a guest to discuss the incident. Mike denied that he had said anything obscene before O'Reilly cut him off. See the Rocky Mountain News article.

The entry reads "open and mutual feud". This is redundant. A feud, by definition, is "open" and "mutual".

The entry reads "The feud stems from Olbermann's public happiness and joy during Bill O'Reilly's harrassment suit where he jokingly kept track of money his viewers pledged to buy the tapes from O'Reilly's accuser"

The words "stems from" are speculation. The work "jokingly" is not only subjective but grammatically awkward.

The entry reads both "In March 2006, Bill O’Reilly dropped a caller from his live radio show, for mentioning Olbermann's name" and "the customary seven-second delay for live radio feeds prevents us from knowing precisely what the caller said".

If we don't KNOW what was said or what precisely prompted O'Reilly to cut off the caller - as is acknowledged in the entry - then why is a motive being ascribed to O'Reilly? The version of events is the caller's version of events so this entry is not-NPOV.

ACCUSATIONS OF BIAS

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• Olbermann is unusual from other news anchors in that he is sharply critical of the Bush administration.
• He starts off many editions of his program with news from the White House.
• He also was the only television host to openly question the validity of the 2004 Presidential elections in contested states where Bush won like Ohio and Florida.
• For a time, Olbermann also closed each program by reminding viewers exactly how many days its been since the President's declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, during a Presidential speech in 2003 on an aircraft carrier.
• Olbermann frequently reports on scandals concerning conservatives like Presidential advisor Karl Rove, Vice Presidential advisor Lewis Libby, and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but showed open disdain at MSNBC's constant coverage of President Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury which led to his leaving MSNBC initially in 1998. see [3]
• However, he usually only reports on these stories when there are, or have recently been, developments.
• Olbermann's main complaint with the coverage of the Clinton impeachment was the endless coverage, which would usually encompass the entire hour on his old MSNBC program "The Big Show".

SMOKING

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

• On Monday, August 8, 2005, the day following Peter Jennings’s death from lung cancer, Olbermann revealed on-air that he had a benign fibrous tumor removed from his palate just ten days earlier.
• 'In an explicit and controversial monologue, he attributed his tumor (and the resulting fear and pain) directly to his 27-year habit of smoking pipes and cigars.
• He vigorously urged his viewers not to wait until they see symptoms to quit. “Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking—now. While it’s easier.”
• This marked the beginning of “I Quit,” a recurring segment on Countdown which offers anti-smoking tips and encouragement. On August 16, 2005, Olbermann’s colleague at NBC Mike Taibbi joined him for “I Quit” to discuss kicking the habit.
• See: “Flush the Butts” Bloggerman Entry from August 8, 2005.

The entry reads "This marked the beginning of “I Quit,” a recurring segment on Countdown which offers anti-smoking tips and encouragement. On August 16, 2005, Olbermann’s colleague at NBC Mike Taibbi joined him for “I Quit” to discuss kicking the habit. See: “Flush the Butts” Bloggerman Entry from August 8, 2005.

This section is not only promotional but in the wrong place, It belongs in the Wikipedia entry for Countdown with Keith Olbermann

The entry makes no mention that media reports at the time stated that MSNBC Rick Kaplan was furious at Olbermann for comparing his benign tumor with Peter Jennings death from lung cancer and expressed himself in a loud and forceful manner immediately after the end of the broadcast. Olbermann has since claimed that Kaplan was only angry because Keith's description of his condition (throwing up blood) would cause viewers to change channels just as MSNBC was about to launch a new show to follow Countdown with Keith Olbermann. No one at MSNBC has confirmed Olbermann's version of the event.

Sorry to leapfrog the earlier comments, but this is a response to this original subtopic (Massively non-NPOV), and the indents are getting a little tangled. Can any experienced Wikipedias give insight about the policy for citations? It seems extreme to me to delete every fact which lacks a citation link. I could see doing it if its veracity was in question, as the "cousin of Mike Tyson" thing was for a while. Otherwise, wouldn't it be better to put a note next to the fact and leave it be? Is there a category of facts which don't always require citations? Also, if a question is settled to everyone's general satisfaction, is it kosher to remove it from the Talk page? (For instance, I deleted the Mike Tyson question the other day. Also, if we settle the question of the citations, which is really one issue, would RCox or anyone else mind if I deleted those boxes from RCox's critique, to better focus on the remaining POV questions?) Thanks. CuteGargoyle 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with the assertion that this article should be rebuilt from scratch, but I have a problem with the constant edits made by both maintainers of fan sites and maintainers of obviously personal vendetta sites. This is not a personal attack upon the poster of this section, but the fact that he has asked the readers of his anti-Olbermann page to overwhelm this article with too many edits to keep up with should perhaps give the admins some pause.--Spentangeli 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured that this was the same person who runs(ran?) OlbermannWatch. That makes me sick. Tell you what, I'll put up a request for a Peer Review and get this mess straightened out. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Spentangeli - I can assure you that Olbermann Watch is NOT a "personal vendetta". I'm going to make a leap and assume you are "Spaghetti Legs" on that site, you must realize that most of what I write is written with tounge planted firmly in cheek. If you don't then woe is you. Keith Olbermann understands the site perfectly well; he described it as a site set up to "mock me". I guess it never occurred to you that the notion of even having a site dedicated solely to "watching" Keith Olbermann is satirical on its face.

As for telling readers to "overwhelm" this entry, that is false. I never asked readers to "overwhelm" the Keith Olbermann entry. I have been quite clear that I believe that this entry is massively non-NPOV. I have laid out a detailed analysis of the many ways in which the Keith Olbermann entry is non-NPOV (the same is true for the Countdown with Keith Olbermann entry). After going about things in the wrong way and being educated on that (this is my first time getting actively engaged in editing a Wikipedia entry) I have sought to comply with EVERY request I have recevied. I have provided citations, posted recommend changes to the discussion pages and otherwise sought to comply with or respond to anyone on Wikipedia that I have encountered.

The result, no one is disputing (or even responding to) my analysis of the entry but rather attacking me for things I did not say or running off to "mommy" to request a "peer review". That seems like a neat trick to me. Demand that I propose changes on the discussion page, ignore me, then revert my edits when I make the changes, all the while complaining to an admin that I should be banned from editing because I won't "discuss" changes.

I do not see what bearing who I am has on my critique of this entry. If you take issue with my analysis and my recommended changes I would be more than happy to discuss that but if all editors here want to do is attack the messenger you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia and merely providing an explanation as to WHY this entry is massively NPOV - you WANT it to be NPOV.

Robert Cox Rcox1963 13:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, I am not "spaghetti legs". As far as OW being satire, I have never seen "good natured" satire that routinely made use of extremely personal insults like OW is wont to do. If I were a wagerer, I would certainly bet on the fact that most, if not all, of the anti-KO people who post similar such insults are unaware that your site's intent is satirical.--Spentangeli 04:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what the content on Olbermann Watch has to do with whether my analysis of the Keith Olbermann entry being massively non-NPOV is accurate. I wish we could be discussing that instead of Olbermann Watch. I am new to editing at Wikipedia so forgive if I am offbase but as I don't understand how such a sidebar discussion get us any closer to improving this entry I am not sure why we are engaging on this topic here. I would most respectfully request that you please address your comments to the substance of my recommended changes. We all have biases and I have mine. I am not hiding them. If you feel that my suggestions are non-NPOV please let me know and I will respond. That said, for the record, I did not say the site was "good natured". Depending on the form, certain forms of satire routinely makes use of "extremely personal insults". One is called Juvenalian satire. I looked it up :-) I said "most of what I write is written with tounge planted firmly in cheek" and that is the case. Can you find contra-examples of this, sure, but I am not making an absolute statement and I am confining myself to my own words on that site. What the commenters or other contributors write is not up to me. I don't write their comments or posts and any reader/writer is free to have their say. Some commenters are anti-Keith, some are pro-Keith. I would say that being open to all points of view in the comment section is what makes the site such a popular place to talk about Keith Olbermann and his show, Countdown. If there is still some doubt as to how liberal a policy I have on comments just read through the many vile, personal comments about me. As to who understands what about the satirical nature of the site I have no idea. Are their people who take the site too seriously? Sure, and sometimes I comment on that. It is not my job, however, to compel anyone to do anything on Olbermann Watch. In the end, satire is in the mind of the satirist not in the perception of the audience. I like the Wikipedia entry for Satire. I don't how to make it be hyperlink but here is the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire Robert Cox Rcox1963 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

D-Day - as I noted on my talk page, you are hardly NPOV on me. On your blog you have made numerous, vile and misguided personal attacks against me. You are hardly neutral on Keith Olbemann or me. Here are some posts from which readers can judge D-Day.

The Olbermannwatch Spin stops here Feeding the Olbermann Fetish Olbermann Watch Watch

Here is a sampling of what D-Day has to say about me:

"Has Cox's boy-man love obsession grown to the point where nobody can get on Countdown anymore without Cox getting a fit?"

"Obviously bored because no self-respecting pre-school anywhere will take him, he has nothing better to do with his time than attack Keith Olbermann"

"So if anything is a window into the psyche of Cox Boy, it is his obessession with Keith Olbermann. Am I right people?"

"Mr. Cox, just a fair warning. Everytime you update Olbermannwatch, you can expect a reply from me. And believe me, I will expose the truth. I will keep my blog going on other topics, but be warned; I am keeping an eye on you."

Besides there content, there is one other major problem with these comments. He is attacking me for posts I did not write.

Of course, I'd take these comments more seriously if you were actually criticizing something that I wrote on Olbermann Watch. If you had bothered to read the posts you cite more closely you might have noticed that they were not written by me but rather "Johnny Dollar" who is the primary contributor to Olbermann Watch.

Robert Cox Rcox1963 13:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Week at PBS.org

I will likely discuss my experience with this entry and the editors here on the PBS.org site as part of my discussion on Wikipedia Bias with Mark Glaser of MediaShift and Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia. There is a comment section and I am sure Mark would be happy to hear from all of you. Robert Cox Rcox1963 18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann.org link is excessively descriptive

"Olbermann.org, an Unofficial Keith Olbermann Fan Site - articles by and about KO, photo gallery, audio/video links, transcript links by date or guest"

I don't have a problem with this site being linked on this page but the amoung of text is excessive. Either the Olbermann Watch link should be similarily descriptive or the Olbermann.org text should be trimmed.

Also, Olbermann.org is new, gets very little traffic, and has just a handful of members on their discussion board.

Olbermann Watch, on the other hand, is one of the most widely read, widely linked web site dedicated to Keith Olbermann in the world.

I am trimming the Olbermann.org and moving it below OlbermannWatch. When they start to get more traffic someone can make a case for moving the link above more widely read sites.Robert Cox Rcox1963 13:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating a discussion here on the talk page. How is traffic relevant here? Also, where do you get your traffic figures from? Why did you remove the description of OW which I provided the other day, "An Olbermann Watchdog site"? Did you feel that it was POV? Is the description you removed from O.o POV? Why do you consider it excessive? Thanks. 67.174.180.72 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To sign and timestamp, just type four tilde signs. That's the key next to "1" on the keyboard, hit with a shift key. Try that and hit the preview button to see it work. Read more about signing posts here. Welcome to Wikipedia. 67.174.180.72 01:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the people editing here are confusing Olbermann.org, which has been around for over a year now and has no forum, with KeithOlbermann.org, which has been around for only a few months and has a forum.--Spentangeli 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip on time stamping. Now I need to know how to make that time stamp a shortcut on my OSX keyboard.

I think the time stamp for your original post under this subheading, Olbermann.org link is excessively descriptive, must be wrong. It's postdated. CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the questions and the opportunity to elaborate in responding:

How is traffic relevent?

Traffic, in and of itself, is NOT relevant but when you have a site that gets so little traffic and has been added to the entry by the people who run the site it creates the idea, at least in my mind, that the link is there solely for the purpose of using Wikipedia to market the site. At the same time, the site does provide a useful service in providing links to Keith Olbermann blog posts, links to guest/transcripts from past shows and so on. To that end I think the site is very good; it is why I link it from my own site and recommend it to my readers. For this reason, I feel that it does belong on the page just not above a faw more established, well-known site.

I will do my best to be succinct and to organize my points into signed paragraphs, so that it's easier to follow and reply to them: CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If a site provides valuable information, then I agree that it should be included. I don't see how traffic figures in at all. Ditto with Google rankings and mentions by bloggers or other media people. CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick but relevant digression; I know you are not saying this but to be clear I do not object to linking to Keith Olbermann fan sites. In fact, quite the opposite, I think there should be more. The initial edits I attempted to make to this entry a few weeks ago (all of which were reverted) was to ADD many more links to Olbermann fan sites, discussion forums and blogs. I also added more articles, all of which were "pro-Keith Olbermann". That said, if the editors want to limit the external links then one criteria is how others view that site as a resource providing valuable information; And ONE measure of that is things like Google Page Rank, Traffic, Technorati Links. As I said, traffic IN AND OF ITSELF is not relevant but I can't agree that traffic doesn't figure in to it "at all". Finally, recall that the issue here was a somewhat silly one - which link should be on top. I am happy to comprise on this point. Keep Olbermann.org as the third link and strip out the descriptors for both links...just hyperlink the name of the site without all the fluff. Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Are there any experienced Wikipedians who can advise us as to the preferred criteria for including and ordering external links? I'm a neophyte. CuteGargoyle 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann.org and KeithOlbermann.org are different sites, registered to different owners, with different layouts and different content. I don't see a discussion forum on O.o, although there is a sort of comment system, and there are links to several other sites. Are you trying to confuse the two on purpose, or did you simply not notice the difference? CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My bad; I conflated the two and you are correct- the forum I was recalling was in KO.o not O.o. Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. CuteGargoyle 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have made comments to the effect that any external URLs which are linked from the article must be NPOV. I take this to mean that any sites on the Internet which don't share Wikipedia's goals of NPOV and encylopedic nature in regard to their own domains, must be worthless additions to the article. (Please correct my summary of your stance if I am wrong.) I think that it's possible to link to POV sites and to remain NPOV about it by a) providing a balance of pro and con resources where possible and b) providing frank descriptions of what's to be found at the sites. I don't think that removing all POV links is the appropriate solution. CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do NOT believe that any external URLS linked from the article must be NPOV. You must have misunderstood me but I am not sure what you are referring to so I can't address the specifics. Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit to which I was referring: [1]. Also, this comment is unsigned, but I think this was you, from above in this page: "And despite this discussion Olbermann.org is still listed which is why the Keith Olbermann entry is a disgrace." CuteGargoyle 04:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I think I conflated the two but what I was what referring to was the discussion above that the creator of the site was attempting to put the site into Wikipedia for marketing purposes and said so quite openly. It was not about the sites themselves being NPOV. If I was not clear on that point that I need to express myself better in the future. That said, It is actually the case for both KeithOlbermann.org and Olbermann.org that they were added when they were very new as a way to drive traffic from a site likely to attract Keith Olbermann fans to Keith Olbermann fan sites. I, on the other hand, had nothing to do with first putting Olbermann Watch into Wikipedia (but I know who did and when and believe me she is no fan of Olbermann Watch). All of this is somewhat moot because, as I have noted elsewhere, I want MORE links to Keith Olbermann sites not less and the ones that I added to the entry (which have been reverted) were all "pro" Keith Olbermann sites. If we are voting I vote for BOTH of those two sites and many others. Robert Cox Rcox1963 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, you have brought up evidence of bias on the part of editors, gathered from other sites on the Internet. I don't think it's possible or necessary to locate an individual without bias to edit the article. Rather, we flawed human beings can all make efforts to remain as civil, respectful and earnest as possible as we work toward the common goal of improving the Wikipedia for everyone. That means critiquing an idea or an edit found on Wikipedia, not the person doing the editing or things that they might have said in another context. CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we all have biases and believe that by working co-operatively we can still achieve an NPOV entry for Keith Olbermann. The point I was addressing is that D-Day has sought to have me banned from editing this page and suggesting his motives for doing so be more transparent if other editors knew about his animus towards me (and that his animus was misguided because he was attacking me for things I did not even write). Also, that the reverts of my edits and the silence which greeted my rather detailed attempt to respond to demands that I first explain/discuss what edits I would like to make might be a function, in some cases, of editors who resent my editing this entry regardless of what edits I recommend or make. Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it goes both ways. No authority on Wikipedia is going to take any action against you for anything you say or do off this site or anything that is said about you off this site. D-Day was referencing specific breaches of Wikiquette in his complaints (3rr, for example), which were due to your inexperience. Personal comments (made by either of you) are not constructive and may be perceived as a breach of the civility rule. There is no ground to ban anyone based on simple disagreements over content, if both parties are playing by the rules. The goal of Wikiquette (and all etiquette) is to minimize interpersonal friction and to create a pleasant atmosphere in which to work. I see what you mean about the stalled discussion. (Please also see my comments about the challenges of building consensus, below.) I will try to follow up on some of your critiques in a bit. CuteGargoyle 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Rcox, did you read the note I left you on your talk page regarding the whole thing? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

D-Day, I did read the note and have not decided how to respond. I'm thinking about it. I'm glad you wrote the note but you apologizing for what you wrote and deleting your blog does not then obligate me in some way. You don't get a "pat on the back" for doing the right thing. That said, there is no need to belabor the matter here except to say I'm not sure how I feel about it but I certainly appreciate the gesture.Robert Cox Rcox1963 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, I'm glad that you're here and I applaud you for making the effort to learn the rules of Wikiquette. Although I am not ashamed to admit that I am a fan of KO, I believe as you do that the Wikipedia article should not be biased toward him, as that is not the purpose of this site. I am optimistic that your involvement in the editing, done properly, will greatly enhance the value and balance of the article. CuteGargoyle 21:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I am a critic of Keith Olbermann (and don't hide the fact) my interest in editing this site was not to "slam" Keith Olbermann but rather to address what I believe are some glaring problems such as the section on his departure from ESPN. Compare that section with Keith's own observation to the effect that he did not just burn the bridges (between him and ESPN) but "burned the river" and the well-known story that ESPN publicly refused to invite Keith Olbermann to "reunion week" for Sports Center, the show for which he is most widely-known. This is SUCH a glaring problem and yet I can't get any substantive response to my suggestion that it be changed and every time I make the change it is reverted. As I am knew here perhaps you can suggest how to advance the ball on what should be a "lay up" (sorry for the mixed metaphor :-) )

I think people might be a little overwhelmed by the volume and length of your suggestions. When you're building consensus on a project like this, it's easier to allow a smaller number of discrete questions to be considered by a group of people (more than two), find an adequate compromise, and then to move on to other questions. This may take some time. The article can't be completely torn down and rebuilt overnight. Inefficiency is the price you pay for inclusivity. CuteGargoyle 19:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Gar, you're probably right about folks being overwhelmed. I had received some previous "suggestions" that I explain why I thought the entry was so problematic and I figured the best way to do that was to lay out the full extent of what I perceived to be problems with the entry. I know it's mind-numbingly long (believe me, I wrote it) but if you take a moment you will see that for most of I am not actually recommending changes but rather that there be more support given to various statements. My thought was, if Keith Olbermann wins an Edward R. Murrow Award why not link to the RTNDA web page which lists Keith Olbermann as a winner? If we want to say Keith was well-known for his "wit" on SportsCenter then how about citing a well-regarded media critic on that point. Robert Cox Rcox1963 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I got the impression that you didn't want anything kept in the article which didn't have a citation, or that you were saying that anything without a citation might be a violation of NPOV. I definitely agree that more citations would be great, and I added in a few the other day myself. In the mean time, if you add the word "fact" wrapped in double curly brackets, it'll produce this symbol: , which is a flag for contributors to try to find a citation when they get a chance. Of course, if you already have an idea where to find the reference and wanted to add it in yourself, that's even better. What did you think of my idea of editing out the citation issues from your list of issues, in order to consider the POV stuff separately? CuteGargoyle 03:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Where do I get my traffic figures from?

Olbermann Watch gets between 1,000 and 5,000 readers a day. The site has a correspondingly high page rank in Google; it has been Top 5 search results for the past 18 months; often #3 behind the MSNBC/Keith Olbermann pages. Technorati reports Olbermann Watch as the most popular "Keith Olbermann" blog other than Keith's own blog. So far this month, according to Webalizer it has had over 20,000 unique vists.

Olbermann.org is not even a blip on these numbers and does not show up in any rankings that I have seen. It is not widely linked, does not have a high page rank and the forum section is only mildly active. The site does not have any kind of traffic counter displayed which suggests they do not want readers to know how little traffic the site gets. There are no press mentions of Olbermann.org, Keith Olbermann has never mentioned it, and few other sites link to it or cite it as a source.

The traffic is a the result of Olbermann Watch being the most high-profile, non-MSNBC-affiliated site on the web. Just this month the site has been mentioned in print version of The Washington Post, linked from Howard Kurtz "Media Notes" column on washingtonpost.com, mentioned (actually "attacked") by Keith Olbermann himself during a radio interview, linked by one of the most widely read blogs ("CrooksandLiars.com) is the subject of an article soon to be published on the web site of a national broadcaster and another article in a New York daily newspaper. In the past, Olbermann Watch has been featured prominently in articles in The Hartford Courant, The New York Observer, Online Journalism Review and countless web sites including many of the top rated blogs. The editor of the cite is routinely interviewed as the leading "blog critic" of Keith Olbermann.

Why did you remove the description of OW which I provided the other day, "An Olbermann Watchdog site"? Did you feel that it was POV?

I don't have a huge problem with that description of Olbermann Watch. My first preference is that their be NO descriptors tagged on to any of the external links and the articles and let the site names or article titles stand on their own. The term "watch" implies being a "watchdog" site or a "criticism" site, by definition. I do not see why it is necessary to state that an article in Rolling Stone entitled "Keith Olbermann: Truth Teller" is a"Pro-Olbermann article" or that "Keith Olbermann, Tale of a Partisan Hack" is a "Conservative article accusing Keith Olbermann of bias". If, however, that is going to be done then why not descriptors for EVERY external link and EVERY article. It seems to me the path to NPOV is to leave out ALL such descriptors.

Is the description you removed from O.o POV? Why do you consider it excessive?

As I said above, my concern with the Olbermann.org link was that the descriptor, if there must be one, was excessively long and read like a marketing pitch and is therefore SPAM. It's NPOV only in that there is no a similar such marketing pitch for Olbermann Watch. I don't want to see a marketing pitch for Olbermann Watch either. I believe there is a strong case for including Olbermann Watch in this entry (certainly stronger than including Olbermann.org) but that it is more that suffecient to just put up a hyperlink under the site name - same for any other link including Olbermann.org. Another way to look at it, is that the less we have of such descriptors the more likely the page will be NPOV and thus serve the mission of Wikipedia.

If I have left something out please let me know and I will do my best to respond to your questions or concerns. Robert Cox Rcox1963 13:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Today, a Google search for KEITH OLBERMANN reveals that Olbermannwatch is entry #7. KeithOlbermann.org, which remains completely unmentioned by wikipedia, is at #9. Olbermann.org, by far the most comprehensive of the three, is at #14. I do not see a massive page count different between sites. I also see no justification for listing 7 and 14 but not 9. --147.248.82.145 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't personally think that Google rankings are the best criteria for deciding what is appropriate for the External Links section on a Wikipedia article. Are there experienced Wikipedians out there who can tell us what we can use to decide a) What's in and what's out, b) What order to put them in, and c) What descriptors, if any, are acceptable after the link itself. I'm going to try the "help" flag, following this note. I haven't used it before, so I don't know what it will do. Thanks. CuteGargoyle 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• For help with this template, please post a comment on the template talk page with a {{reply to}} one or more of the previous editors.

Days since "Mission Accomplished"

Dposse, have you ever heard him say it's been *about* x days since the declaration of Mission Accomplished in Iraq? I think the wording was much more accurate before your edit of that. CuteGargoyle 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

My last two edit descriptions

I'm getting too tired and messed up both of my most recent edit descriptions. Should be

The parades and fanfare were obvious *stock footage. This* makes it sound like there was a real parade somewhere to Save the Tapes.

and

I think shame is the more accurate verb. It's not like O'Reilly had toilet paper stuck on his shoe. KO believed he was exposing BOR's moral *hypocrisy*.

I will delete this message after a day or so. If you want to debate these edits, make a new section at the bottom just for that purpose, please, so I can go ahead and remove this one. CuteGargoyle 09:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A Couple of Citations

I haven't yet figured out how to add citations to the article; and rather than newbie maul the page, I figured I'd just provide the links and let someone more experienced handle it for now. For this quote:

"In fact, it is Westwood One who broadcasts O'Reilly's radio show and not FOX." Proof can be found here: Westwood One: Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

Also, it is not listed as being on FOX News Radio Service. However, it is also worth mentioning that his shows are present on the Fox News Talk channel on XM. 68.33.190.182 00:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)