Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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:
--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)

Someone needs to examine the motives of both the owners of Olbermann.org and Keitholbermann.org who repeatedly edit out links to any other Keith Olbermann site. Either allow ALL Olbermann sites or NONE to be listed here. It's as simple as that. Why these two individuals are being allowed to dominate this entry is beyond me. I agree that they have not presented a fair analysis of Olbermann's controversial career and I say that as a fan. But I think it is unconscionable that they are allowed to plug their sites here. They've both already paid to have their sites promoted on Google and Yahoo-you'd think that would be enough for their massive egos but nope, they want control of this entry to and do it at the expense of other fan sites who they have both repeatedly edited out of entries here.

The above unsigned comment must be from Robert Cox, ruthless self promoter and owner of a blog which refers to Mr. Olbermann as "Krazy Keith"... I for one, have never deleted Mr. Cox's references, so his assertions are slanderous--but what else is new with this guy? I do think his attempts at trying to hijack articles about someone else and turning them into a discussions of Mr. Cox is awfully narcissistic. The sites should all be listed, the text of the articles should be factual and about the topic they are about, not the egos of strap hangers.--147.248.1.159 13:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael's self-serving statement that his website is the ONLY discussion forum devoted to Keith Olbermann reveals his astonishing ignorance of how to correctly use Google. There are several but thanks to the editing of people here with self-promoting agendas, those sites aren't allowed to be listed on this webpage. I hate to agree with Cox on this one given he's a complete idiot too but he's right about one thing: very selective editing has gone on with this webpage entry.

--you should sign your entries. Of course all of Mr. Cox's entries are self serving. --147.248.82.145 18:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Cox is not nearly as self-serving as you are "Doctor" Mike. You do not have the only KO discussion forum on the internet, far from it and you know it, as a simple Google search would reveal. And as for the number of people you brag about who have registered for your site, where are they exactly? I only see a handful of regular posters who seem to post non-stop because they lack real jobs or lives, just as you apparently lack a real job. (Where is this "practice" of yours "Doctor" Mike?) Is the lack of traffic at your site the reason why you feel you must omit and deny the existence of other KO sites except those of your friends at Olbermann.org? And is this why you felt it necessary to pay for sponsorships at Google and Yahoo? Justify it any way you'd like but what you have done and continue to do is wrong and goes a long way in explaining why people have avoided your site. S.Q.

--My site is only 90 days old and is doing GREAT, thanks, Mr. Cox. Every Olbermann site in the known universe is here: http://keitholbermann.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24 if you know of another one, please let me know. I have my very own stalker--how cute. Have a nice day. --147.248.82.145 17:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet another link to your little site. How original. Is that your response to every valid point? And don't flatter yourself, you aren't worth stalking. But it is worth questioning your self-promoting motives. Why not list all of those links in the "known universe" here? Oh that's right-you want to promote your own and that's all you're interested in doing. And here's some new for you, not everyone here who disagrees with you is Cox or one of his buddies. You haven't established yourself as a legitimate KO community nor will you until you acknowledge us all and allow us to be recognized here. SQ

So who are you already, if you aren't Cox? Just an anonymous loyal viewer of http://www.keitholbermann.org? (Of course I post a link to my site in every reply--we have been playing the KO/BOR game--you play O'Reilly. Didn't you get the joke before I explained it to you? I guess not, right wingers can be so humor impaired.) I have never actually edited this article, other than to add my external link a couple of times, and I have certainly never deleted anyone or anything. The sites speak for themselves. Seriously, what site is it you are advocating for? We know all the KO Communities, do frequent Google searches to find new ones, and always help promote them. This is why I am pretty sure you are full of hot air, and do not represent any site at all, unless it is Olbermannwatch. Until you came along (not that you have explicitly denied being Cox) only Cox sounded like a paranoid whack job, so the confusion is natural, if you are not one in the same. If you do have a site list it here, and list it on my site. I get along with pretty much everyone in the KO world--unless they are mentally ill of course, I have to charge for that. --147.248.82.145 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Site ranking of Keith Olbermann related sites. Keitholberman.org: 1,433,203 Olbermann.org: 2,904,419 Olbermannwatch: 843,999 Enough Said.


Keith Olbermann.org claims nearly 140 members but nearly 80 of those have never posted and appear to be randomly generated names. Only 16 posters have posted more than 100x with Michael and his wife accounting for well over 3,000 of the total posts. It is also not the only Olbermann discussion board on the internet. One can be found at Democratic Underground, one at Television without Pity, two at Quick Topic pages and in addition, there are at least three very well visited blogs, four if you count Olbermannwatch. Brandon.


Links to fan forums and message boards are in clear violation of Wiki rules, summarized below:

1) Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

2) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.


The link listed here to KeithOlbermann, and that of any other web forum or message board does not meet Wiki guidlines. While I'm sure the owners and moderators of each of the many Keith Olbermann forums out there (including those at Television without Pity, Democratic Undergorund, and the two Quick Topic pages) feel that there site is special, none of them meet Wiki guidelines for being of a "particularly high standard". All of these forums are already linked to at Olbermann.org, which is rightfully listed here. The link to Olbermann.org and its pages of links at its own site should be quite sufficent and eliminate the prospect of someone using Wiki to promote a link to their own site, which is a clear violation of Wiki rules.

Either all of these forums should be listed, or according to Wiki rules, none. I feel the rules should be strictly followed and adhered to, hence the deletion of these links to fan forums and message boards. -Jeff-

I would like to point out that this fellow who calls himself "Jeff" is at 64.12.117.9 If you research what 64.12.117.9 likes to write about and edit, you will find CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY. This, my friends is a Scientologist not only attacking Keith Olbermann, but yours truly, a Psychologist, because Scientologists not only hate Olbermann, they also hate Psychologists (we once ruled their founder unethical and had his ass sued). Nice try to intimidate me, but you are only making me more interested in your silly religion--but not in a way you will enjoy "Jeff".

So I'm a scientologist now huh? Can't argue with my logic, can't argue with the Wiki rules, but you'll brand me a Scientologist? Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not. I'm on AOL, I'm sure that you will find quite a few entries at Wiki that have been edited by AOL members with my same IP--it doesn't mean that there's only one of us. There are millions of AOL users but you know, some of them might just be scientologists. I just don't happen to be one of them. Jeff

Your IP isn't that busy, Jeff. I don't really care who your are, but you should really stop vandalizing the Keith Olbermann article, and I assume, harrassing the people at my website. You seem to be one sick little puppy, "Jeff". --192.111.52.40 02:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are also against Wiki policy. Keep at it--and you'll find out who justice is on the side of. Jeff. P.S.--Please review what I have posted today very carefully. It's inclusion of ANY message board or forum that I'm opposed to, not just yours. But as your was the only one listed, I chose to edit it out. I've explained why I've done what I've done, I've cited the Wiki rules, and I've abided by those rules. I find it fascinating that since none of you can argue with my logic, you choose to personally attack me instead. Again, by Wiki rules, not a cool thing to do.

I don't know who you are or what your problem is, but this has been discussed to death and my link stands. Everyone agrees but you--you are just one person, who uses a couple of fake names. You are not a real member, and what you are doing is not valid. www.keitholbermann.org stands--it is by far the dominant Keith Olbermann discussion forum. The site admins of the other Keith Olbermann forums all agree that it should be listed. So shall it be. You are the one who is "not cool". I welcome discussion legitimate members, which you are not one.--192.111.52.40 04:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I would refer you to the bottom of this page--#17--where this isuee is discussed yet again and other "legitimate" editors as you call them agree with me that no link to any message board belongs here. It's not about "dominance" or popularity where a message board is concerned and whether or not its linked here. The rules are incredibly clear on this. External links to such fan sites do not belong on Wiki. And I've reviewed the rules very carefully and there is no Wiki rule that states that if you get clearance with the admins of these other boards that your site should be listed over there's, that it's still okay somehow to flaunt Wiki rules. It's still not okay by Wiki rules. And that brings me to another point: I thought you said in prior statements that there were no such other boards. Could I ask when you became aware of these boards and when you sought their modersators/admins okay for being the sole link here? Just asking. Oh, and a history of this page shows that others have questioned your right to post that link from the very beginning and that you chose to keep reinserting it, despite the opposition. As I said, it's nothing personal, I firmly believe that no message board belongs here and I'm sorry you're so upset about this but as I said, just check below and you will see that others do agree with me that your site nor any other message board deserves to be linked here. Sorry, those are the rules. Jeff

Oh and P.S.--could you please stop with the personal attacks and insults? Again, not cool by Wiki. Peace, Jeff

Despite the fact that pages for Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or those for news personalities including Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, Shep Smith, Larry King, etc., nor that of any number of musical groups or actors/actresses have links to fan forums and discussion boards, you'll be glad to know I've included the fan forum link to your website Michael back on the article page. But since the cabal believes that message boards/fan forums are acceptable, I see no reason why the remaining fan forums or message boards that have been suggested here by others, can't also be listed along with your site. So they are now to be found under External links, in a special section just for message boards and fan forums. They are listed in alphabetical order and include: Democratic Underground, Television Without Pity, and the two Quick Topic boards. For reference purposes, I have also listed the post counts, and page hits where available, for each at the bottom of this discussion page, along with the dates that each board/fan forum was established. So this is now a win-win for everyone, you get to keep your link to your site on the Wiki pages, but now all the other KO forums also get to have their sites listed as well. Cbeers! Jeff

And Doctor Mike has had 40 new users register in the past three days. And not a single one has posted. Why would that be exactly? Trying to boost those membership numbers there are you doctor Mike? People don't usually register at a message board if they're just going to lurk. Who will be to blame this time? Scientologists? Bob Cox? Robots? the GOP? George Bush? Are you trying to establish an argument for having your site listed and no other again? You're such a conniving little liar. And not a particularly bright one at that. Truth will out as it always does. BigFan

Don't forget to call me a whore and a "piece of work" again while you're at it. Do you think you can come up with even one constructive edit for the article, instead of just talking trash about people here? CuteGargoyle 23:50, 21 May 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 (talkcontribs) .

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).

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.

Great. Please note that if I disagree with any of the points you make below, that doesn't necessarily prove you right in your suspicions. It simply means that I disagree with you on that point. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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."

Please see my new section at the end of page, | "Promotional" facts. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

EARLY CAREER

There is not a single citation for ANY of this:

Adding the word "fact" wrapped in double curly brackets will insert a flag that a citation is needed, so making this list on the talk page is not necessary. Also, not every fact in every article warrants a citation. Since editors are volunteering their time and effort, it's considerate to flag only those items which are in doubt. Also, if there is any possible way for you to find the citation yourself and put it in, it's much nicer to fix the flaw yourself, rather than to just complain about it. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If in fact you are not serious about these citation issues, but are trying to make a point that you should not have to support your own edits with citations unless every other fact on Wikipedia is also supported with a citation, please see the guideline WP:POINT. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That said, you'll notice that I and others have made a sincere effort since you made this list to add more citations to the article. CuteGargoyle 05:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 [citation needed] 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)
Cute, one of the prior complaints I received about my recommended edits is that I did not provide a citation for each statement or fact in my edits. Another complaint was that I was not explaining why I thought that much of the entry was non-NPOV and not first posting my suggested my edits to this entry on the TALK PAGE first. I have attempted to respond to those complaints by providing a detailed analysis of the page and have included the same criteria that was used in evaluating my previous attempt to edit the page - that assertions should be supported with citations where possible. If you edit out portions of this discussion you are opening me up to the same criticism I was getting before. I'd like to get some assurance from some experienced Wikipedians that if you start deleting portions of my critique that we are not going to end up chasing our tail by seeing renewed criticism about MY suggested edits along the lines described above.

Robert Cox Rcox1963 15:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If I am reading your statement correct Rcox, I believe you are correct. Generally, removing statements from talk pages is frowned upon, unless they are trolling/vandalism, which this certainly is not. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:16, 23 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: [citation needed], 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)
The user at 147.248.82.145 mentions various Googe Page Ranks. I am not an expert of Google but is my understanding that a user's search results are influenced by that user's own web surfing history and past Google searches/uses. I am fairly well familiar with all of the Keith Olbermann related sites, forums and blogs. I am pretty sure that KeithOlbermann.org has a very low page rank. If 147.248.82.145 is getting "KeithOlbermann.org" appearing in their search results it seems more likely that this is a user who visits that site and so has tilted their own Google search results. towards finding that result. Maybe someone can clarify this but I typically call someone who is not likely to have visited a site to ask them how high they show up in THEIR search results. That is usually a much better indicator of the actual page rank.
That said, I would support having all three entries - and more - included in the Keith Olbermann entry. It is not as is there are SO many resources for information on Keith Olbermann; what harm is done by including five or ten or twenty external links?Robert Cox Rcox1963 23:00, 23 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)
Trying the help thing again. (Helper, please see paragraph above this one.) CuteGargoyle 04:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(un-indenting) {{helpme}} is supposed to be put on user or user talk pages only. ;) As for the answer to your question, please see Wikipedia:External links. Kimchi.sg | talk 06:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be one site that criticizes KO and another in support of him, besides his official sites. We shouldn't post too many external links per WP:EL. I'm not sure about all the articles and interviews... are they used as references in the article? He must have a ton of interviews, we shouldn't list them all. Westfall 03:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Westfall, Olbermann.org has no POV at all--if you look at it, it is a vast repository of Keith Olbermann's videos, writings and news articles about him. It is an archive. No board, no blog, no POV of it's own. Olbermannwatch, on the other hand, is a blog devoted to vile attacks against Olbermann, using the Hermann Goering propaganda handbook of smears. KeithOlbermann.org is a pro-Keith, open forum, with 7,200 artcles, searchable. They aren't in the least overlapping or redundant. Olbermann.org is the only essential link, but if you leave the yellow dog that is Robert Cox up, you best leave the pro-Keith balance of KeithOlbermann.org. Olbermann.org is neither pro nor con Keith Olbermann in design. --147.248.1.159 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The dirty little secret here is that the owners of both Olbermann.org and Keitholbermann.org have joined forces. And they have done so at the exclusion of any other Keith Olbermann related site, pro or con. Their self-serving agenda here proves that they don't want any sites other than their own mentioned here. They seem to lack any real job except to edit out anything here they feel is objectionable here, namely, mention of anyone other than themselves as the official word on all things Olbermann.

--Cox, your site is listed and has been. What is there for you to whine about? You are complaining that you can't post long screeds about how wonderful Robert Cox is in articles about someone else? There is not one iota of Olbermann article devoted to Olbermann.org or KeithOlbermann.org and they have no more space on the external links section than you do. I don't see that you have anything to complain about. --147.248.82.145 18:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the link to Olbermannwatch. I'm talking about the deliberate exclusion of pro-KO sites which both Michael and Q perceive as a threat apparently. Links to other pro-KO sites here at Wiki have been repeatedly edited out by these two individuals. That's censorship. Wiki should either list none or all and not allow these two self-serving individuals to continue to promote their sites for free here. The TRUTH

Why don't you throw us all a bone and let us know what site you want on here? We can discuss it. "All or none" is not the Wikipedia's policy, thankfully. Trying to list ALL the sites related to each article topic would take a corporate acquisition by Google. Thanks User:Kimchi.sg for pointing us to WP:EL. I think we should all take the time to read the style guide so we can try to apply it here. CuteGargoyle 16:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
who edits what out is a matter of public record. I have never, ever, deleted anything from any Olbermann article on wikipedia. Defend what you say, or please stop making unfounded and slanderous accusations, Mr. Cox.( Sincerely, keitholbermann.org ) --147.248.82.145 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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)

he says it at the end of every show. dposse 05:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the closing taken from the transcript from Weds. April 26: "That‘s COUNTDOWN for this the 1091st day since the declaration of mission accomplished in Iraq. I‘m Keith Olbermann, goodnight and good luck." Where does he say "about?" He always states the exact day. CuteGargoyle 08:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


huh? what are you talking about? what paragraph? dposse 21:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dposse. This is the edit to which I was referring when I started this section. CuteGargoyle 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

ah! i understand. That is because "reminding viewers exactly how many days" sounds very POV, and it had to be changed. Although, you are right. However, we need to change it so it doesn't sound like a attack against President Bush.

I disagree. That wording doesn't strike me as POV at all. Isn't that exactly what he's doing? Reminding viewers exactly how many days? I think it is a very factual, neutral summary of what he's doing. People can decide for themselves about his motives and if he is a biased newsanchor. Another option would be to delete the sentence entirely. CuteGargoyle 22:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


The way the sentence was worded, it did sound like some kind of attack against Bush or something. Anyway, all you need to do if you want the sentence is to change the wording so no one will have any issues with it. dposse 22:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind it not being in there. That seems to be the way it stands right now. I just didn't want it to be inaccurrate, with the word "about" in there. CuteGargoyle 23:41, 30 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)

"Promotional" facts

I don't agree that listing a show's schedule violates NPOV. The showtime is a fact, and not in itself a recommendation (unless it's worded like, "Catch the best show on TV at..."). I'd like to see the showtimes for the TV and radio broadcasts reinserted. They are certainly pertinent for anybody coming to this page to read up on Mr. Olbermann. Why make people hunt around to find this simple information? CuteGargoyle 05:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this question yet? Should I put the schedule times back? CuteGargoyle 23:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problem with it. I think they should be there.

JeffBerg 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)JeffBerg

Accusations of bias

I've added several requests for citations to this section. The critics who have accused Olbermann need to be specifically identified, then referenced with links to articles/quotes in which the actual complaints are addressed. As an example, Olbermann may indeed end "each program by reminding viewers about the number of days since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq", but who has complained about that? A documented accusation that this exhibits "liberal bias" needs to be cited. There is only one citation in this section, and it only briefly mention's Olbermann's departure from MSNBC. It doesn't address any of the other issues in that particular paragraph. With sources provided, this section's POV problems will be eliminated. Hal Raglan 14:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hal. I'm sure that anyone could dig up a number of blogs which would say such a thing, or if not, could produce a blog entry to this effect and then to reference back to themselves. We already have a citation of the Media Research Center in this section. Do you care to expound a little more on what kind of reference you're looking for? Mainstream media? Academic research? A quote from Olbermann himself? CuteGargoyle 15:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
To me, it seems to be using weasel words to simply say "Critics have accused Olbermann of liberal bias" and leave it at that without referencing any particular critics or their specific comments. Just a citation to a notable conservative critic or two would be nice. Something from the Media Research Center, for example. I've rewritten one of the sentences to actually provide a quote from Olbermann, but the cited Washington Post article that has been provided for that quote really doesn't say that he's been accused of liberal bias by anyone other than a blogger who has an anti-Olbermann site. The article simply talks about Olbermann's critical commentary on the Bush Administration. Comments/articles that actually accuse Olbermann of having a liberal bias/political agenda should be cited. The complaints that are listed in that section now are not sourced. Hal Raglan 16:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, the one reference from the Media Research Center doesn't really accuse Olbermann of having a liberal bias...it says he has made comments that are more liberal than conservative but otherwise doesn't seem to be particularly negative. Stronger comments should be found. I personally would prefer quotes/comments from notable conservative critics, rather than just from blogs or forums.Hal Raglan 16:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you generally, but I'm still fuzzy on what constitutes a proper critic to cite. Is Michelle Malkin "notable," for example? Would Bob Cox be? Who would you name (a person or a media source) as a more legitimate critic than just any blog or forum comment on the web? Thanks. CuteGargoyle 18:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Michelle Malkin is a notable critic, in that she is nationally recognized by thousands of fans for her sarcasm-drenched, anti-liberal views. I don't mean to imply that simple infamy automatically makes her opinion worthwhile, or that her writing skills are any more notable than any of the hundreds upon hundreds of bloggers out there. Its just that a huge assortement of people read or listen to her opinions. The same is obviously true of the even more popular Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc, etc. I've already mentioned Media Research Center...certainly an organization that keeps such scrutiny of "The Liberal Media" would have one or two bad things to say about Olbermann, if he is generally believed to have a liberal bias? As far as I know, Bob Cox's only claim to "notability" is that he seems to passionately hate Keith Olbermann, and he produces a blog that publicly reveals his rabid, seething hatred. To me, he seems like a crackpot, but if others think his views are worth reporting here, that's fine, as long as several other opinions/accusations are also included. Certainly specific accusations can be easily found online if critics widely believe that Olbermann is a liberal with a political agenda. These accusations definitely need to be included and sourced. But this section should not exist if the section has only been created to address one man's complaints.Hal Raglan 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best approach is to elimate this section all together. Naturally, an objective view on Olbermann will be hard to obtain on an encylopedia. Any person who mocks the "partisanship" of Fox News need look no further than Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann on their nightly programs for the real partianship. It is not even subtle the disdain they show for Pres. Bush and the Republicans, all the while making Joe Wilson, Anthony Zinni...etc look like heroes. Again, I would be hard pressed to find much documentation on this issue, why? because people have ignored the sarcasm and attacks from good ol' Olby and co. Thus, I would just encourage readers to watch ONE of Olbermann's newcasts and see for themselves the clear Bias he exhibits. --Bairdso66 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with removing the section altogether. I also think it's possible to write it neutrally enough for it to fit in. Avoiding weasel wording is the challenge. There have been a couple of less-than-complimentary articles written about KO in the last year or two which might provide a quote for this purpose, if somebody wants to look into that. I really like your last sentence there, Bairdso66. That's really the core issue here. Can people decide for themselves? Wikipedia isn't about force feeding opinions. I think if we say something like "KO ends each newscast by tallying the number of days since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq," the reader can decide if that is meant to embarrass the president, if it's liberal bias, if it's over the top, or that kind of thing. They may decide that they like him more for it. If the reader is already of a certain mind, I don't think trying to spell out the conclusion for them is really going to influence them. Let's just try to keep it neutral and honest and let people provide their own coloring. CuteGargoyle 21:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Praise from Critics" Section

If "Accusations of Bias" belongs in this article, doesn't a "Praise from Critics" section belong also, to keep the article balanced? CuteGargoyle 15:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Okay, User:Kimchi.sg was kind enough to let us know about the official Wiki policy toward external links, which is to follow this style guide: WP:EL. My reactions to the guide follow. These are my first thoughts, not entrenched positions. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Under "Occasionally Acceptable Links"

  • Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.
    • I agree with this statement. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
    • I doubt that any Olbermann fan site out there isn't using at least one image without express permission. Let him without sin cast the first stone. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Under "Links to Normally Avoid"

  • Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
    • I think that OW passes this test because it is a proponent of one of the POVs. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
    • It's a given that being listed here DOES promote a site. The problem is if the link is ONLY here to promote a site, and not to provide any value to the Wikipedia page. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to discuss on a link by link basis. CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
    • Okay, we all know that RCox owns OW. I think it does have a place in the article, so I will move for its inclusion in External Links.
  • Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.
    • Hmm, forums. KO.o is primarily a forum site, but it is very narrowly focused on the topic of this article, Keith Olbermann. I agree with other editors that the site owner jumped the gun on adding it in when it was still a zygote, but it appears to have grown into a reasonably sized community since then. I also think that the Democratic Underground should be considered for inclusion, although access is somewhat restricted by donations, which violates another part of the WP:EL guide ("Sites that require payment to view the relevant content.") CuteGargoyle 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Dposse just removed KO.o from the page. Why no discussion first? Am I the only one who thinks it's not a problem to have it there? CuteGargoyle 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you've cherry-picked what you interpret as the rules of Wikki for your own purposes. This is why you aren't taken seriously in your writing/editing. And that's the problem. As long as the two of you are in control of what is written here, there's a problem because you will continue to promote your own agendas and will push them at the exclusion of anyone else. SQ

Taken seriously by whom, Suzie Q? At least I'm considerate enough to reply to people's issues instead of just whining and complaining. When have you ever done one lick of work to improve this article? CuteGargoyle 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why bother? There's a history at this page, for all to see that proves what I'm saying is 100% correct. Pushing your own agenda, whoring your own site and those of your accomplices, and selectively editing out the views and opinions of others won't win you the respect or admiration of anyone who is a true fan of Mr. Olbermann's. If you were what you'd claim to be, you'd have a greater sense of respect for the opinion of others and not seek to silence or demean their opinions. SQ

I'll thank you to not call me a whore, Mr./Ms. Anonymous-Online, and not to make other assumptions you can't support. Why bother...what? Why bother to improve the article? Um, because that's what this site is for. Why are you here? Just to complain and badmouth people? You need to turn your words around and point them at yourself. Who's doing the demeaning here? I haven't said or done one thing to demean you. Who is pushing an agenda against the better interests of the Wikipedia? As for "selectively editing out the views and opinions of others" I have done no such thing. Please keep your self-described "true fans" far from me. They sound scary. CuteGargoyle 23:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's alright for you to attack anyone who dares disagree with you or question your true motives with your actions here but no one is allowed to defend themselves? Nice piece of work you are. And you want to know why you'll never get the respect you crave? SQ

Who am I "attacking?" And what the hell are you talking about? CuteGargoyle 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr Cox, who runs a site critical of Mr. Olbermann's antics is hardly someone to be raising objections based on NPOV violations. I use Mr Cox's site to link to MSNBC's Countdown page, so I see and read some portion of Mr Cox's site several times a week. If I were to use a single word to describe OlbermannWatch, it would be 'angry'. Yes, there are any number of items in the Wikipedia article that are unsourced and/or opinions, and they need to be cleaned up. That having been said, someone whose sole reason for being, at least on the Internet, is to regularly engage in ad hominem attacks on Mr Olbermann cannot be taken seriously without independent verification. If and when Mr Cox sees fit to clearly separate his legitimate objections to the tone/tenor of Countdown from his personal asides and attacks, then his NPOV objections might begin to be taken seriously. As it is, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Mr Cox is trying to impose his opinions on this website in addition to his own.69.165.160.127 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) NotYetRegistered

The link to KeithOlbermann.org should not be listed here. Despite the claim that its the only Keith Olbermann discussion board, there is a large Olbermann community at Democratic Underground which easily dwarves any other on the internet. There is another at Television without Pity and two more at Quick Topics. Including Keitholbermann.org or any such forum is in clear violation of Wiki rules:

1) Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

2) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

There is nothing new or original or special about the content at KeithOlbermann.org which merits inclusion here. Also, KeithOlbermann.org links to Olbermann.org and relies upon it for any content regarding news articles, photos and etc. Shouldn't the link at Olbermann.org for KeithOlbermann.org be sufficient? Inclusion here over other such narrowly focused Keith Olbermann forums is unfair and in clear violation of Wikki rules.

www.keitholbermann.org/forum blogs every episode of Countdown with a searchable database. You can discover if any topic has been discussed on Countdown instantly, the date and the story number. That is unique and valuable information, not contained at olbermann.org. --DoctorMike 11:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

so, can we take the sign down yet?

Is this article ok now? Did we take care of all the POV stuff? It sounds fine to me. dposse 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any POV problems either. Unless specific concerns can be noted here on the discussion page, that NPOV tag should go.Hal Raglan 16:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Well, unless anyone can give any reason why the sign should stay, i'm taking it down now. dposse 19:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

Here's a link about his alleged Asperger's. [2] --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 00:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen him on lists of celebrities like that before, but I have never heard him mention it in any interview. If you follow the link from that page to the bio for KO, there is no mention of it there either. I think someone made an assumption about this based on KO mythology (trouble with coworkers, genius at sports trivia, etc.). Once he got on one list of Aspies, he'd get cloned onto all the other lists. The thing about KO is that he has mentioned many personal details about himself - the feet, his height, his head injury, his celiac condition, his religion. If he had Asperger's, wouldn't he have mentioned it at some point? It seems like it would be important enough for him to feature a story on it at some point. I still consider this an unconfirmed (though interesting) rumor. CuteGargoyle 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
An interesting excerpt from that page you linked to: "I have listed here some well-known people who have shown some autistic or AS traits. Some may have autism or AS, in their mild or severe forms. Others may be elsewhere on the autistic spectrum. And others listed may just be unusual individuals." Also, notice that there are fictional characters in the list. This guy is just making guesses and assumptions. CuteGargoyle 02:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

don't blame me.

for the record, please do not blame me if this article gets vandalised. In case anyone is wondering why i'm posting this here, some guy complained on my talk page that i vandalised this page from my school. dposse 19:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


commentator

Fearing an revert from Olbermann supporters aka.. (bush bashers), I wanted to get feedback from people concerning the adding of commentator to Keith Olbermann's definition of duties "news anchor", "sportscaster" etc.. I feel that he has in fact become a strong commentator recently in the past couple of years speaking out against anyone and anything conservative...any thoughts on the issue??--Bairdso66 04:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think commentator is a fair word to use. For instance, in the smoking lecture, he was most certainly expressing his own POV. Today, he's discussing the ramifications of Bush's immigration speech with Chris Matthews. They are both playing the role of commentator (which is another word for analyst) for this broadcast. CuteGargoyle 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. In addition to being a news anchor and sportscaster, Olbermann is definitely a commentator (and uses his blog in that capacity) so I can't imagine anyone having a problem with adding this descriptor to the opening paragraph.Hal Raglan 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed link to KeithOlbermann.org

Links to fan forums and message boards are in clear violation of Wiki rules, summarized below:

1) Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.

2) Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.


The link listed here to KeithOlbermann, and that of any other web forum or message board does not meet Wiki guidlines. While I'm sure the owners and moderators of each of the many Keith Olbermann forums out there (including those at Television without Pity, Democratic Undergorund, and the two Quick Topic pages) feel that there site is special, none of them meet Wiki guidelines for being of a "particularly high standard". All of these forums are already linked to at Olbermann.org, which is rightfully listed here. The link to Olbermann.org and its pages of links at its own site should be quite sufficent and eliminate the prospect of someone using Wiki to promote a link to their own site, which is a clear violation of Wiki rules.

Either all of these forums should be listed, or according to Wiki rules, none. I feel the rules should be strictly followed and adhered to, hence the deletion of these links to fan forums and message boards. -Jeff-


Does anyone else think that this anonymous AOLer with the incredible chip on her shoulder shouldn't be permitted to blank this link endlessly? I haven't heard any support of her position since the site was brand new, several months ago. What do the regular editors think now? CuteGargoyle 22:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, they've violated the 3RR now.Spentangeli 22:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I just forgot to sign my name. It's Jeff, and I'm very much a male, thank you very much. That link does not belong here nor any other message board or fan forum should be linked here. I remind you Wiki is a community project and was never meant to be edited by a sole individual. Apparently *some* here have appointed themselves sole owner of this entry and resent any questioning of their very questionable choices. I was not aware there was a time limit on editing entries. Is there a rule somewhere which states an entry may not be edited continuously? Is there a similar rule which appoints specific individuals only to edit an entry? I didn't think so. The link doesn't belong and you know it. You couldn't attack the logic of my argument so you chose to attack me instead. Again, that doesn't win you the right to be sole properitor of this wiki entry. Jeff

In case you missed above, Jeff is and a representative of the Church of Scientology--please research his contributions. He is probably upset about this: http://keitholbermann.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1257

I am not, repeat NOT a Scientologist. I'm an AOL user and as you'll see, quite a few people with that same IP have edited quite a few Wiki pages. I'm not sure what your claims of conspiracy theories are doing to advance this discussion but attacking me is clearly also a violation of Wiki rules. You can't argue with my logic so you personally attack me. Oh--and I'm pretty sure there are more than one "Jeff" in this world besides me. Jeff

How did I attack you? Further, how do we even know you are? Since you aren't anyone, 64.12.117.9, you are not really a valid poster--here or on my website. Just another Keith Olbermann hater. --192.111.52.40 02:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The name is Jeff Berg and I am currently signed in as such. And here are your quotes about me from Section I:

"You should really stop vandalizing the Keith Olbermann article, and I assume, harrassing the people at my website. You seem to be one sick little puppy, "Jeff".".

I have very patiently explained the reasons why I made the edit that I did. It was nothing personal, I would have removed any link to any fan message board as it is in clear violation of Wiki rules and despite your claims to the contrary, does not contain anything that makes it unique or special in comparison to any other existing message/fan boards. No message board should be included here, very simple. You chose to make this personal by calling me a scientologist, and accusing me of being a sick puppy, etc. etc. etc. And I also assure you I've never posted at your message board or any other message board, so your accusations about my "harassing" people at your website are totally without merit, not to mention proof. While labeling me as a "KO Hater" may be the easy thing to do, it is an incorrect assumption. It truly is about rules vioilations here with me. Wiki is meant to be a resource, not a POV site nor is it meant to promote every message board or fan forum in the world. Again, check the Wiki rules on this, they are quite clear on this particular subject. Also, there are no time limitations on editing of articles or links on those article pages, there are no rules about having to be signed in to post, or that only certain editors have the right to edit. Waffle Iron did in fact protest against the inclusion of Keitholbermann.org as early as Feburary and very carefully laid out the reasons as to why. Only one person argued for the inclusion of the website at that time in the external links, and that was its owner. Waffle apaprently removed the link several times, only to see it reappear multiple times. As history shows, there has been a lot of controversy about this particular links inclusion on external links for quite some time. Again, I really would advise careful review of the Wiki rules for everybody. Jeff Berg

I disagree with the link insertion too and have just removed it again. Jeff is correct, non-official websites, fansites and discussion forums are considered link spam no matter which celebrity/famous person/historical hero's article they pop up in. Kimchi.sg 04:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, don't be surprised that when you post under an AOL IP address that you'll be painted with the same brush as AOLers who have vandalized this and other articles in the recent past. That said, I want to welcome you and thank you for introducing yourself to us and engaging in a conversation about the link. If other editors agree about removing the link, I won't reinsert it. I cannot speak for Michael. CuteGargoyle 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. However, it would seem that from the discussion in #1 above, Michael continues to have some issues with his link being removed. It's understandable but as I have tried to explain to him, it is nothing personal. I just don't think that any external link to a message board, fan forum or what have you belongs on Wiki as the rules state. I promise to be equally vigilant about any other message board or forum that might spring up in its place. Thanks again. Jeff.

Cute Gargoyle--I think your website, Olbermann.org, is the best around and should be included, as it brings together a great deal of factual information, in various media, about Olbermann.

KO.org, on the other hand, is replete with errors, misinformation, political bias and self-serving promotion. The home page is replete with factual errors about Olbermann' career; there are not "over 7,000" articles on the site, there are over 8,000 posts, many of which are of questionable or absolutely no merit because they have nothing to do with Olbermann; and the site is a cobbled-together mess of material lifted, without credit, from other sites. It is also true that the number of users, posts, and unique views are all questionable. It is a disgrace, and where it ranks on Google means nothing if that rank is paid for.

The owner of KO.org tried to get other sites to shut down to inflate his numbers when the site opened. It seems the person has delusions of grandeur about being the only person on the Web able to "properly" promote Olbermann. This is untrue, since many other sites--Drinking with Keith Olbermann, Either Relevant or True, Democratic Underground, and others--do the man greater justice with less evident proprietor ego and less outright bullying of posters by the administrators.

KO.org is indeed a vanity site--and not even a well-done or accurate vanity site--and most certainly should not be linked to from this Wiki article. It would call all information in it into question, given the gross inaccuracies and beligerant tone it sets (think of it as the evil twin of Olbermannwatch). Jack Black.

Anyone with a real account who is actually a member of wikipedia will always be treated with respect by me. However, this fellow above, signed "Jack Black" is much more clearly the stalker fellow who has logged onto KeithOlbermann.org using such names as "Smartass", "Badass", and "Jackbooted Thug" using "trashmail" addresses to register. He has cut and pasted some of the same minisformation about www.keitholbermann.org that he interspersed with lies, personal attacks against my spouse, and stalking type behavior, which has forced us to ban him repeatedly. I don't know what his agenda is, religious or political, but his tactics and techniques are not acceptable. Sometimes it appears to be simple Dixie Chicks/Swiftboating behavior, but other times it is quite personal. Because this guy likes to assume false identities--he has created at least 5 on my board--I would ask that in order for future talk comments to be taken seriously they be from real wikipedians? Several of us at our board have quite a problem with this guy, who is threatening people personally, and anonymous postings like this are thus assumed to be from him. I am not going to respond to further unsigned attacks from unregistered wikipedians, and I would ask you, the reader of these talk pages, to take them with a truck load of salt. Thanks. --DoctorMike 12:18, 18 May

2006 (UTC)

I'm a registered member of Wiki and I don't seem to recall you treating me with respect. I've been called a scientologist, a sick puppy. . . etc. So when are you going to start showing me some respect? And for the record--I put your link back in yesterday when I added links to all the Olbermann message boards. Waffle Iron chose to remove them all last night, which I thought was fair. It should be all or nothing, which I have argued all along. But since you chose to add your link back in again, clearly ignoring any and all discussion that has occured about this subject, I removed it again this morning. If it reappears, I will just go back and once again add the external links to the other message boards again. Seems fair to me: all or nothing. Jeff

mediation summary close

Hi. It looks like most of the people here are new so I'm going to give an expanded explanation of what happened.

I was the mediator from the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal who took the Keith Olbermann case that was filled. Just so you have my background:

  • I don't watch the show and until today I didn't know the name
  • I'm not a Scientologist
  • I have no tie to any of the sites under dispute

I do research prior to posting so that I know where the argument stands. During the course of that research I discovered that basically this was a simple yes/no issue and I made an advisory ruling to include the link.

In the future you all should have discussed this and tried to come to an agreement by yourselves. This did not justify a case before the cabal. In this forum you sort of talk at one another and revert each other changes. I'd like to exempt User:CuteGargoyle who has tried on several occasions to get the discussion page to work. Next time he tried join in and work with one another. Jeff I'm glad you got a real account going and welcome to wikipedia. jbolden1517Talk 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have done research this morning and there are NO such fan forum sites inked on the links at Anderson Cooper, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Shephard Smith or any other "news personality" just as there are no fan forum sites listed at MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC news listings. There was one at the Fox listing and I removed it this morning. I do not have a political agenda, it's just that making an exception for one fan site means that there should be exceptions for all fan sites. Since the cabal has ruled upon this, I will then be looking up the site addys for the other KO fan discussion sites and including them in the Wiki listing as well where it is my fervent hope that they will remain in the interest of fairness for ALL, not just for one. Jeff

As I have posted below, I did seek clarification from Wiki further on this matter and here was the second opinion on this matter: "In the case of the Keith Olbermann article, I think you did the right thing by adding link to all five boards at the end. But then it's just my personal opinion that Wikipedia articles should contain as much information as possible. It would also be O.K. to list none of them, according to your logic on my talk page, but listing only one out of several message boards would not be good at all."- Draeco 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The above text pasted from my discussion at User talk:JeffBerg#Message Board links - Draeco 16:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Added links to ALL Keith Olbermann message boards/fan forums

and will do so in alphabetical order. These include, with their post counts, and date of establishment as follows:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=315 Over 46,483 messages, established 2005

http://www.quicktopic.com/29/H/CCZ5hH7RnZhQ over 64,000 views, nearly 4000 posts, established 2004

http://www.quicktopic.com/25/H/mHMnt3nXci7qu Over 250,000 hits, over 15,000 posts, established 2005

http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3116806&pid=5269878&st=1080&entry5269878 Over 1,000 replies, over 100,000 views, established 2004 Jeff

Hi--I wish to agree with Jeff's very well-put points and respectfully disagree with the mediator. KO.o is hardly a legitimate discussion site, and what it offers is inaccuracies, half-truths, and distortions, which you would have found with minimal research. The only legitimate link that should be included with the article is to Olbermann.org, which offers a great deal of legitimate material on Olbermann in several media formats which would enhance the article.

Let me point out that I have no affiliation with either site.

I think that Jeff is right though--what's fair for one should be fair for all. Either include fansites for other news personalities or include them for none. This exception is wholly unfair. Jack.

Thanks Jack. I've now made the page edit so the forums I've listed above are also all included, in alpahbetical order. I suppose an argument could also be made that they should be listed in chronological order, but since Michael's site would end up at the bottom. . . well, I'm sure he might have issues with that so, I just did them alphabetically. Jeff

I would also like to express my agreement with Jeff's original argument. I don't think Wiki is the place to publicize one's message board or other fan forums. I agree with Jack that the mediator was incorrect but I believe that Jeff has come up with the most equitable solution to the problem. Listing all of the available KO fan forums will give people a chance to examine them and decide which one, if any, they find interesting or useful. Glad to see such an acrimonious situation resolved diplomatically. - Joni Ann (on edit: Just noticed all the J names, so I added my middle name to make discussion easier!)

I asked for further clarification on this issue from Wiki, here is the respose I got: "In the case of the Keith Olbermann article, I think you did the right thing by adding link to all five boards at the end. But then it's just my personal opinion that Wikipedia articles should contain as much information as possible. It would also be O.K. to list none of them, according to your logic on my talk page, but listing only one out of several message boards would not be good at all."- Draeco 18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:External links. In specific WP:EL#Occasionally_acceptable_links says

3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.

and WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid

10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to.

--waffle iron talk 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree Waffle Iron. I absolutely agree that it should be NONE and that is what I would have preferred to see happen, but in the interest of fairness, I added a section, included all the forums that had been mentioned here by others, because I did not believe it was fair to include only one here and exclude the others, especially since once I did the traffic research on those sites, I realized two were larger, with more post counts, page views, and members than the sole link previously mentioned here. If only one was going to have been mentioned, it should have been the fan forum at DU which dwarves all the others in comparison. But again, I still strongly believe that NONE should be listed here, but I've gotten split decisions here when I've asked Wiki on advisement on this one issue. JeffBerg

By the way, I have no problem with listing them all. I list them all on www.keitholbermann.org. Just came back this morning and the link to my site was removed again--I put it back up... someone evidently didn't get the message. Jeff, if you want to put back those other links you favor, please feel free to do so. Democratic Underground is the most problematic, as you have to pay to post on that one, but I agree they are much larger, since they are a large "Democratic Underground"--the KO part is just a sub-board.--DoctorMike 11:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

WaffleIron, if the rule was none I could live with that. I just chafe at injustice. A rule leaving "olbermannwatch" up and taking "KeithOlbermann.org" down would just have been wrong, and the cabal agreed. Pretty much ends the story, right? --DoctorMike 11:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the rules again carefully Dr. Mike. The Cabal is a PEER review and it is NONBINDING. I sought out additional guidance from Wiki on this yesterday and was told, as I posted here, that the Wiki-ian said that listing all was a good compromise. I am truly trying to reach a compromise here. I don't think Olbermann watch should be listed either actually. I've just created a sepereate subheading underneath the external links that features all the message boards and fan forums and blogs in one place, and yes, I moved Olbermannwatch to that list as well. Can you live with this compromise? You're still listed, Cox hopefully won't have a fit that he's been moved into a subcategory and everyone else is listed too. At least, I think so, if anyone knows of any additional fan forums, please add them. Thanks. JeffBerg

Someone must have had an issue with the two QuickTopics sites, they were edited out this afternoon. I've reinserted them. I noticed one doesn't seem to have a whole lot of posts but it's been around since 2003 or 2004 and it looks as if it has had lots of posts in the past. The other seems very active and actually comes in second in overall post counts of the message boards at this point in time. Again, I'm standing by the new policy here of "all or none" so I've added those sites back in and will continue to do so if the page is edited again. JeffBerg 22:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)JeffBerg

It could be the QT'ers themselves, if they don't want a high profile link to their board. It could also be something/somebody else. CuteGargoyle 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
They are still there this morning. The formatting was a little screwy at first and it may have possibly looked to someone as if they were duplicate boards. I moved some things around last night and reformatted and now they appear differently on the front page so I think it's easier for someone to tell that there are two of them now. JeffBerg 14:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)JeffBerg

Is there confusion about the two fan sites?

In reviewing again all of the posts at this page, I think that possibly some of the editors have made decisions based on confusion about two sites who are very similarly named. Www.olbermann.org is not the same as www.keitholbermann.org. Olbermann.org is a site with no message board, although it links to just about every other keith olbermann message board site. Olbermann.org has articles about and by Keith Olbermann and tons of other resource materials. Think of it as the wiki of sites about Keith Olbermann. But www.keitholbermann.org is a message board site which links to www.olbermann.org. Shouldn't wiki be about listing the most relevant of sites, not what is, at best, just an average message board site when compared to others in terms of posts, members, etc.? The rules say link to one fan site. Www.olbermann.org fits that definition. And it has links to several message board sites (I found more though in my search at google yesterday that weren't listed there, but it does have lots of links to other Olbermann related sites. I just think there may be some confusion about the two sites and some editors possibly thinking they are the same when theyre not and making editing decisions based upon that. A fan site should be included. A fan site plus a message board site? NO. And choosing one message board site over another? Again, no. If one message board is listed, and some sort of exception is made, logic as to why should be stated. And if that exception is made for that one message board, then similar exceptions should be made for all the rest. I just hope that anyone choosing to edit will carefully review this entire page concerning this matter and make sure before they edit that they know what they are editing and if they chose to defend a site's presence here, they will realize that there is a huge difference between these two sites or that they will carefully weight the merits of sites chosen for inclusion (if they are messge boards) before making a definitive decision about what should stay and what shouldn't and why. JeffBerg.


O'Reilly feud

Ok, we can go back and forth with edits that are PoV here, or we can work towards getting a NPOV section. Would one of the folks who are coming in and continually changing it away from what it is now respond here and tell us why you think it needs to be changed, while keeping NPOV? Thanks. SirFozzie 16:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, let's not change the article to a POV without discussing it here first. SirFozzie 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Laura Ingraham's 'hotel balconies' comment

I've been having some struggle on Laura Ingraham's page, mainly with one temporarily-banned user but potentially with other Ingraham loyalists, to introduce an NPOV account of Ingraham's March 21, 2006 appearance on NBC's "The Today Show." Ingraham, who visited Iraq for six days in February, criticized coverage of the Iraq conflict by "NBC and networks of the United States":[3]

To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off.[4]

To which, the next day, Olbermann replied:

A note about Laura Ingraham's comments. I've known her a long time. I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've know her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. In was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in considerable of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vought, unforgivable in light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopft. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it was not only unforgivable of her; it was desperate and it was stupid.video here

I think Ingraham's remark should be part of her entry. It's important to note that Ingraham herself did not travel with the Iraqi Army, but visited under the protection of U.S. occupation forces. Anyone who might have a look at the conflict, perhaps provide a sympathetic, solving voice, is welcome. Sandover 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well well well. You thought I wouldn't notice this, you trying to rally support against "Ingraham loyalists"? Oh, we're trying to make the article POV are we? Funny how you never said a word about it on the relevant discussion page. So much for WP:AGF, huh Sandover? You're busted. Haizum 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and just so everyone is clear, I am the individual that was temporarily blocked. Unfortunately for Sandover's agenda, this doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that he has just cited me as an enemy of his cause on another page. Not only is this completely unethical, but citing a past block of mine for the obvious purpose of discrediting me is a blatant personal attack. I welcome your input, and I encourage the rest of you to invite Administrators to review his actions, because I will be. Haizum 07:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I wrote this request was never a secret. I asked for a sympathetic, solving voice, and I laid out the challenge as well as the volatility of the situation. I don't think I violated a Wikipedia policy, but if I did, I apologize. For what it's worth, I don't think "Ingraham loyalist" is an unwarranted shorthand; after all, you have declared your own contact with Ingraham's staff. It's all archived on the other Talk page and the record speaks for itself. Sandover 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How does contacting staff make someone a loyalist? The BS is crowding out your brain cells, Sandover. 68.55.4.83 17:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

worst person list

Just for those who are still not convinced that Keith Olbermann has a leftward lean to his nightly rants....here is a list of some of his worse person in the world candiates....just for fun -Bill O'Reilly(nightly) -Laura Ingraham -Rush Limbaugh -Brent Bozzell -Ann Coulter -Michelle Malkin -Sean Hannity

Pattern anyone??--Bairdso66 01:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do see a pattern above- it appears that right-wing pundits make more outrageous and dishonest statements than do left-wing pundits.

I won't even dignify that one with a response, also sign your statements--Bairdso66 23:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There goes your credibility, Bairdso. 68.55.4.83 17:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen buddy, I was pointing out how Keith Olbermann was not very objective in his work...You can question my crediblity after you back up your claims. Sound good? If you continue with your nasty little comments, this isn't the forum for you--Bairdso66 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just he is at least as objective as O'Reilly is. Personally though, I think Olbermann is more objective.--Lionheart Omega 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Consistently 4th

I've questioned the statement that Countdown is reported to be fourth in it's timeslot before, and no one has provided a source. The most that is presented is that Olbermann is behind Nancy Grace every so often; hardly consistently. While not the best source perhaps, this Washington Post article identifies Countdown as consistently third in the ratings, so I'm editing the article to reflect that. -Fearfulsymmetry 17:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by consistently, which rating your talking about, and if you're looking for a summary source (which technically one should). Here's a few of the nielsen ratings from Media Bistro: #Aug 05 - Behind in total audience, can't see 25-54
  1. Oct 05 - Behind in both
  2. Nov 05 - Ahead in both
  3. Jan 06 - Behind in total audience, tied 25-54
  4. Feb 06 - Behind in total audience, ahead 25-54
  5. Apr 06 - Behind in total audience, ahead 25-54
  6. May 06 - Behind in both.
  7. Jun 06 - Behind in both.
In the 8 records I found Countdown was behind Nance Grace 7 of 8 times in total audience and behind her 3 times, tied 1 time, and ahead 3 times in 25-54. :) Of course, I'd call that OR, but there ya go. --Bobblehead 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, that was the sort of thing I was looking for; sorry I didn't specify. While it does seem that Countdown is frequently behind Nancy Grace, as OR I don't know if those can be used as sources. If anyone can find a credible source stating that Countdown is consistently 4th (total or otherwise) I'd be satiated, but until then, I think the word "often" or "frequently" should be enployed rather than "consistently", as I've seen enough articles claiming Countdown as consistently 3rd (above article included) to be doubtful. -Fearfulsymmetry 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen, most corporate media doesn't consider Headline News as one of the news channels.;) Not to mention the pieces that have been done on Olbermann have been puff pieces so the author doesn't fact check. But... that being said, anything beyond the NYT and WaPo articles is OR, so can't really be included. Probably should find a puff piece on Nancy Grace. Probably find that it says she consistently ranks 3rd at her time rating as well. *laugh* --Bobblehead 20:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll remove my edit from the article, but I will change "consistently" due to lack of a concrete source and due to the fact that Grace and Countdown are so close in the ratings. Thank you for your input. -Fearfulsymmetry 22:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Resolved: Poster has been blocked for sockpuppetry
discussion stemming from editor likely disrupting to make a point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think fru23 is right there is a need for a criticism section. He provided good sources. I would like to continue where he left off. JcLiner (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You really don't know when to give up, do you? You must honestly believe we're all complete idiots. NcSchu(Talk) 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
He's making everyone jump through the administrative hoops again, which is presumably the motive of his activity at this point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I like your "I am not a sock of fru23" userpage. That's very postmodern. Switzpaw (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Or Watergate-era, as in "I'm not a crook!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Labeling one as either a conservative or liberal

Keith Olberman himself makes no qualms that he hates evrything Republican (GOP) or conservative. His worst persons of the world are almost always conservatives or right-leaning people. Keith himself has no problem being labeled a liberal himself, he cherishes in it. His rants nightly are anti-conservative and pro-liberal, every night. I agree we shouldn't label people as either conservative or liberal but since the majority of conservatives are labled that way, then so should liberals to balance it out. When you leave the label liberal out and keep conservative in, when one reads entries like Olbermans, Madow's, or Mathews, then ones must think that to be mainstream and only people like conservatives think differently. I don't think anyone should be labeled one or the other, but if you keep one label in, so should the other. Hence, Keith O;berman should be considered a liberal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.112.222 (talkcontribs) 20:25, 15 January 2009

WP:OR. NcSchu(Talk) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No offense IP, but we've been through this before a number of times. Olbermann has never described himself as a Liberal, so we don't try and make that decision for him. Hannity describes himself as a conservative, so that's how we label him. Note here that we also don't label Hannity a neocon, which has been tried several times before as well. As for Olbermann's alleged liberal nature, it's WP:OR. I've gone on the record on this page before as saying that Olbermann, Hannity, etc. are entertainers first and not political commentators, so establishing them with any kind of political leanings is only valid if they describe themselves as such. Dayewalker (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Dayewalker's point makes little sense. Does the sky need to say that it's blue for us to know it's so? Has Brett Favre ever told us he's an NFL QB or do we know it because we see it? If Olbermann's an entertainer first and not a political commentator (as you say), then why is he still listed as a 'political commentator?' Given how obvious this is to everyone but you, perhaps you should step aside and let people describe it as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonroot (talkcontribs) 07:22, 23 January 2009
That's a good point, Brett Favre's job is "quarterback." Keith Olbermann's job is not "liberal." It's not wikipedia's position to decide what to call someone, especially when that person has denied the label you want to apply. Dayewalker (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do Favre's paychecks, tax returns, etc. say "quarterback"? No, they probably say "football player." I'll admit it's a bad analogy, but your logic is much weaker. And if personal denial is the standard for labels, then you better start clearing out the word "dictator" from every entry, I doubt anyone has ever embraced that label... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonroot (talkcontribs) 07:56, 23 January 2009

"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)