Talk:Keith Olbermann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

New show[edit]

Since Donald Trump has won the U.S. election, Olbermann has discontinued the Closer, and replaced it with a new show, still on GQ, called "The Resistance with Keith Olbermann." It's easy not to notice, as it's basically the same format, but it should be mentioned nonetheless. --50.71.94.252 (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit and source check become time-waste, and leads to a call for assistance[edit]

In the vein of no good deed goes unpunished:

On 22 January, a red-label User (Liamnotneeson), posted an edit that changed a lede sentence from past tense to present tense. The concomitant (mis)use of "Though" and the lack of an edit summary making clear that a tense chafe was justified led me to wonder if the edit was on a whim, or was an edit to make the sentence more accurate to source.

I addressed this in my edits today, but it presents the proverbial thread to unravel the knit cardigan. Here is the sentence, with the newly added emphasis on present tense, (inconstantly, only) in its opening:

Though he is frequently described as a liberal, he has resisted being labelled politically, stating, "I'm not a liberal. I'm an American."[1]

  1. ^ Frager, Ray (April 20, 2007). "For NBC, Olbermann Will Use His Political, ESPN Play Books". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved February 1, 2017.  See also Gold, Matea (February 19, 2009). "MSNBC Viewers Lobby For a Liberal Host". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 1, 2017.  and Kurtz, Howard (April 1, 2009). "MSNBC Signs Liberal Radio Host Ed Schultz to Be Its 6 O'Clock Anchor". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2017.  and Kurtz, Howard (September 1, 2008). "At MSNBC, A Liberal Supply Of Sharp Elbows". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2017. 

The appended citation that appears is after cleanup and improvement; I converted it from a free-hand typed series of 4 references with several artificially added <br-type breaks, to the standard {{cite | markup. Note, I did not create, nor did I break up the series-of-four-citations-in-the-same-inline-citation, because the "ref name= "will use"" appears more than once. While checking whether past or present tense is justified in 1-2 cited articles is feasible, checking 4 is just silly, and checking 4 repeatedly is onerous, and against good form.

So, I ask that whoever edits regularly here—please, review this matter, and see which one or ones of these four citations are really needed here as a source or sources, and move the rest to Further reading. Then do the same wherever this silly foursome appears under the "ref name= "will use"" shorthand.

Meanwhile, since all citations appearing are from 8 years in the past (they span April 2007-April 2009), the past tense is returned to this sentence in the lede (and sentence opining is again consistent with later tenses appearing). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Keith Olbermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The Resistance[edit]

Olbermann boasts the number of views per episode is between three and four million [1]. His work is online, where a “view” consists of three seconds on Twitter or Facebook, and 30" on YouTube. So, the sentence "it has nearly 170 million views on GQ’s YouTube and Facebook" is an inaccurate, misleading one. Please correct it. Thank you.85.3.217.83 (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/magazine/keith-olbermann-was-once-cable-newss-liberal-standard-bearer-now-hes-missing-its-boom-times.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur