Talk:Brian Williams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reasons for disambig

Would it make more sense for the (MUCH) more well known and cited person to have the main article and the secondary person (as there's only one, in this case) to have a small blurb at the bottom or top or just a link to their own article?

Some evidence for my point: Google search for ""Brian Williams" +cbc" gives 3470 results. Google search for "Brian Williams" +nbc gives 32000 results.

Maybe it's less obvious than you'd think, but if a person looks up Brian Williams, I think an article with info on both on the same page is less confusing. I'm not sure on the policy on this, but I was just wondering if it would make sense. --ABQCat 05:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should not be confused with...

He should not be confused with the Canadian sportscaster or professional athelete - especially because the title of this article is Brian Williams (news anchor). A person is unlikely to type or search that particular article title without understanding who they're looking for. I think a secondary disambiguation on a disambiguated article is redundant and should be removed. --ABQCat 10:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV in Rise to the Throne

I removed this: "He has also been accused of lacking depth and understanding, and an inability to convey the subtleties of complex news events." because it does not have a citation and appears to be an unsubstantiated opinion. I will support adding it back if and only if someone can produce a credible citation.

Time to move.

As a few people have guessed at before, this article needs to be at Brian Williams. When one person gets over 90% of the Google hits, he's clearly the most important one, and thus the most indisputably likely to be searched for, which means that he belongs on the main page, with a link to Brian Williams (disambiguation) at the top, where the links to the other guys should be. Or just link to the other Brian Williams fellows at the top of this page if you prefer, since there aren't that many. Then we wouldn't even need a disambig page. Either way, this belongs on Brian Williams. -Silence 08:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

History Section Removed

This allegation of racism link is completely bogus -- it links to a no-name newspaper with an extremely short article completely lacking in real info. It has NO credibility whatsoever and should be removed. I keep up with the news very well, and have NEVER heard a single allegation of racism against Williams. EDIT: looks like someone with a brain removed it.

I have removed the History section because it is a word by word copy for Brian's Williams Bio on WSMV's web site. [1]

Jonyyeh 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Could someone check the page history and look at the History section I decided to remove?. I need to know if it is a copyright violation. Jonyyeh 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an NBA player named Brian Williams (who later changed his name to Bison Dele) who was lost at sea in 2002 with his girlfriend and is presumed dead [2]. The story was quite high-profile. Maybe it's best to have a disambiguation page? (I'd be willing to write an article sometime next month for Bison Dele. I'm surprised there currently isn't one.) --Idont Havaname 18:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a disambig page is unnecessary. There is one MAJOR person named "Brian Williams", and two minor who are linked (in wiki fashion) at the bottom of the page. If we had two high profile people with the same name, then yes. It's fine without a disambig page, though. Write the article for Dele if you like, but no disambig page is necessary. He's already linked at the bottom. --ABQCat 18:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, my article about Dele is up now. --Idont Havaname 22:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is writing articles according to future plans the best idea? This article previously stated that he assumed (past tense) anchor duties on December 1, 2004. Clearly, this is the plan, but until it happens it's still up in the air.

Family section

I have removed this. It was unsourced and non-encyclopedic. Frankly, the fact that he has two nephews is about as interesting as the fact that I have 15 cousins. Danny 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Made a mistake

I deleted something, accidentally. Please forgive me. Please help revert it!!!!!!!N734LQ 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

revert page

Can someone revert the page please? I don't know how to do that. HiS oWn 20:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, though it seems the version (and all others I checked) I reverted it to have an incomplete CNBC section. Tockeg 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian Williams says there are errors

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/wewantmedia/node/487

"On the Internet, no one knows if you’ve been to Ramadi or you’ve just been to Brooklyn and just have an opinion about Ramadi," said Williams.

"And now, apparently because encyclopedias were too exact, we have Wikipedia, the inexact encyclopedia. We don’t get hung up on facts. In my entry alone there are seven errors, and I’m completely unimportant."

128.206.155.148 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting quote... maybe he'd like to help us correct those errors rather than simply guessing? Anson2995 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if he thinks the project's worthless, he won't. Any guesses, people? I was thinking of a tasteful template across the top, saying "there are seven errors in this article. Please help us find and correct them", with 'seven' perhaps in a different font and color. Hornplease 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No reason to guess. It's not that long of an aritcle -- seventeen sentences and eleven bullet items. Wouldn't take too long to confirm a source for every one of them. Anything that can't be backed by a supporting reference can be presumed an error. Anson2995 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Brian Williams was added to the article

I've added a better picture of the NBC Nightly News anchor. I hope that will work for this article. Megamanfan3 01:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • It looks like the picture either didn't work or was taken down. You'd think we'd have a picture of one of the "100 most influential people in the world".--Zombiema7 19:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brianwilliams.jpg

Image:Brianwilliams.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

The article says that Brian Williams' appearance on Saturday Night Live was "the the first time that a network news anchor has hosted that broadcast." Although Williams himself said this during the show's opening monologue, it isn't true. Edwin Newman, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News back in the 1970s and 1980s hosted the show in 1984. Here are some sources:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/episodes/Show_367.shtml http://imdb.com/title/tt0695017/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.22.100 (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Cutting and Pasting NBC's Publicity Bio

I've improved and balanced the career section with some non-NBC-approved reality, but the "Appearances" section needs work. Does a bio need an 'appearances' section, for example?Haberstr (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Salary - $10 Million

IMDB News reported on November 23, 2006 that he and Meredith Vieira would not take pay-cuts amidst NBC news employee pay-cuts. Garrett.Graff (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced Birth Place

Willimas was born and raised in Elmira, New York, not South Africa.

Born in South Africa? I know many who were born there and they have a definite accent which Brian certainly doesn't have :). 69.133.89.131 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

should we...

shouldn't we include Brian Williams controversial view when he defended G. Gordon Liddy and his actions during the watergate scandal.

Libby .. and where is the necessary citation in which he did do just that? 69.133.89.131 (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Evil

Brian Williams ... made fun of Conan O'Brien on Late Night and has a poor reputation with many people. I think this should be added to the article. 66.41.212.243 23:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This does not make him evil! And this should not be added to the article! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that, unless however there is proper reference :]. 69.133.89.131 (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From the first sentence, above, I'm removing a violation of WP:BLP#Non-article space, which reads in part, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (Emphasis mine.) --Art Smart (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Salary?

Seriously?  Я Madler  גם זה יעבור R  18:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he Catholic?

I was once told that Brian Williams is Episcopalian, even though he attended a Catholic high school. Most Catholic schools have several non-Catholic students. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If he is not Catholic, his name also should be removed from the list of notable Catholics at Roman Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics. Eagle4000 (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed his ethnicity from the Infobox

Please take a look at these two links: Bobby Jindal Ethnicity and Question: Infobox -- And Rew 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

NASCAR section

Needs citations. --Compson1 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the Weird White Eye Makeup?

Any explanation of the weird white eye makeup he wears on-camera? If it was just to cover bags etc it would be flesh-colored, to make it so weirdly whitish makes me think there is some other hypnotic effect being sought, akin to the lush lip gloss on some announcer starlets.

What about those silly raised eyebrows? (Makes me feel sympathetic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.64.190 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News

Brian Williams was tweak is joke on April 3 2014 when Ann Curry gets shout out from Wendy's on April 4 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.43 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

college credits

The article currently says Williams has a total of 18 college credits. That does not sound plausible if he went to three different colleges. Perhaps he is eighteen credits shy of a degree, and the editor simply heard it wrong. Since the source is an interview with no link to the the actual video, this might be worthy of modification.Chagallophile (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

Brian Williams and Ann Curry Rap's Call Me Maybe on April 1 2014 (talk) 121.54.54.43 04:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.149 (talk)

Born in Ridgewood NJ, not Elmira New York.

The opening sentences imply he is born both in Ridgewood and Elmira. He was born in Ridgewood NJ and raised in Elmira New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asocialpsychologist (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

False story of attacked chopper

Apparently, Brian Williams had told a false story, and continued to uphold this story, from over 10 years ago about being in a helicopter that was shot down overseas. He recently admitted it was a false story that he had been telling for the past dozen years. Not sure if it should be added into this, as it was a highlight in his career just before he took the desk he has now, and most likely contributed to his promotion. The article is here. http://news.yahoo.com/nbc-news--brian-williams-recants-story-iraq-helicopter-after-soldiers-protest-231038729.html 73.51.83.101 (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this section was added. It could use more details, including both specifics about what exactly was said when and how that was contradicted, as well as a presentation, with quote(s), of how Brian Williams admitted the error without admitting to lying exactly. Neutral POV, obviously Burnsbert (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is, and should remain brief. Encyclopedias summarize; they are not intended to exhaustively document things. If people have the need to find out the gory details about this, the links to sources are there. Marteau (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point in a vacuum, but the closest comps I could think of of famous people caught or accused of lying or Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Lance Armstrong, and Pete Rose, and they all have extensive sections on their respective controversies. I see that the section has been filled out since my initial comment, though, and it looks a lot better now to my eyes. Burnsbert (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Burnsbert. The story Brian Williams told was very detailed. He claimed their helicopter came under fire, and after they landed they had to be defended on the ground. In fact, he arrived at the FOB four days after that actual attack. No rocket fire, no attack whatsoever. The details are there in reliable sources in his own words and should be added. The version that is in the article now reads like a sanitized version. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you SW3 5DL. This article has been "sanitized". My meaningful, important, and well-sourced contributions to the article have been deleted twice. I give up.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link that has audio of his claims when he was talking about it with Alec Baldwin. It also has CNN's timeline of the story he's been telling and how the story keeps changing to get him closer to the action. http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/05/brian-williams-said-he-thought-he-was-going-to-die-during-supposed-helicopter-attack-audio/ And to make matters worse, in his apology, he now claims he was in a helicopter right behind the one that was shot down. But there was a news report this morning on ABC news that said he didn't arrive until 4 days later. Very strange, and shocking. I never would have believed this story about if he hadn't come out with the apology. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We have to be careful, due to Wikipedia biographies of living persons policy, not to make false charges against Williams. It is very important to note that one of the crew on his helicopter, Rich Krell, said (see [3]) that that the helicopter received small arms fire. So you CAN'T say his helicopter was not under fire, didn't receive fire, and so on. You can say it didn't receive RPG fire, and you can say it was not forced down.Haberstr (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This response is in direct response to Haberstr's comment above. Rich Krell was not on the helicopter that flew Williams. He has been discredited. What this tells us is that, yes, we need to be careful about what we put in the article. No question about that. However, we also need to be careful about making incorrect judgements and then telling others that they need to be careful--which is exactly what Haberstr has done here. CNN's well-known reporter, Jake Tapper, has stated that Krell's claims are questionable and need to be verified. So, Haberstr, please follow your own advice. Haberstr, you can review the conversation concerning the Krell's lack of reliability here: Claim Made on CNN Challenged by Pilot Who Says He Was in Command of Brian Williams’ Chopper--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why so many indents? Are you having a bad day? An RS source, Stars & Stripes, provided Krell's perspective and contradictory perspectives about events that took place 12 years ago, and my edit reflected those contrasting memories. Later Kell's credibility deteriorated according to the huffpost, which is also RS, and now his perspective should rightly be deleted.Haberstr (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the claims that Krell's made about Williams getting shot at from the article until Krell's veracity is certified. Right now he just sounds like a guy looking for his 15 minutes of fame, even if it is ugly.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

CNN has backed off Krell's comments: CNN Walks Back Interview With Pilot Who Partially Supported Brian Williams' Helicopter Story--MaverickLittle (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the direct quotes from Mansoor that you've reverted should remain be in the article. By deleting my addition to the story, it seems evident that you are hiding from the truth along with Mr. Williams. In the end I think he will be forced to resign but of course that is up to the bosses at NBC. I guess we'll just have to watch and see what happens next.EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you, Marteau. External links are fine, especially if they are directly related to the article. I don't see how Williams' career can withstand this devastating blow to his credibility. He lied, plain and simple.--68.227.109.52 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:EL "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." Marteau (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a message board to share opinions. Some of what has been said above is inaccurate and is contradicted by reliable sources. I've added the information gleaned from the pilot of William's chopper with sources. Emeraldflames (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Emeraldflames, thanks for you efforts to improve the story and take out inaccurate or POV information. However, I think you've gotten bogged down with that pilot's information. The key assertion he added was that his/Williams' helicopter received small arms fire. This assertion is contradicted by other witnesses. I had already put the small arms fire assertion into the story, and contrasted it with other crewmens' assertions that there was no small arms fire. The 'issue' of how far away Williams' helicopter was away from the three chinooks who took RPG fire is not germane, because it is not what Williams recanted. He recanted two things: that his helicopter took RPG fire, and that his helicopter was forced down. Those two issues are the controversy, if there is one.Haberstr (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brokaw has asked for his resignation. That is notable and it will be added.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MaverickLittle, that it is notable, and should be added if RS with inline text attribution. I looked at the Goldberg vs O'Donnell exchange on The View, and decided to pass because of the lack of professionalism in the exchange. Neither have reported real news, or have served in the military while under attack by enemy fire. Just sayin'....Atsme☯^Consult 17:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with MaverickLittle and Atsme. There here should also be mention that the NBC bosses have been asking Brian Williams to STOP telling his story, and they've been asking him for some time now. Also, the false claims he made on the David Letterman show should also be included. There are multiple sources including one where the pilot called Williams an idiot to his face. The editing today is a big improvement over the sanitized, false version that was there earlier. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I included the David Letterman interview previously but one editor decided to remove the David Letterman information for whatever reason. The Letterman interview is notable and it is the most obvious example Williams making this false statement. The article should not be whitewashed.--MaverickLittle (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tom Brokaw has asked for his resignation," says who? This is based on hearsay at this stage. The articles that I read earlier this morning were based on unnamed sources, and not quotes from Tom Brokaw. The Huffingington Post reported about an hour ago that it had received an email from Tom Brokaw that said, "I have neither demanded nor suggested Brian be fired."(Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/06/tom-brokaw-brian-wiliams_n_6630536.html). FFM784 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Williams made a big gaffe and I think we covered it well. From this point forward, we need to be careful about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 17:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Youtube of the Letterman interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS3NAwZ4hGk It starts at 2:41 and ends at 7:02. He's very melodramatic in his tone and then he claims there were four helicopters, they were north of the American invasion, they got hit by RPG and AK47 fire, they were only 100 feet from the ground and forced down in a hard landing and that nobody knew where they were. He claims "they started distributing weapons," but fortunately the Bradley tanks in the invasion "happened" to spot them and surrounded them. Then came a sandstorm and nobody on earth knew where they were for several days. Absolutely none of that is true. It is not at all undue to clarify what he said, and it is certainly not a violation of neutrality to quote what he said. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article currently insinuates Williams' misremembering began in 2015. This may or may not be intended. The New York Times reports he's been telling the inaccurate story for years: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/business/brian-williamss-apology-over-iraq-account-is-challenged.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3BCD:D200:E433:EF1D:B2D1:A006 (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That should be in the article especially as it is the NYTimes. Also, the NBC bosses asked him before this incident with Letterman to stop telling that story. I'll locate the sources for that. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Did he ever really work at the Perkins Restaurant? Seems like a circular reference to his own statements which are known to be dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.55.47 (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Section Title

@Collect: - How about Questionable Iraq War anecdotes for that particular section title? It flows better. Atsme☯^Consult 16:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would work for me. The prior title did seem a bit too judgmental as far as I could tell. Collect (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) No. It's not questionable. Wikipedia is not Brian Williams' publicist. He lied. He got called out by a soldier who was actually in the helicopter that was hit and that should also be in the article. The sanitized lead sentence in that section makes it seem like, aw, gosh, shucks, he made a mistake. That's false. How this incident came to light is relevant to the reader's understanding and should be included in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Section lede sentence needs a rewrite to include chronology of events

This section should begin with the incident at the Ranger's game, where Williams told this lie again. Then, the pilot of the actual helicopter that was hit called him out on Facebook. The Stars and Stripes newspaper picked up the story, forcing Williams to recant. That should be made plain in the introduction. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the section does need editing to introduce this material, and to cast it in chronological order rather than scattershot reporting of details as they became known. I would do it, but semiprotection prevents me. As a side note, surely Williams must have done something noteworthy as a newsman between 2003 and 2015. The current article barely expands on this point, except to chronicle recent events. It's not very balanced. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on gathering the original sources for a rewrite. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The word “lie” is used repeatedly on this page. Perhaps he lied, perhaps he misspoke. We have no proof that he lied and this word should not be bandied about, even on a talk page, in a BLP. Objective3000 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

It seems that Williams recanting of his Iraq rocket fire story has forced editors and reporters to review all of Williams' claims. He claims he was in the French Quarter in New Orleans during Katrina and saw a body floating by the window and he drank flood water and got dysentery. The French Quarter was never under water, so he probably lied there. And the New Orleans health officials are not aware of his claimed sickness. This is notable information and will be included.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Williams' claims of sitting in the French Quarter and seeing a dead body floating by his window has been questioned in the New Orleans Advocate here: The New Orleans Advocate, Capital City Press LLC, Williams said he saw floating body in Quarter, JOHN SIMERMAN, Feb. 06, 2015.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In the article he claims "our hotel was overrun with gangs". He claims that this hotel was a five star hotel in the French Quarter. This information is unquestionable notable.--MaverickLittle (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, I read about it this morning. This should be included in the article. Also, I've seen some of your edits. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the New Orleans Advocate. http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/11526453-148/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams. Also, the CDC did not have any reports of dysentery, a reportable illness. The French Quarter, though it was raining, was never flooded since it is on higher ground. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Katrina story is a MUCH more "we can't say for sure" than the comments above are claiming. Look at this RS source [4], where one eyewitness says the Ritz Carlton was surrounded by 3 feet of water. Also the Ritz is on Canal Street, which to most people's way of thinking is not 'in' the French Quarter. Canal Street was flooded, and bodies were seen floating nearby. In other words, yes I agree with your sentiments that Brian Williams _probably_ was lying on the preceding issues, but the evidence is we definitely can't say for sure. Dysentery and gangs I haven't seen RS weigh in definitively. He's been criticized here[5] for exaggerating the violence but it's not RS (we can still use it though).Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The New Orleans Advocate is a reliable source. The French Quarter is on higher ground and did not flood. That is a prominent fact in archived reliable sources that covered the flooding in New Orleans. It was the levy breaking that caused the flooding, and the French Quarter was spared. Go back to the NYTime's archives. Go back to all the Anderson Cooper reports on CNN. It's all there. Anderson Cooper stayed in the French Quarter. He stayed down there longer than anybody because his father was from there. I remember that because we watched his show every night. The video of Williams broadcasting from New Orleans leaves no doubt he's lying. The dead body is a fiction he created. The police specifically said the only body in that area was of a man who died of a heart attack. The body wasn't floating and it wasn't in front of William's hotel. And the claim of dysentery is preposterous. There were no reports of this in the CDC weekly Morbidity and Mortality reports. It is a reportable disease and certainly with all the agencies on the ground, FEMA, the Red Cross, the teams of doctors and nurses that hospitals from all over the United States put together and flew in to help, any outbreak of disease would have made the news. The guy is lying. Plain and simple. The article can easily say that. Williams' claims a body floating by. The area was not flooded. The police said no body was floating in the water, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Much of this section is he-said, she-said debate. While the content is perhaps relevant to the controversy, most of it does not meet standards for a biographical Wikipedia article. If every time an eyewitness vaguely disagreed with some element of a reporter's account, it was published on Wikipedia, every journalist-related article would be miles long. Perhaps temporarily create new page dedicated solely to the controversy, until historical impact can be assessed and properly summarized on the original "Brian Williams" page to meet standards of an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

[6] is RS for the claims you deleted. I suggest you ask at WP:BLP/N if you feel that the material is violative of WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

looked down the tube of an RPG rocket

https://grabien.com/feature.php?id=17&from=allfeatures I would never have believed it if there wasn't video of him saying it. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More exaggeration it seems and a good RS source [7], so I'll put this in too. I wonder what to make of his claim in the same video that Hezbollah rockets were zooming just under his helicopter during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war?Haberstr (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

BaseballPie, with all due respect to you, there was no police report because there weren't any gangs to arrest. The 'DEBATE' is actually about Brian Williams and his repeated exaggerations. This paragraph that you've deleted detailed one of those instances of exaggeration. Williams' concoction of tall tales is what this entire discussion is all about. - --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that the "gangs" Williams was referring to were simply wet, scared, disheveled and likely African-American people who had come from flooded lower areas to find refuge and maybe get a cup of hot coffee at the Ritz. Since the two off-duty police officers were there, had there been any raucous gangs looting and rampaging, some arrests would have been made. - EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Complete, wild speculation. And, have you seen the record of even on-duty police in N.O. at the time of Katrina? Seriously, you are making repeated, baseless, slanderous statements here in violation of WP rules. Objective3000 (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You sure are a meanie. Chillax. - EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Puppy rescue

http://pagesix.com/2015/02/06/brian-williams-also-told-iffy-tales-of-rescuing-puppies-from-fires/

This hasn't hit "hard news" coverage yet, just gossip in the New York Post and Daily Mail, but it's alleged that Williams also inflated his recall of an incident that occurred while he was a teenager. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article or not, so I'm presenting it here for others to decide. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Objective3000 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not a joke. This is one of several stories written in the last few days calling Williams's past statements into question, so I'm presenting it for discussion. It's certainly less important than the others, but it is part of the recent coverage. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A name-calling, gossip columnist hypothesizing that something he said about being a teen-firefighter might have been a lie? There isn’t even a contradiction in his two statements, much less any reason whatever to think they are inaccurate. He could very well have been talking about two incidents. Objective3000 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I read a direct quote from him about this. I believe he told this to Esquire magazine several years ago. He claims the structure was 'fully involved" in flames, the entire building was burning, Williams claims he was down on his hands and knees crawling through the structure when he found a "squishy" thing and pulled it out. It turned out to be a puppy, according to Williams. But in another story, Williams claims it was two puppies. He also claims that when he was a teenager living in New Jersey, a robber pulled a .38 caliber gun on him. I wouldn't use anything from Page Six, but if this turns up in a reliable source, we can add it in. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The later quote says that in his entire time as a firefighter he rescued two puppies. This is not contradictory. Even if it were, this is really picayune. Does he pick his nose too? Objective3000 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The puppy story and the robbery story are coming directly from Williams. From what I've seen in RS, these stories are being used as an example of Williams having a history of telling fantastic stories. Crawling on one's hands and knees in a fully engulfed building and rescued two puppies is quite extraordinary, as is being confronted by an armed robber when a teenager. The archives of the local newspapers in the area and the entire tri-state area, do not have any stories chronicling these events. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US, it is hardly “quite extraordinary” to be confronted by an armed robber and there is absolutely no reason for you to question this story, much less add it to an encyclopedia. I was held up twice, and it isn’t in any newspaper either. And, firefighters go into burning buildings. And, he didn’t say he went into a burning building to save one, or two puppies. He said that’s how it worked out. The two puppy ref was over his entire time as a firefighter, and was self-effacing. In context, he was saying all he ever did in all his time as a firefighter was save a couple puppies – not an orphanage full of children. Yes, there are some rags trying to make it look as if he is “telling fantastic stories” just as you are here. But, there is no evidence at all that he has lied about anything. When there is, and it isn’t about saving a puppy when he was a kid, then it belongs.

Seriously, this guy spent 30-some years building his career. What’s your hurry? Let the story develop before an encyclopedia becomes a part of the story. Objective3000 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Youtube videos
• Katrina
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBZxE1w4Sh8
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVXAxHFjiOk
• Iraq story
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwtxVjNVDBU

The puppy story is in an essay Williams wrote for the October 2011 USA Today Weekend Magazine. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting story in Esquire:

• "All I ever did as a firefighter was once save two puppies."

SW3 5DL (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So what? I see no proof that he lied. When it appears, then an encyclopedia can include it. Objective3000 (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I never said he lied about the puppy story. If you reread my posts above, you'll see that. I specifically said, I wouldn't use Page Six but if the story comes up in reliable sources, I would. You are misreading what is written. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You put quotes around "All I ever did as a firefighter was once save two puppies" indicating that it was a direct quote from Williams. But, Esquire did NOT put it in quotes, although they did use quotes on other statements of his. That means Esquire was paraphrasing. And, this is the sole source. All other sources quote Esquire, not Williams, and claim he said it verbatim. And again, read the article -- it is a self-effacing comment putting down his own past in comparison to others. This is really getting silly. I woldn't want Wikipedia to be associated with the rags that have carried this non-story. Objective3000 (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You do understand that the Esquire piece is a FIRST PERSON account? Esquire is not paraphrasing anything. The story is AS TOLD TO CAL FUSSMAN. That means Brian Williams is speaking directly to Cal Fussman and Cal Fussman is writing down what Brian Williams is saying. The quotes are being used to distinguish the words of others from Williams' own. But this story is all from Brian Williams' own mouth. You seem either unwilling to understand what is written here, or unable. Either way, you are exhibiting battleground behaviour. I'm not going to respond to you anymore. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I just reread it. The piece was written by Cal Fussman, not Williams. Some of the statements from Williams are in quotes and some are not. What you quoted was not. That means the writer paraphrased. And, your last statements are WP:CIV violations. Please be civil. Objective3000 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you have edited your original comments after there has been a response. This really isn't proper. You should respond with additions. Yes, I know it was told to Fussman, and that is not changed by all caps. But, an author has the right to paraphrase, as long as he doesn't use quotes. He uses quotes when he quotes, and he doesn't when he is paraphrasing. That is the purpose of quiotation marks. An interviewer also doesn't write notes word for word. This was an Esquire article, not a news report. There is no source for his exact wording. But, all the articles that ref this use quotes as if Williams said this word-for-word. Incorrectly. It's also pretty silly. It was clearly meant as a sel-effacing comment -- not as Braggadocio as suggested by all the rags that quoted it. Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancy regarding religion

The infobox says he is Roman Catholic, yet the article says he got married in "the First Presbyterian Church of New Canaan, Connecticut on June 7, 1986." not in the Catholic church. Which is it? What is source for his being Roman Catholic? Without a reliable source this should be removed. 68.231.25.212 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed pending citation. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

He was apparently raised a Catholic and attended Catholic University.[8] If his wife were Presbyterian, then it is normal for the wedding to be held there as many Catholic parishes still discourage interfaith marriages. Presbyterians allow Catholic to wed in their churches. Collect (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and RS within the article show he is a Catholic. There's also another Letterman clip on Youtube where he says he's an Irish-Catholic. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Timeline for Iraq helicopter story

I've gone over all the Stars and Stripes articles about this and it appears this is the relevant timeline:

• Williams and Tim Terpack, a soldier in the tank corps who Williams credits with saving him, attended the Rangers game on January 29th where the announcer tells the story about Williams getting shot down and Tim Terpack saving him.
• On January 30th, Williams shows the clip of the Rangers game where he and Terpack are shown on the overhead display monitor.
• Following that broadcast, soldiers who were on the helicopters took to Williams' nightly news Facebook page to dispute this. The soldiers accuse Williams of "stolen valor."
• Stars and Stripes picks up the story.
• Williams apologizes.
• The soldiers criticize the apology.
• Williams takes a temporary leave.
• Williams cancels a scheduled 12 February 2015 appearance on Late Show with David Letterman.

The paragraph should be structured to follow this timeline. The lede sentence in that section is confusing because it doesn't first set up why Williams' has to recant/apologize. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I like the opening sentence, it's a reasonable overview. And the story is basically already done chronologically, which is how we all think it should be. The difficulty is with the important 2007 interview, which surfaced after the Williams apology but still should be just after the first paragraph, since it is also about how Williams misremembered. Paragraph 3 is basically his apology and the reaction to it, and paragraph 4 is the investigation and his temporary absence.Haberstr (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

More on the floating body story

New York magazine [9] goes over old videos and blog posts by Williams, and sees a possible shift from 'we found a body down the street' to 'I saw a body floating outside my window'. Might be useable.Haberstr (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree it could be useful especially as Williams' timeline is hard to follow. He'll be talking about the Superdome, and next he's in a hotel seeing a body floating by, and next he's in a stairwell being rescued by a police officer. He says he's still friends with the officer, but he doesn't identify him, at least not I've seen. It's hard to keep the story straight. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

More conjecture. Could be more accurate. But, what does it mean? As has been repeatedly stated, his hotel was on high ground, presumably with a good view. 1,800 people died in Katrina. If the point is to pile on by finding other comments over 30 years that someone could examine with a microscope and look for conflicts with their idea of what occurred during a nightmarish hurricane, it just sounds like something that should be clearly avoided in a BLP. Think about an examination of every word you have uttered over 30 years looking for seeming inconsistencies. There exists a current news story. We should concentrate on that. All these magazines looking for something to say trying to dig up dirt to increase their visibility (or worse) should be beneath an encyclopedia. If they actually find something that means something, we have time to add it. But, a suggestion that he is somehow a serial liar (or as one editor surmised a pathological liar) lacks evidence. You do not convict a person by trying to find past, unadjudicated faults.Objective3000 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree we have to be careful, but not reporting in real time that he saw a body float by his hotel window is a significant piece of evidence and not just conjecture. It strains credibility to think he would not have reported that when it happened. Anyway, I haven't examined closely what the NY Magazine says, so if it is all just conjecture, we shouldn't add it. As SW3 says, the dates matter, and the NY magazine article helps with that. The Peaboby Award site [10] also helps with dates (when he was at superdome and when he was at hotel).Haberstr (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, careful indeed. Reporting at that time contained vast inconsistencies, for obvious reasons. Let us not suggest malice where ignorance of the full facts is possible. Katrina was long ago. Of a sudden, people are bringing up old quotes looking for inconsistencies for their own reasons. An encyclopedia must be more careful. Objective3000 (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If Brian Williams saw a dead body floating past the window of his hotel room back in August/September 2005, most reasonable people would surmise that he would have mentioned it on his blog, or much more likely on air. If he didn't make any reference to that 'incident' in real time, that is evidence that he might be misremembering. If an RS source says the preceding, we should add that to the relevant paragraph.Haberstr (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And most reasonable people would expect that other people in the hotel would have seen it too, like the other NBC crew who were also staying in the hotel with their cameras and recording equipment. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said other people didn't see it? There was hardly anything unusual about dead bodies in N.O. at that time.Objective3000 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

False story of Hezbollah Rockets

The Washington Post is finally picking up the story that has been among bloggers for several days now. It was first noticed http://ace.mu.nu/archives/354829.php , further looked into http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/07/williams-in-2007-i-looked-down-the-tube-of-that-rpg-launcher/ , and then brought to a larger audience here http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/07/brian-williams-over-israel-rockets-passed-just-beneath-the-helicopter-i-was-riding-in/ .

This is not the same lie as the 2003 helicopter lie, and the mainstream media is late to this story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbcs-brian-williams-told-varying-versions-of-rocket-fire-in-israel-hezbollah-war/2015/02/08/d9866acc-afe1-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html 96.59.92.70 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How Long Can We Keep Sanitizing This Article?

At some point we have to stop kidding ourselves. There must come a time when at least the following word needs to be introduced into the article to describe Williams:

1) Disgraced

We all realize he's a living person, but there is ample proof, from dozens of sources, that he has been extremely untruthful for years now on a number of subjects. He has shown a strong pattern of sensationalizing his reporting to the extent that he routinely concocts events that didn't even happen.

Do we really have to wait for his dismissal from NBC? If NBC decides to keep him on the anchor desk, does that change our minds about him? Does that mean we can then believe what he reports? Has he learned his lesson and, going forward, can we expect the simple truth from him? I am not willing to take the risk, are you?

I suggest that we start with word #1. And then if he is fired, then it becomes painfully obvious that more words of description need to make an entrance into the article.

I would like some feedback and commentary on this if anyone has any opinions. Thank you. - --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should not be editing a BLP. Calling him a pathological liar is way out of bounds. I suggest you remove this. Objective3000 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

But isn't he a pathological liar? Maureen Dowd also used that word to describe him. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-anchors-aweigh.html?smid=tw-NYTimesDowd&seid=auto&_r=0 A lot of pathological liars have come to be known as pathological liars - not because they submitted themselves to some scientific study to determine it. But because the evidence mounted as such to make it irrefutable. With respect to Brian Williams, we're there. 96.59.92.70 (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

An op-ed columnist opining that it 'seems' so does not make it so any more than bold text. And if you think this is irrefutable evidence, I hope you're never on a jury. Objective3000 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't see the news February 4th, 2015. Plus all of the new stories that keep on, keep on coming. Perhaps you should place your cards face up on the table so that we all can see what you're waiting for. If we were in a court room, we could convict (Williams). You're not here to taint the jury pool, are you? 96.59.92.70 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Objective3000 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I am just telling what I believe to be the truth. I am, however, a beginner on Wiki so I will take your advice assuming that you are a great expert on these matters. I have reduced my list to "disgraced". - EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, you've made some good ones. However, our Wikipedia job is not to characterize BLP individuals but to describe their words and actions in a balanced way using RS source material. Readers can then decide for themselves whether Williams is a disgrace or not.Haberstr (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right Haberstr. Some things are better left unsaid. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"hotel was overrun with gangs"

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about including that paragraph in the Katrina section. It is _definitely_ a helpful summary of the basic conflict of perspectives. On the other hand, this particular 'exaggeration' doesn't seem to be the focus of much public or RS attention.Haberstr (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We can keep the gangs comment because Williams said it and there's RS to show that. But I'm not comfortable with the comment by the person who was in the hotel "about the same time." If the guy was with Williams at the time, then I'd say, okay it can be there. But the guy wasn't with Williams and therefore, I think it's a BLP violation especially since the guy then says, "That's crazy." That implies he's saying Brian Williams is crazy. That's too close to violating the BLP rules. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

'Three separate individuals' in Washington Post opinion piece on 'overrun with gangs'

The Washington Post article is _NOT_ reporting but instead an opinion piece. There is no original reporting in it. How does the writer concoct "three separate individuals" saying the hotel was "overrun with gangs"? He links to three reports: (1[11]) the Guardian piece where a guest who stayed at hotel roughly the same time as Brian Williams discusses a "criminal element" that had been allowed into the hotel. (2[12] the 'Advocate 2' piece with a 'local community activist' in the general neighborhood talking about 'things were scary and dark and there were rumors of gangs but there were no gangs, I don't think'. (3[13] is a NOLA report from September 26 2005 that quotes N.O. Mayor Ray Nagin, who spoke of "hundreds of armed gang members" just after the hurricane, but says nothing at all about the neighborhood around the Ritz-Carlton, and says nothing at all about debunking or not the notion that there were gangs or armed gangs in that area. Our only quote from Williams refers to "gangs" not "armed gangs," by the way.Haberstr (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Misremembering

The comments from Aaron Brown and "veterans" are complete and utter speculation. Soldiers and TV anchors do not have credentials in psychology.

The comment is just a guess as to whether Brian Williams made "an innocent mistake" or not. This is absolutely absurd to include in a Wikipedia article. We do not present the thoughts of any random person on something they cannot possibly have knowledge of.

Wikipedia is not a debate forum, it's an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaseballPie (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the soldier's speculation. Aaron Brown, on the other hand, is a former CNN anchor, experienced in crisis zones overseas, and is relaying the thoughts of many other similarly experienced overseas 'hot spot' reporters. A reasonable person would say that he and they have some relevant expertise on remembering or not remembering being shot at in a war zone.Haberstr (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least for now. Once the controversy has subsided much of this content will probably be cut down to eliminate recentism and only include content as it is relevant to history/an encyclopedia. BaseballPie (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lone sentence on 2007 ratings

Nightly News fell behind ABC's World News in the first half of 2007. Nightly News regained the lead later that year.

The sentence above sticks out like a sore thumb in the article. Why mention ratings for only 2007? It would be best to remove this sentence altogether unless detailed ratings for other years are included. I will take the liberty to remove it myself and trust that other editors will agree with me. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the editor who made that edit is attempting to show that Williams' ratings went up because of the Katrina coverage. Maybe he/she is perhaps attempting to place exculpatory material to make Williams look good? I agree it does seem awkward. What is needed is a source that says, "As a result of its coverage, the ratings for NBC went up." But the bits about beating ABC seems irrelevant since the article is not about network news ratings. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your speculation about the motives of that editor are probably wrong, since Katrina happened in late August, 2005. Anyway, some overall perspective on his ratings over the years, compared to the other main news shows, would be fine in this section. Haberstr (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. You are absolutely correct, the article isn't about news ratings. That was my reasoning, too, for removing it. Besides, I have a pet peeve for single sentence paragraphs! They had better be REALLY IMPORTANT or I will sharpen my editing pencil and go to work on them. Most of the time I just move them to another paragraph where they belong. I tried to find a place for this sentence but was unsuccessful. EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia sucks (more on the 'dysentery' paragraph)

I've done a lot of good work on this diary and have been nice and reasonable in talk page entries above. Nonetheless, here is the bizarro world message from another editor on her/his revert after I added RS-based single-source exculpatory information to the 'dysentery' paragraph that makes Williams look 'guilty': "no, this is not exculpatory; it is a violation of BLP and RS and UNDUE. A claim by a guest that a doctor said he treated dysentery; why didn't the doctor report that to the CDC?This is synthesis and POV pushing. Already discussed on talk. Do an RfC" But of course, it is exculpatory, the revert is blatant violation of BLP, what is reverted was entirely RS, and UNDUE has nothing to do with adding exculpatory information in a BLP entry. He/she then asks people that are just reporting RS to make an OR guess as to why the doctors did not report 'dysentery' to the CDC, as if we, Wikipedia editors, are supposed to make such a conjecture, which would stand on top of another OR conjecture that what the RS-reported guest was saying was accurate. And there is no synthesis, since the reverted info is based solely on a single Guardian report. And it is not POV pushing to allow BLP entries to have exculpatory RS-based information in addition to condemnatory RS-based information. Instead it's called protecting Wikipedia from a libel lawsuit. FINALLY, the kicker is being told to go to Wikipedia's awkward and byzantine 'RfC' process. How about just allowing the 2 to 1 majority and common sense to 'win' this one?Haberstr (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Mainly because Wikipedia specifies that RfCs are the proper course of action in dispute resolution in such cases. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dysentery claim by Ritz Carlton Guest

I've removed this from the article. Just because the Guardian, which is normally a reliable source, says this, it does not belong here. This is a medical claim and the CDC has verifiably reported that no cases of dysentery were found. The CDC is a verifiable medical claim per WP:RS on medical claims, but the Guardian is not. Therefore we cannot use it. An unidentified 'guest' at the Ritz-Carlton making a claim about an unverified 'medical doctor at a clinc' who said there were cases of dysentery, is not reliable. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you put guest in quote marks. CNN interviewed a hotel guest in real time back in 2005, and that's what the real hotel guest said on the CNN broadcast. We're reviewing recollections here, and the situation generally was very sketchy. Especially for BLP, we need to include exculpatory rationales for why Williams might have said what he said, especially when such rationales are coming from an RS.Haberstr (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, The problem is, the hotel guest is not a reliable medical source. Also, we are not here to provide exculpatory rationales. There is no WP policy that says we are here to do that. The CDC has said no cases of dysentery occurred. That is a reliably documented medical fact. The CDC knows what dysentery is. The guest claiming to quote a doctor in a medical tent is not a medical source. We can't keep it in the article. It violates WP:MEDRS. Please see WP:RS on medical claims, Williams said he had dysentery. The CDC says there were no cases of dysentery. Adding vague, not reliable claims violates WP:BLP and is also WP:UNDUE. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The hotel guest is not making a medical diagnosis, just reporting what he heard. The CDC does know what dysentery is, but that is not the only issue. The issue the guest quote focuses on is what people were saying and thinking in the hotel. The Guardian RS just states a relevant fact that the CDC does not even discuss. And we are here to provide exculpatory information when that is reported in RS. For BLP, when RS portray someone as a liar or 'misrememberer', something basically career-destroying like that, we also MUST provide the information that cuts the other way if it is provided by an RS. That's the whole point of BLP policy, to protect Wikipedia from libel suits.Haberstr (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem with the hotel guest is he's saying he heard a doctor say. If the doctor were being interviewed and the doctor said, I've diagnosed a case or cases of dysentery, that's fine. But a second hand report like that about a medical issue is not reliable. We do not have to use every bit in a reliable source. Not every bit is reliable in the Guardian article. We are not going to have an unidentified, non-reliable, non-verifiable claim that seems to be placed to refute what the CDC, a medical reliable source, says. If you want a source to back up Williams claim that he had dysentery, then get a quote from the doctor that diagnosed him. That would be reliable. But piecing together the claim by a guest is not reliable and it is not verifiable. And it is synthesis. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What you may be missing is that Williams could very well have thought he had dysentery. Even if he didn’t. To suggest that he lied, as opposed to being misinformed, by removing exculpatory evidence reported by RSs incorrectly pushes the POV that he lied. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere in that article edit does it imply Williams is lying. Nowhere in this thread does it say that Williams is lying about the dysentery The discussion is about what reliable sources are saying. The hotel guest is not a reliable source about dysentery. I don't see anywhere in this thread that anybody but you is suggesting that Williams is lying. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Objective3000, that's what I was saying. There was a lot of confusion, even doctors reportedly were 'treating dysentery', so perhaps Williams was not 'misremembering' or 'exaggerating' but just understandably misinformed, like many others at the hotel. We have to include that perspective in a BLP Wikipedia article.Haberstr (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no confusion about what is and is not dysentery. And doctors know it when they see it. It is very bloody. It is also debilitating and requires medication and supportive intravenous fluids and electrolyte replacement and sometimes blood transfusions. You don't get a little dysentery. The cramping is also very painful. It is not a simple case of diarrhea, which some people likely had anyway, whether there had been flooding or not. There is no epidemiological evidence that there were cases of dysentery in New Orleans and no, a guy in a hotel saying he heard a doctor say there were cases of dysentery is not reliable. A doctor saying he diagnosed cases of dysentery in New Orleans during Katrina is reliable. And we'd have that if that were true because there would be reliable medical sources because the doctor would have reported it. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is disingenuous. The article says he said he had dysentery, and then says there was no dysentery. That suggests a lie – particularly given all the other attempts to portray him as a serial liar. Removing the exculpatory evidence clearly pushes this POV. How many things has he said and reported over decades of public reporting? What is the point of the paragraph if not to portray him as a liar? Why would you pull evidence that he wasn’t lying? We are not district attorneys trying to win a case at all costs. We are an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

But that's all original research. What if the hotel guest were saying, "No, I heard a doctor say Williams is lying. The doctor said Williams is the healthiest person he's ever seen. " Would you use that? I wouldn't. Or what if the hotel guest were saying, "I heard a doctor say there was no dysentery." Would you use that? I wouldn't. But I would use the CDC saying they didn't have any reports of dysentery. That doesn't make Williams out to be a liar. It says there weren't any reports of dysentery. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated in this Wikipedia article, it clearly suggests he is a liar. Indeed, I see no other point in including this, out of the millions of words he has reported over decades. Objective3000 (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

SW3: you're outnumbered on this 2 to 1, besides just being wrong on the Wikipedia policy. We really don't need to get into an edit war over something this obvious. For WP:BLP sake, it would be much better, essential in fact, to take the entire paragraph out instead of having a biased one-side-only paragraph without the obvious exculpatory addition. [Personal attack removed per WP:PA]. All we're asking is that both sides present their evidence and let readers decide what and who is right/wrong. Don't do it for them.Haberstr (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so and I've deleted that despicable personal attack you just made. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Too slanted

To have an entire paragraph in the lead devoted to the recent scandal, when the lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, just shows how this article is the epitome of one that is slanted toward recent events.

If you go to the New England Patriots' article, you will not find any references to Deflategate or Spygate in the lead, let alone in their respective seasons' leads.

Frankly I think this whole situation is a red herring to overshadow and denigrate (MS)NBC as a whole, but since Wikipedia isn't a forum, I don't want to tread those waters. --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that reports are coming out that he's suspended for 6 months, it may now make more sense to pursue lead changes, but I feel the WP:LEAD should summarize the contents of the article and not regurgitate them. What do you think? --Buffaboy (formerly Dekema2) (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

[14] NYT is beyond reproach for this now. Collect (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

NBC Decision

NBC made a rational business decision considering their position. You could call it a throwing him under the bus, or reacting correctly to a real scandal, or simply removing a perceived taint – whether or not justified. I have no idea why they made the decision. I have no idea or opinions on what the full truth of the situation is. I still have no opinions on the man. As an encyclopedia, let us treat this in a truly factual matter without some of the foul language and wild assumptions stated on this page. Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is the job of an encyclopedia to dispassionately state facts. There exist plenty of other venues where people can go beyond that mission. This is still a BLP. We should not engage in any efforts to destroy the many-decade reputation of a living person. If he deserves such treatment, feel secure in the fact that he will receive such treatment. Let us stick to the facts and use them in proportion to the entire history of the person. Objective3000 (talk)

In short - stick to the short and simple statement. Collect (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exaggeration or Lie?

The matter is that he said that his helicopter was hit with the rocket, when in reality he wasn't on board. Is this an exaggeration or a lie? I think, this is a pretty straight lie, and article should use the right word. Yahoo News article Yurivict (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, why do you think your opinion matters? I don't mean to be insulting -- but encyclopediæ are based on fact, not opinion. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean that anybody's opinion particularly mattered. I only advocated the choice of words in the article, as per their Merriam-Webster definitions. Being inside the helicopter vs. not being inside the helicopter is a very significant difference, and the article doesn't say it this way, essentially deviating from facts. And the choice of words got to be based on somebody's opinion, at least to some degree, no way around it. Yurivict (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

He was in a helicopter next to it during the incident. He may have not got the story totally correct. Or, it could be other people are misremembering or have other reasons to make statements. Unless you can read minds, you do not know that this was a lie. Have you been in a live-fire situation and think your memory exactly matches that of others? Again, this is an encyclopedia. And this is a BLP article. We have a higher responsibility than a blog, or barroom conversation. Objective3000 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

I just wanted to remind people where we are. Recent edits here quote Brietbart (of all sites) and a blog from the island of Niue (population 1,600) as if they broadcast facts. We have opinion articles, soldiers credited with psychological knowledge, an op-ed article, the word “lie” repeated over a dozen times without a speck of proof, assumptions that something couldn’t have been seen because no one else is published as stating it, an IP that wants to “convict” the subject of something, claims of psychological impairment, and just plain clear hatred aimed at the subject of the article.

Look, I’ve never even seen this guy on the news. I know almost nothing about him. I am simply appalled at the hate displayed here. It is an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. Clean up your act, or stop claiming that you have any concept of the term encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this statement 100%. Are there staff moderators on Wikipedia? If so, it may be necessary to try to get them to take a look at this page to stop this. Wikipedia is not a debate forum or a live-streaming of controversy, it is an encyclopedia. The heated, contemporary nature of this controversy is causing repeated edit wars as well as several violations of standard Wikipedia practices. The "puppy rescue" section, just to name one, was an embarrassment to Wikipedia. BaseballPie (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding things. The talk page is NOT the encyclopedia. Here, people have a right to bring up any source they want, though this is not a place for opinion outside of opinion about how to edit the article. If you don't like the puppy subsection here, then don't read it, but people still have a right to talk about it here and see if RS have or have not confirmed it, or whatever they're doing up there. On the other hand, if Breitbart, for example, got into the actual 'Article' that would be very un-encyclopedic, but so far so good?Haberstr (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Haberst, my bad. I wasn't super clear. I definitely understand the purpose of the talk page, but I personally was just referring to how many entries not worthy of Wikipedia have made their way onto the actual article, including the Puppy Rescue section. I read that live on the article the first time I came to it, which is largely what convinced me to start doing edits to this page. I agree with your perception of the talk page; I just think right now many people are going straight to the article to add questionable content.BaseballPie (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I missed the puppy thing when it was in the article, so that's why I was confused. Thanks for deleting it if you did!Haberstr (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the size of the sections devoted to Williams' misstatements are an embarassment to the encyclopedia and to the notion that Wikipedia upholds scholarly encyclopedic standards. Encyclopedias are intended to summarize, not cover in depth. This issue could be handled very nicley and in an encyclopedic manner with a third or less of the current space. It seems like many editors are encountering more details about this issue in the news, and then simply moving to insert these details here with no thought whatsoever on whether they should be inserted at all.Marteau (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. (This is why the Recentism banner is up at the top of the article right now.) Hopefully soon the controversial stuff will be reduced to its proper encyclopedic length and the banner can be removed. Sooner rather than later. Though as the story develops I sense that this disregard for the purpose of an encyclopedia will continue for at least a little while. BaseballPie (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the sections need to be reduced. But the other thing we need is to use better sources. We can't have "hotel guests" making claims about dysentery being diagnosed, while an edit about a doctor who was actually manning an EMS station less than mile from the Ritz gets deleted as a 'hit piece.' here. This kind of POV pushing is damaging the article. And these edits are getting worse with quotes from people who weren't even there claiming they know Williams had dysentery. Where's his doctor making this claim? Where is his camera crew telling us, yes, we saw that, too!"

The hotel guest and Williams' producer are describing what was commonly understood at the hotel at the time when Williams was there. The controversy is about whether he lied or made an innocent misstatement, right? Well then, common understandings are important. As for the doctor a mile away, we have at least two news reports about doctors that were actually in the hotel, treating guests in the triage center, so we don't need the conjecture of a doctor a mile away.Haberstr (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not our job to find excuses for Brian Williams. The article is starting to read like pulp fiction. I say we agree to throw out this edit cycle: "Brian Williams said he did X." "Joe said he never did it." "But Brian could have done it, says (fill in the blank.) because I talked to a guy who knows a guy who said he heard that happened." Cobbling together sources to craft a narrative, like here, is synthesis. There needs to be agreement that this type of editing will not continue. I suggest we agree on exactly what the content should be and set limits on how much is used. My original edit on this dysentery bullshit, pardon the semi-pun, is simply that Williams claimed he had it, and the CDC said they had no reports of dysentery. End of. All this effort to make it seem like, he could have had it is not encyclopedic. Same thing with all the bits about gangs. That section goes from being coherent and due weight, to totally undue with claims from multiple sources that there were gangs, etc., Not to mention, that when this gets put into the article, it's also poorly written. The National Enquirer sounds better. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on the dysentery piece and the writing quality, but that also means the overrun with gangs graf needs to go. You can't have it both ways, where hotel guests aren't credible sources for dysentery but somehow are for gang activity. And I completely agree that better sources are necessary. I think we can kill two birds (length of section, lack of source credibility) with one stone by simply deleting chunks of the section. Anything Williams said that doesn't have a VERY VERY reliable source questioning it needs to leave this article. And equally, anything backing a questioned claim by Williams needs to be extremely reliable or else go. Right now this article reads like a first-year journalism student's live-streamed blog of the controversy. Again I'd refer you to my response to Marteau ("Agreed... this is why) regarding recentism. BaseballPie (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. And the gangs BS with all those claims from people saying, I Was There, is total BS. I just read where the daughter of the Police Chief of New Orleans was staying at the Ritz. The Chief said he heard from civilians that the hotel was being overrun by gangs of men who were raping the women including his daughter. He said he got over there and no such thing was happening. The cops had been there all along, apparently. Which makes sense given the Chief's daughter was there.

If you're going to let in the Chief's anecdote about his daughter and his one visit to the hotel, then you need to allow in the other eyewitness reports from RS sources. Or we should leave everyone's eye-witness impressions out.Haberstr (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You wrongly labeled my edit as synthesis even though it is verbatim from an RS source, the Guardian. The Guardian simply is explaining the bonehead obvious fact that dysentery is often confused with milder gastrointestinal diseases like 'diarrhea'. Synthesis involves constructing a narrative from multiple sources.Haberstr (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, Williams never reported any of this stuff during his broadcasts. That's in RS and it bears mentioning. Apparently, he loves the talk show circuit and that's where he's making all these claims. And the stories get more and more detailed with every telling, but he didn't BS his broadcasts. That's something in his favor. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"but he didn't BS his broadcasts. ". Is that true? Are there no accounts of him "missttating" a story while serving as an anchor or reporter? Because if it is, the details of his misstatments do not belong under the "NBC Nightly News" main heading. Certainly his stepping down belongs there, but the details, if they were not done as part of NBC Nightly News, need to be moved. Marteau (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I'm not sure that all of the alleged misstatements were _not_ made on Nightly News broadcasts, but most of them were. On the other hand, the misstatement that triggered this whole frenzy was on the Nightly News, the one honoring the helicopter guy at the Rangers game.Haberstr (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Marteau, the problem is, Williams' is claiming these 'events' happened while he was reporting as the anchor. He gets received on these shows because he is the NBC anchor. But reliable sources have noted that the claims he makes about his experiences while reporting did not make it into his actual broadcasts. For example, all the stuff he told Douglas Brinkley for Brinkley's 2007 book, The Great Deluge, about the dystentery, Wiilliams never reported in his broadcast that he was ill. He never reported on his broadcast about the claim of 'armed gangs' in the Ritz or witnessing the suicide at the Superdrome. At least in those instances he didn't bring that to the broadcast. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Think about it. Why would a news anchor _not_ mention that he was sick? Why would a news anchor _not_ mention the conditions at his hotel? Because he is not the story. Only an egotist with warped priorities would mention such things in a city undergoing far far worse experiences. And, by the way, the Brinkley book is not a Williams biography, it's based on interviews with ALL of the NBC News crew and reporters. Again, BRINKLEY wrote about "armed gangs," and he does not indicate who made that description to him. Williams was NOT the only NBC staff member staying at the Ritz.Haberstr (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 of 'Katrina' section has lost any real fact-based controversy.

There were two controversial things that that paragraph is supposed to summarize. One is the now pseudo-controversy that 'the French Quarter wasn't flooded' and Williams misstated that it was. Well, no controversy there since the hotel is on Canal Street, not even actually in the French Quarter, and many sources say there were two or three feet of water in front of the hotel. The other 'controversy' is the floating body one. There just seems to be no way to know whether Williams misstated this or not. There definitely _were_ bodies floating in the area, just up the street, according to RS. Williams apparently was on the 8th floor, and could've looked out across a large section of Canal Street and seen something, I guess. Should this whole paragraph be severely reduced in size or deleted? At the very least it has become a minor aspect of the 'misremembering' controversy and should perhaps be the last paragraph in this section and not the first.Haberstr (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read the relevant passages. Brinkley is interviewing Williams. The quotes are in a reliable source and I'm putting that back into the article. Williams own words are best. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You must have misread the passage. I transcribed the relevant section in the section below. In no sense does Brinkley say or imply that Williams supplied him that impression. Brinkley in no way implies or says that that section of the book was from a Williams interview or in Williams' "own words." As I've said before, it is libelous to state in Wikipedia that Williams said something potentially career-damaging based on blind conjecture and no actual source.Haberstr (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Credibility

The article now says the NYTimes claims his “credibility plummeted”. This makes it sounds like he has no credibility. In fact, the NYTimes did say it plummeted – from the 23rd-most-trusted person in the country to 835th. That is, out of 320,000,000 people, he is the 835th most trusted. Clearly a misleading impression is being given by the article. Objective3000 (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The material is an exact quote from a secondary reliable source. We use what the sources say, as long as it is in quotes you have no force of argument. If you dislike the NYT, I suggest you write to the Public Editor there, explaining that you feel Brian Williams is actually more trusted than your local minister or rabbi. The poll was of nationally known figures (celebrities), and 835 is pretty bad as a matter of fact for that very limited category. The NYT article cited, moreover, does not give either number for his popularity, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

plummet (intransitive verb) 1) to fall perpendicularly <birds plummeted down> 2) to drop sharply and abruptly <prices plummeted>

Yep. I reckon going from 23 to 835 in a couple weeks classifies as "plummeting". Marteau (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by disliking the NYT, or what this has to do with my local rabbi or minister. I have been a NYT subscriber for nearly four decades. Also, I cannot find any source that claims this was a poll of celebs. Fact is, the poll says he is the 835th most trusted person in the U.S. and cherry-picking that quote suggests he holds no trust. Yes, his rating dropped from 99.999993% to 99.99972%. It didn't drop to 50%. Objective3000 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help: [15], [16], [17] and a few hundred more. It was unclear on Tuesday whether Williams, the most-watched news anchor in the United States who just signed a new contract with NBC reportedly for more than $10m year, would survive the turmoil. In the past week he has fallen from 23rd to 835th on a list of the most trusted people in the country, according to Celebrity DBI, an independent index of celebrity influence.

"Celebrity DBI" by the way only rates celebrities, as the Guardian noted. Collect (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As Collect says, it is a poll of celebrities. Furthemore, your calling the inclusion of this "cherry picking" is insulting to the editor who added it and implies biased editing. It is, of course, a direct and unaltered quote of the very first sentence of the NY Times article announcing William's suspension. Marteau (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Less insulting then his first, snarky response. I cannot follow any of the links. No matter, I know he dropped to 835th. But, the fact that he is still the 835th most trusted person in the U.S. isn’t in the article. Instead of saying what all those sources said, a quote was used that suggested he is untrusted. That is, it IS biased cherry-picking. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That his credibility has fallen is a well cited fact. Several sites have used the term "plummited". And one more time.. it is a ranking of celebrities, not everyone in the USA. The edit is a good one and calling it "biased" and "cherry picking" is unfounded and uncalled for. Marteau (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The other cites include the numbers. A cite was chosen that just used a highly negative adjective, without even the explanation in the same article that this was caused by the fact he was relentlessly pilloried online. I call that biased, cherry-picking and don't think an encylopedia should be a part of relentlessly pillorying in a BLP. There seems to be a Wikipedia fixation on selecting quotes with charged words. Objective3000 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am amazed that one would find the verbatim quote from the start of the New York Times article to hold any problems at all. Falling from 23/1000 to 835/1000 is a steep drop no matter how one looks at it (frankly, I never heard of anyone below the 500 mark on that list out of the 1000 total - but that would not be a reliable source). Collect (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The NYTimes is a reliable source. I don't understand Objective3000's argument at all other than this is battleground behaviour. See the thread above where he battled about the puppy story, totally denying that the Esquire piece was a first person account. Perhaps an RfC that can handle the sources issues and the synthesis that Haberstr keeps inserting. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Esquire quote was NOT a quote. I answered that. When there are no quote marks, it ain't a quote. And, your repeated accusations of battleground behaviour is battleground behaviour. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Will someone please put in a direct source for Williams' suspension, rather than NYT verbatim quote?

I can't edit the article because I haven't been editing Wikipedia long enough. I would suggest someone with privileges replace the verbatim NYT quote on Williams' suspension with a direct reference to NBC News President Deborah Turness' statement suspending him. The full text is available at http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/10/media/nbc-brian-williams-suspended/index.html?iid=EL Thing is: if I wanted to read the NYT, I wouldn't come to Wikipedia to read it. Direct-sourcing, when possible, is preferable. Bruiserid (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the NBC Press Release that should be cited. http://press.nbcnews.com/2015/02/10/a-note-from-deborah-turness/ FFM784 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dunno why one wants a primary source instead of a reliable secondary source - NYT is back in the body of the BLP as it is the only mention other than the lead. Collect (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources are excellent things. We don't always need some secondary source to confirm reality for us to know reality happened, is happening, or exists. Besides, there are plenty of people who would dispute with you that the NYT would qualify as a reliable secondary source. Those people may not be ones we want making too many edits, but the point is that "reliable secondary sources" can become too subjective to completely negate a primary source. There could be an instance where factual things happen, and no "reliable" secondary source" discusses it, so then what would we do? Ignore it? That's not wise. Also, in some parts of the world the "reliable secondary sources" say that the Holocaust never happened. That would make the primary sources far desirable. 71.46.49.251 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Brinkley book

In his book, The Great Deluge, Douglas Brinkley quotes Brian Williams where Williams claims to have contracted dysentery. In an effort to stop the synthesis and original research that has beset this section, I put those quotes into the article. Now an editor has claimed that Williams never said that. He/she claims it was Brinkley saying that. Here is the link to the Washington Post article about Brinkley's book [18]. Clearly, Brian Williams is doing the talking. This is a reliable source and Williams' explanations of his illness are very clearly stated by him. I think some of that belongs in the article. Anytime a reliable source quotes Williams directly, I think it should be there for clarity. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You are libeling Williams when you write that he said there were "armed gangs" in the hotel. Stop the OR and guesswork. Here's what the Washington Post article said (emphasis added):

But dangers beyond dysentery stalked the hotel. That same day, Brinkley wrote, “armed gangs had broken into the 527-room hotel, brandishing guns and terrorizing guests.”

Haberstr (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me add direct quotes from The Great Deluge, to make it perfectly clear that alleging that Williams said "armed gangs" is libelous. Go to the Washington Post article, and where it says "Brinkley wrote" click the word "wrote." That will take you to pages 318-319 of the book, where the following is written (bold added):

Pp 318-319: Meanwhile, NBC News anchor Brian Williams, after breaking the Superdome roof story, fell terribly ill from dysentery on Tuesday. … Just forty-eight [319] hours earlier, the Ritz-Carlton had seemed a smart place to be. It was a cavalier joke among NBC employees, in fact, that they were weathering Katrina ensconced in the spalike luxury of the Ritz. Only Tony Zumbado really felt the bad vibe. Without air-conditioning, by Tuesday the building felt like a stifling tomb. Armed gangs had broken into the 527-room hotel brandishing guns and terrorizing guests. Williams, in fact, had seen his first corpse floating down Canal Street from his eighth-floor window earlier that day. Then the fever consumed him. Delirium. He couldn’t eat or sleep. Jean Harper, the producer of NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, found her anchor in a very alarming state. “Jefferson Parish [Reserve Sergeant] Matt Pincus [of the sheriff’s office] was in the Ritz and Jean brought him to me,” Williams recalled. “I was about eight or ten steps from the exit door. They were going to lock in or down the Ritz, shut it to keep the gangs out. Nobody allowed out. No exceptions. It wasn’t the kind of situation where anybody recognized me or anything like that.

I highlighted the name Tony Zumbado because his name is the nearest name prior to the phrase "armed gangs." Could he have supplied that quote? Maybe but we don't know. Two facts: Brinkley wrote "armed gangs" in his book, and we don't know who (plural or singular) supplied him that description, if anyone. Brinkley was with the NBC crew during their time at the Ritz and in New Orleans, and maybe that was his own impression not taken from any NBC News person. In conclusion, please follow the Washington Post RS and state only that Brinkley wrote "armed gangs." Don't do OR and guess that Williams supplied that impression.Haberstr (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong about Brinkley being with the NBC crew at the Ritz. He was in New Orleans when the storm hit, got out and then turned around a few days later and got back in and started interviewing like crazy. The story of his getting out and then right back in is in the Rolling Stone [19]. The point for our purposes is that he talked to NBC producers in March 2006 according to the notes at the back of his book. He did not interview Williams, so the quotes he uses second hand, i.e., provided by the interviewees.Haberstr (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Gangs at the Ritz Carlton disputed by Manager

Apparently, the Ritz's manager at the time of Katrina contacted the Washington Post about the Williams' story. Here's the link. The manager says there were 1200 employees at the time , and that in preparation, she contacted the police, who according to her were a heavy presence at the hotel. She says she also set up a MASH unit manned by doctors to manage medical care. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly true; but self-serving statements from someone motivated to exaggerate in the opposite direction. The manager is not going to say "I did a crappy job, lost control of the situation, and endangered my guests.":)(unsigned)

It is not our task to make such possible assumptions - all we can do is use what reliable sources report. I do not, however, find the source supports "heavy presence at the hotel" (6 officers != "heavy presence" nor is that term in the article) nor "1200 employees" when the number obviously included guests in the 450 rooms - hotels with more than 2 employees per room will not survive!. The source does say there was medicine in the hotel, and doctors available to treat people. ("MASH" implies surgical facilities and is clearly used inaptly) Collect (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Collect for pointing those out. Those are not in the article edit. I, too, thought the MASH reference was inapt but it is what she called it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to use the word then - simply say "medical facility" as that is almost certainly what was there - a surgical unit would be exceptionally unlikely as it requires a lot more surgeons than she had. Collect (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to "set up a medical area in the hotel. . . " Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

She adds nothing to the 'gangs' paragraph or to what the subsection is supposed to be about, since her memories support what everyone else is saying. Everyone said there were cops hired by the hotel, for example, Also, some of her memories are false or misstatements. Everyone agrees a makeshift medical treatment center was set up. But it was not set up by her, but independently by doctors, according to two RS from back in 2005. She's rewriting what happened to enlarge her role, I guess. Not uncommon, I guess (smile). She also forgets, apparently, that the hotel had no medicines and the doctors had to go across the street and 'rob' a drug store to get those supplies. Also in several RS from back in 2005 and Brinkley's book. The story was famous. In any case, before you add that the hotel manager disputes that the doctors set up the medical 'clinic' and say she did, remember that that dispute is WAY OFF TOPIC.Haberstr (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Haberstr, Can you please show us your RS for such statements?

• You say the doctors set up in the Ritz independently and the hotel manager had nothing to do with it. Where's your RS for that?
• "She's rewriting what happened to enlarge her role." Do you have RS for that?
• "Also, some of her memories are false or misstatements." Where's the RS for that? I
• In the article you claim the hotel guest was referring to the clinic at the Ritz Hotel, yet the location is never specified in the sources you've cited. Do you have another source?. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place. Strong RS and direct quotations from doctors who were there backing up all the starred points are in the "60% of 'Hurricane Katrina' section should be deleted" section below. Not only for the triage clinic, but also for the security situation, looters inside the hotel, and 3 to 5 feet of water surrounding the Ritz.Haberstr (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

60% of 'Hurricane Katrina' section should be deleted

Since this is a 'biography of a living person, I believe we should limit the Katrina section to strongly evidenced (and self-aggrandizing?) misstatements or exaggerations, and delete everything else. Paragraph by paragraph: (1) It's RS established that Canal Street was flooded so there was no exaggeration there. It's RS established there were dead bodies floating nearby, so the charge is weak that Williams was misstating when he said he saw a dead body float by the hotel. (2) His colleagues and Brinkley said Williams had dysentery. Obviously they were confused. Honest and innocent mistake by non-doctors, end of non-story. It is a misstatement so we might keep it anyway, but is it really controversial? At least we should greatly reduce the number of words in this paragraph. (3) Keep this, it's the only 'aggrandizing' misstatement, and seems reasonably clear. (4) Williams used a figure of speech, "overrun with gangs." This phrase is ambiguous in meaning, and Williams may or may not have been exaggerating, but if I had to guess (not that it matters) I'd say he was. Anyway, it's all guesswork: the guests had various impressions, they were scared, Brinkley (who was there) wrote that there were 'armed gangs' threatening guests, and RS confirm there was serious looting across the street. I'm not sure about this paragraph, but certainly it should be greatly reduced in size. Just say he said the hotel was "overrun with gangs" and different eyewitnesses also there at that time have similar, different, and contradictory impressions. Don't use the word "refute" though. Note also that nothing in paragraph 4 is puff-me-up exaggeration after the fact, which seems to be the main 'charge' against Williams. The only paragraph that has that stuff, clearly, is paragraph 3.Haberstr (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, can you show here exactly where in the sources you've cited actually say the "makeshift clinic" was in the Ritz? I read through those sources, which have been used previously, but in prior edits it never said the clinic was actually in the Ritz. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are two 2005 sources: [20] (QUOTE: Dr. Brito, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), was attending a medical conference in New Orleans when Katrina struck. He and a few colleagues set up a triage center in the lobby of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, where they treated patients for four days ...) and [21] (QUOTE: On Tuesday [August 30], [Dr. Henderson, a pathologist] made his first foraging run to a drug store where he joined a pharmacist and some New Orleans police who broke in and cleaned out the pharmacy shelves so that they could stock a clinic in the bar at the Ritz. ... The clinic was staffed by some family physicians who had been attending a meeting at the hotel before the storm.)Haberstr (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a 2005 'as it happened' source on the security and general situation at the hotel that contrasts very sharply with the way the former hotel manager described it in the Washington Post: [22] (QUOTE: At the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on Canal Street, Phyllis Patrick said she and other hotel guests were in "dire straits." The hotel has been trying to bring in buses to evacuate them, but she said the Federal Emergency Management Agency "will not let them in." ... "I don't believe that we have very much food left at all. We had no lunch today. All we're being given is a glass of water," she said. Off-duty police officers were guarding the hotel with shotguns to protect them from bands of looters outside, she said.)

There's much[23] much[24] much[25] (Source: A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina) (QUOTE: By the morning of Tuesday, August 30, the Ritz-Carlton was surrounded by three to five feet of water and Canal Street was flooding ...) more. This[26] eyewitness account by a doctor is outstanding, and confirms pretty much all of Williams' impressions (QUOTE: Looters broke into our hotel on a number of occasions. Some of them were let in by friends or relatives of the hotel employees.). Here's part of the August 30 e-mail by Dr. Henderson [27] sent out from the hotel, which also confirms Williams' impressions: (QUOTE: Things were obviously bad yesterday, but they are much worse today. Overnight the water arrived. Now Canal Street (true to its origins) is indeed a canal. The first floor of all downtown buildings is underwater. I have heard that Charity Hospital and Tulane are limited in their ability to care for patients because of water. Ochsner is the only hospital that remains fully functional. However, I spoke with them today and they too are on generator and losing food and water fast. The city now has no clean water, no sewerage system, no electricity, and no real communications. Bodies are still being recovered floating in the floods. We are worried about a cholera epidemic. Even the police are without effective communications. We have a group of armed police here with us at the hotel that are admirably trying to exert some local law enforcement. This is tough because looting is now rampant. Most of it is not malicious looting. These are poor and desperate people with no housing and no medical care and no food or water trying to take care of themselves and their families. Unfortunately, the people are armed and dangerous. We hear gunshots frequently. Most of Canal street is occupied by armed looters who have a low threshold for discharging their weapons. We hear gunshots frequently. The looters are using makeshift boats made of pieces of styrofoam to access. We are still waiting for a significant national guard presence. [NEW PARAGRAPH] The health care situation here has dramatically worsened overnight. Many people in the hotel are elderly and small children. Many other guests have unusual diseases. We have commandered the world famous French Quarter Bar to turn into an makeshift clinic. There is a team of about 7 doctors and PA and pharmacists. We anticipate that this will be the major medical facility in the central business district and French Quarter. [NEW PARAGRAPH] Our biggest adventure today was raiding the Walgreens on Canal under police escort. The pharmacy was dark and full of water. We basically scooped the entire drug sets into gargace bags and removed them. All under police excort. The looters had to be held back at gun point.)Haberstr (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the hotel manager didn't arrange for the doctors to be at the hotel. She was the hotel manager. What she has to say speak directly to the conditions inside the Ritz. What was happening outside is not relevant to what Brian Williams said about gangs inside. Adding all the conditions that existed outside the hotel is undue. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about whether the doctors set up the triage clinic or not. Williams makes no reference to who set up the triage clinic. The evidence is overwhelming that the Ritz was a dangerous, chaotic place. This confirms Williams' general sense of things there. We have one guest who says he was exaggerating. We have other guests who say criminals had gotten inside the hotel. This is an ambiguous draw, no one can say if 'gangs' were inside the hotel. And, more important, Williams has been saying the exact same thing about the hotel conditions from 2005 to 2014. No changes, no exaggerating over time to make himself seem more heroic, which is the main 'charge' against him.Haberstr (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't want to start sounding like some of the Katrina-denial idiocy that is posted on conspiracy sites. Objective3000 (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding sources

Douglas Brinkley was not with Brian Williams in New Orleans at the time of Katrina. The source is quoting Brinkley's interview with Williams after Katrina. The words Brinkley is credited with speaking in the article her are actually Brian Williams' words as he relates them to Brinkley. I could not find any source that claims Douglas Brinkley was with Brian Williams in New Orleans. It does appear at first glance that the Washington Post writer is attributing the experience and the words directly to Brinkley, but a close reading will show that is not actually the case. This is the article here.

These are the quotes:

• The newsman made it back to the Ritz. Sickness was coming on strong. He was “fading in and out,” he said. “Somebody left me on the stairway of the Ritz-Carlton in the dark on a mattress.” Williams said he was delirious with fever and unable to eat.

• But dangers beyond dysentery stalked the hotel. That same day, Brinkley wrote, “armed gangs had broken into the 527-room hotel, brandishing guns and terrorizing guests.” Williams said he lay “eight or ten steps from the exit door. They were going to lock in or down the Ritz, shut it to keep the gangs out. Nobody was allowed out. No exceptions.”

In this instance, Brinkley is still quoting Brian Williams. An earlier edit makes it clear that Brinkley's book is being used and that Williams' quotes are from the book interview. Also, I'm going to restore the Ritz hotel's general manager's quote. I see no reason why they should be removed.

Without this information, it makes it appear that Brinkley is actually there experiencing this and that he is verifying what Williams' has said. None of that is supported by reliable sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it really looks like you are saying that words from Brinkley's article should only be used when they are harmful to Williams. Just what it looks like from an observer who knows little about either party. Objective3000 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Brinkley wrote a book, not an article. The book is a collection of interviews Brinkley did with people who were in New Orleans for Katrina. That includes Williams. These are not Brinkley's words, they are Williams'. But in the way they were presented in the article, it made them look like they were Brinkley's. In addition, other edits claimed Brinkley was in New Orleans with Williams and there are no sources that say that. I can't make that any plainer, sorry. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything that is not a quote is Brinkley's words, I'm flabbergasted you don't understand that. When he quotes Williams, the best we can do is look at the footnotes and guess either (1) the interviewee supplied the second-hand quotes from Williams, or (2) Brinkley relied on another unstated source for the Williams quotes. As for the stuff that is not quoted, we should assume, tentatively, that the interviewee supplied that perspective. Based on the footnotes in the book, BRINKLEY NEVER INTERVIEWED Brian Williams.Haberstr (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On the first *, no one says any differently. And PLEASE NOTE that that paragraph is sourced, Footnote 65, to "Interview with Terry Ebbert, March 8, 2006." Is your OR contention that what Williams says there is untrue? Put it on your blog not in the encyclopedia. His producer, Jean Harper, who was there at the time, said at the time -- look a few sentences later in the same book -- that Williams was in an alarming state. In conclusion, there's no controversy over the "*" material so it should not be in the Katrina section or referred to there.Haberstr (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On the second *, PLEASE NOTE that that paragraph is sourced, Footnote 66, to "Interview with Tonya Brown, September 30, 2005." So, NO, Brinkley is not "quoting Brian Williams" as far as we can tell. As best we can tell, from the FOOTNOTE, is that another person, New Orleans local Tonya Brown, more or less supports the Williams recollection that the hotel was "overrun with gangs," except that she says they were armed.Haberstr (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Myra DeGersdorff former manager paragraph is irrelevant, prosecutorial, unbalanced, and should be deleted

The former general manager of the Ritz-Carlton, Myra DeGersdorff, contacted the Washington Post to refute the claims made by Williams regarding the conditions at the Ritz during Katrina. In a telephone interview, DeGersdorff recalled that she enlisted several local police to stay at the Ritz. She said that at any given time, there were at least "six or seven" officers on hand. She also had Ritz employees man the doors, and she set up a medical area in the hotel that was stocked with medicine and staffed by over a dozen doctors. DeGersdorff said that there was an instance of several men attempting to get in, but they were repelled by the police. In addition, in September 2005, during Katrina, New Orleans Police Chief Eddie Compass told The Times-Picayune that his daughter was staying at the Ritz-Carleton during the storm. Chief Compass said he heard from "civilians" that "a band of armed thugs had gotten into the Ritz-Carlton hotel and started raping women," including his daughter. Compass rushed to the Ritz, "only to find that although a group of men had tried to enter the hotel, they weren't armed and were easily turned back by police."

(Bold added to the above.) This paragraph an editor continues to try to add has numerous problems. The most obvious ones are in the phrase "refute the claims made by Williams." First of all, she is not refuting. She is stating her recollection, which jars severely by the way with pretty much all the news reporting and eyewitness accounts about the Ritz in August/September 2005. Williams is also stating his recollections. No one is refuting anyone, because there are conflicting accounts and we don't have a time machine allowing us to go back in time and see who is telling the truth. Secondly, the "claims made by Williams" part. WHAT claims by Williams? We have his three words, "overrun with gangs," that's the only disagreement. Williams doesn't opine about the police at the Ritz, other people do. He doesn't opine about whether Ritz employees manned the doors. He doesn't opine about who set up the triage clinic, and in fact agrees that there was one. He doesn't have an opinion about whether on one occasion a group of looters was barred from entering the hotel. Williams has ONE opinion, "overrun with gangs." On that one issue, the gangs/looters matter, we should allow a balanced set of opinions, and we do that in the paragraph that precedes the DeGersdoff paragraph. We should add her opinion there, briefly (former manager said no gangs in hotel), so it can balance the other opinions that looters or a 'criminal element' did get into the hotel. The Chief of Police story is too long, probably not relevant to anything Williams said since it is just one incident and we don't know when it occurred, and is piling on. Haberstr (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing on edits under Hurricane Katrina

I've trimmed away the edits about looting outside the hotel. They're not relevant to what Williams has said about gangs inside the hotel. In addition, Williams said he had dysentery. There is no source that says he didn't have it. And there is no medical source to confirm he did. Therefore, it should just stand alone because nobody is saying he didn't have it. However, since he was in the Ritz, the hotel manager says she set up a medical clinic with over a dozen doctors and medicine. Williams says he had no medicine. That's the only contradiction I could find. Adding in quotes from hotel guests, etc. does not speak to Williams' having dysentery. Neither does the CDC report. Neither of these confirm or refute his claim. Adding them in violates WP:SYNTH. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there support for keeping this section trimmed to what it is now? Please indicate support or oppose with suggestions, but please keep lengthy discussions for the discussion section. Thanks.

Support/Oppose

• Support, for all the reasons I've indicated above. This section is about what Williams said and any contradicting/confirming information should be first hand knowledge and speak directly to what Williams' claimed. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reliable evidence that points to any problem with his reporting on the subject. So, what's it doing here? If reliable sources show an actual error occurred, and that it was deliberate, then it can be added. Objective3000 (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The story is moving and changing and should not be frozen. Much of the Katrina skepticism today more and more just seems to be a feeding frenzy and pseudo-controversy generated by one Washington Post writer and websites that 'hate' NBC/MSNBC. There is massive evidence that the hotel was flooded, chaotic and dangerous, there is strong evidence that looters had gotten inside, and there's no reason to be skeptical of Williams' claim that he saw a body floating in Canal Street since many people did and photographed them. He says he got dysentery and perhaps that's what his 'outside his specialization' doctor at the makeshift clinic guessed it was, and his colleagues said he had dysentery so they were similarly and innocently confused. No there there either. And so on and so forth. The ONLY thing solid is the suicide 'exaggeration' so I'm going to move that to the top.Haberstr (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support Genie is no longer in bottle. NYT has "The news came a day after it was revealed that NBC was starting an internal “fact-checking” investigation into Mr. Williams that would review the Iraq incident, which occurred in 2003, as well as other examples of his reporting, including during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investigation will be led by Richard Esposito, the head of NBC’s investigative unit."[28]
  • At [29] AP has a lengthy mention of Katrina. Not just "one Washington Post writer" for sure. And NYT is not really noted to "hate" NBC. Collect (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it does. And the article appears to include several people supporting what Williams said. And yes, NBC said they would investiagte what was said about Katrina, among other things. But, where have they said that Katrina reporting was flawed? Objective3000 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Brinkley writes about Williams' Katrina coverage

This new CNN article by Douglas Brinkley [30] is balanced and he's a person who was very well-informed in real time about Williams' Katrina coverage, including his 'dysentery'. Brinkley was there just after the flooding hit, and started interviewing people immediately. Not that we need to put any of this in the Katrina section, which is reasonably well-done and balanced at the moment.Haberstr (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I interviewed Williams about his New Orleans experiences for my book "The Great Deluge." His personal narrative was riveting. Give him credit for breaking a dozen news stories during those dark days in 2005.

Online allegations now rage that Williams fabricated what he saw and experienced in post-Katrina New Orleans. That is unfair to him.

Everything was helter-skelter in the Gulf South, and Williams did a public service by trying to make sense of the post-hurricane situation. Williams did have a dysentery-like condition (if not textbook dysentery), which he explained in an interview I did shortly after the Category 3 hurricane hit. "I couldn't keep anything down," he said. "That whole night was hazy. I couldn't get clarity of mind."

Overall, his reporting of the post-Katrina events is credible. Nevertheless, Williams-as-showman very well may have embellished or conflated or compressed some of the on-the-ground, in-the-moment facts, but it's silly now to nitpick whether the dead body he saw was on Canal Street or Claiborne Avenue.

Haberstr (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Williams didn't make any of his claims on air. He made these claims in different venues, like the interviews with Fairfield University students, and with Michael Eisner and Tom Brokow during the 10 year anniversary. But according to the Washington Post this morning, everybody in the NBC newsroom knew these stories weren't true. But nothing was done because Williams had not made the claim on the Nightly News. That all changed when Williams attended the Rangers game with Sgt. Terpack, who was in the armoured division, not in the helicopters, and the announcer said Williams had been saved by Terpack when Williams' helicopter had been shot down. That was January 29, 2015. The next night, January 30th, Williams played that segment on the Nightly News, making the claim that his helicopter had been shot down. That is when the actual crew members took to the NBC facebook page and complained. Stars and Stripes picked that up.

The WashPost reported this morning: "But inside NBC, the Iraq fabrication was seen as the most damaging. “When helicopter crew members get shot down and you attach yourself to what they went through, it’s pretty outrageous,” a person familiar with internal discussions said. According to the Post, the higher ups knew Williams had been fabricating stories for years, and that it was a joke in the newsroom, but when he did it on the Nightly News, they had to do something. They have questioned all his stories including the dead body floating, the suicide story and the claim of dysentery. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the Washington Post piece. The key question is, what are "these stories"? No one is quoted stating which specific stories were exaggerated. And we can't write: "Wa Post reported that scuttlebutt around the office was that some stories were exaggerated." In any case, we have the Iraq story and the suicide story as two instances of clear exaggeration. As for the other stuff, it depends vitally on inaccuracy. The Washington Post, for instance, is STILL talking about the Ritz being in the French Quarter and the French Quarter not being flooded, as if that condemns Williams.Haberstr (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Office grapevine chat. Is this serious? Let's rename Wikipedia to "Watercooler Chat". Objective3000 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Poynter blog post

The edit from the Poynter.org blog cannot be used. Firstly, Mr. Poynter discloses that Brian Williams wrote an endorsement for his book or blog or whatever. See here at end of blog post. Secondly, it's his biased opinion. None of the newspapers have said, here's the body Brian Williams saw. So unless someone inside the hotel photographed the body floating outside the hotel, no you cannot cobble that together to make a claim that Williams' story is true. Please see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a blog (what does that mean?), Tompkins is a major figure in the mainstream reporting/news world, and it is POV to remove his reporting. It is not "biased opinion" to find two maps made by major news organizations and then report that the maps show that MANY bodies were recovered in the "general area" of the hotel. Williams specifically said the body he allegedly saw was MOVING PAST the hotel. Therefore bodies recovered nearby are relevant to and support his statement. We need to balance the statement by the hotel manager or this paragraph is POV.Haberstr (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Haberstr, The Poynter edit violates WP:SYNTH. And please explain what this edit summary means. What links are broken? I've added to the section and you keep deleting it for no reason other than the claim of these 'broken links.' You appear to be deleting any material you don't like. The lede para in that section was poorly written and not clear at all. In addition, it needs to have Williams' comment since that is the crux of all his problems. Why not show that? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop with the WP:SYNTH accusation. Here is what Wikipedia says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." THERE WAS NO COMBINATION in the Poynter-based sentence. He wrote exactly what that sentence says.Haberstr (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop adding to the section. It needs to be reduced in size. If you want to make a Wikipedia page just on Williams' problems, fine, but a subsection should be a tightly written summary. In particular your long direct quotations and expansive reporting of how the controversy evolved are not germane. This is what is germane: he reported and spoke inaccurately, eye witnesses contradicted his recollections, he got into trouble.Haberstr (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just compare your edits and you'll see numerous cases where you removed Wikipedia internal links (for example you replace RPG with RPG) and where you replace full citations that includes a named ref, such as this -- ref name="NOAdv1">Simerman, John (February 6, 2015). "NBC News anchor Brian Williams' comments about dead bodies, Hurricane Katrina starting to gain attention, draw scrutiny". The New Orleans Advocate. New Orleans. Retrieved February 6, 2015. -- with a bare, unnamed and/or incomplete reference.Haberstr (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Are you joking? You reverted a perfectly good edit that was well sourced because you don't like how I linked to RPG? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Inaccurate Iraq Recollections: Encyclopedia sub-section vs detailed news report

One editor may not understand how to write subsections in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a compilation of detailed news reporting. One of the keys to making Wikipedia an encyclopedia is summarizing. This often involves reducing direct quotes down to paraphrases. Also, encyclopedia subsections keep critical facts in, and generally remove what people involved are alleging, or about what they say their feelings are. (If you were writing an entire entry on Williams' troubles, you could leave all that stuff in, perhaps.) Please note how the top blockquote (302 words) employs the techniques I've described, and the bottom one (426 words) does not:

Version 1

On February 4, 2015 Williams recanted an inaccurate story he had told on the Nightly News January 30 broadcast, about being aboard a military helicopter during the Iraq invasion that was hit by an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) round and forced to land.[33] Soon after it aired, Williams' story was criticized by Lance Reynolds, a flight engineer who was on board one of the three helicopters that had been attacked.[34] Reynolds and other crew members said they were forced to make an emergency landing, and that it was a half hour to an hour later that Williams' Chinook helicopter arrived.[33][35]

In his 2003 reporting of the incident Williams had said a helicopter in front of his was hit by the RPG and forced down.[33] Notably, in a 2007 retelling of the incident, Williams said, "... I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us, and it hit the chopper in front of us."[36][36] The Washington Post reported that Williams' craft was at least a half hour behind the helicopter hit by the RPG, according to its crewmembers, so he could not have looked down the RPG tube.[36] In a 2013 interview Williams also inaccurately recounted the incident, stating that his helicopter that was "hit and crippled by enemy fire."[37][38]

On February 4, Williams apologized and said he had "made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago."[39] NBC News President Deborah Turness announced on February 6 that there would be an internal probe into Williams' Iraq reporting.[40] The next day Williams announced he would temporarily step aside from anchoring the Nightly News broadcast.[41] On February 10, 2015, Turness announced Williams' suspension from Nightly News for six months without pay. NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke joined the statement, calling Williams' actions "inexcusable" and the suspension "severe and appropriate."[5]

Here is the other editor's much longer and more detailed subsection:

Version 2

On February 4, 2015, Williams recanted a story he told on the January 30th broadcast in which he said that during the March 2003 Iraq invasion, he was aboard a Chinook helicopter that was hit by an RPG and forced down. Williams said, “The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG. Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”[33][34]

Soon after the story aired, crew members on the 159th Aviation Regiment’s Chinook that was hit by two rockets, took to the Nightly News Facebook page and disputed Williams’ account. They later told the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, that Williams was nowhere near that aircraft, or the two other Chinooks flying in the formation that took fire. The crew members said Williams arrived in the area about an hour later on another helicopter after the other three had made an emergency landing. They were upset because Williams had been telling that story for years. [35][36]

Williams' told another version of the story in 2007 which also differs from the recollections of on-site military personnel.[37] Williams said in the interview, "... I looked down the tube of an RPG that had been fired at us, and it hit the chopper in front of us."[37] The statement varies with the recollections of crew on the helicopter that sustained RPG damage, that it was at least a half hour ahead of Williams' craft, making it impossible for him to "look down the tube" of the RPG that damaged the other helicopter.[37]

On the February 4 broadcast of Nightly News, Williams apologized and said he had "made a mistake in recalling the events of 12 years ago."[38] NBC News President Deborah Turness announced on February 6 that there would be an internal probe into Williams' Iraq reporting.[39] The next day Williams announced that he would step aside from anchoring the Nightly News broadcast for "several days" to remove a distraction during an NBC investigation of his actions.[40] The New York Times reported that Williams' credibility dropped after he acknowledged the false recollections.[41]

On February 10, 2015, NBC News president Deborah Turness announced Williams' suspension from NBC Nightly News for six months without pay.[5] NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke stated that Williams' actions were "inexcusable" and the suspension "severe and appropriate," but that Williams also "deserves a second chance" to win back trust.[5]

Haberstr (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Where are the "broken links" you claim in the edit summary where you keep deleting the edit? BTW, I haven't added all that much to what was already there. You've cut it down and eliminated the quote from Williams which is key to the entire issue. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support Version 2. It makes it very clear to the reader what the issue is. It has Williams' own words and is well sourced. The crew members complaints are there as well. This version gives a flow of how things unfolded. It's clear and concise. Haberstr keeps removing it with the edit summary that "links were broken" by version 2 which makes no sense to me since he never explains that. I went back and looked and didn't find any broken links after the edit was posted. Version 1 reminds me of a person who doesn't want to say something out loud, so they mumble it. Version 2 makes it very clear what happened.btw, this is what the edit really looked like before I edited it: here. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This subsection did not suggest we vote. I'm just trying to teach you how to write a small subsection of a large Wikipedia encyclopedia article on Brian Williams. The excess detail is appropriate either for a Wikipedia article only about Williams' troubles, or for a long-form news site. As for the broken links, they're obviously broken, you just need to look at your version and compare it with mine. You removed the named references and replaced them with bare or otherwise reduced references. Here are your references from your first two paragraphs: Here are my references from my first paragraph: I hope the compare/contrast helps. You did understand how you removed or otherwise damaged many Wikipedia internal links?Haberstr (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

In lead graf, "Williams . . . is listed as the anchor and managing editor" cites an outdated web page

Editor changed "Williams . . . was the anchor and managing Editor . . ." to "Williams . . . is listed as the anchor and managing editor . . .", citing a webpage at http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3667173/#.VN3_1MbCdxc

This NBC News "about us" wepage about Williams is outdated: the "timeline" on the page stops in 2009, and the body copy on Williams refers to Rock Center with Brian Williams as having debuted in 2011, with no reference to its subsequent cancellation. Yes, the copyright on the page is 2015, but the page is clearly outdated in substance.

NBC is still calling the staff biographies webpage "NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams," when, in fact, Williams has been scrubbed from the show's title. They are still listing Lester Holt, on his linked biography, as the "Weekend Anchor." He has assumed the weekly anchor chair. So, clearly, NBC is behind on editing the full scope of its webpages, and I'm not sure placing emphasis on what Williams is currently "listed as" is as important as the fact that his name has been removed from the title of the show.

I prefer "Williams . . . was the anchor" to "Williams . . . is listed as the anchor" -- it's closer to the truth of the matter. Bruiserid (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. He's suspended without pay so past tense fits for now. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)!

RfC

The consensus is to exclude this content. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the section on the Iraq helicopter story include Brian Williams' recounting of the story as he told it on January 30, 2015 on the Nightly News? SW3 5DL (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

“The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG. Our traveling NBC News team was rescued, surrounded and kept alive by an armor mechanized platoon from the U.S. Army 3rd Infantry.”[33][34]

• Note: for clarity please keep discussion separate. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Support. What Williams said is relevant and aids the reader in understanding what the matter is. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There are simply too many versions of the story out there and I see no real order of precedence to establish one single version as being the accepted version from Williams. A simple recounting of the basic variable "facts" should be sufficient, i.e. "Williams told various versions of his story such as him being shot down, seeing the helicopter in front of his shot down, seeing the shooter who shot him down", etc. GraniteSand (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the version he told on January 30th on the Nightly News that got the issue started. I've added that to the question. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's best not to alter the question after someone has answered it, unless that change is clearly annotated in the question. Regardless, the particular version of the story which was up in the air at the time he was publicly and credibly challenged isn't important enough to quote verbatim on this article. I'm still of the opinion that, with so many versions floating around and all of them causing him problems, a summary of versions is the most efficient and informative context we can present readers. If they're curious as to the exact wording of a particular version they can easily follow a citation. GraniteSand (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose A simple recounting, as GraniteSand advocated. There is FAR too much text devoted to these issues. FAR too much. It's becoming absurd. This is an encylopedia. Encyclopedias summarize, they don't provide wall-to-wall coverage. Marteau (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The relatively lengthy coverage of the helicopter story is already an obvious undue weight problem. The section needs to be trimmed, not expanded via full quotes or otherwise. In a George W. Bush-sized article such detail might be appropriate, but not the current Brian Williams article. Writing large sections in hopes that the rest of the article will someday be expanded is explicitly against BLP policy. Manul ~ talk 09:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep it short. Undue weight should be avoided in the context of a decades-long career. Objective3000 (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose simply because there's no one version of "what Brian Williams said" and that's part of the issue. It's true that the most recent version, presented at the Rangers game and then on his news broadcast, kicked off the current issue, but it wouldn't have had legs if it weren't immediately apparent that Williams himself didn't always give that account. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Let him speak for himself. What people are saying about him is far worse. Dr. Mike (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

Collapse political edit

Just what constitutes the appropriation of the term "journalist" for Brian Williams? Can Wikipedia provide a substantive definition of "journalist" in order to place the career and position of Williams in fulfilling the definition? From all the evidence at my disposal, the likes of corporate-managed mouthpieces throughout the gamut of corporate media outlets are just that: mouthpieces for government versions of events, propagandists for maintenance of the status quo corporate-military-financial oligarchy. Wikipedia, by default, is a co-conspirator in misleading the populace. Off with your heads, too. 50.136.216.158 (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia says what the reliable sources say. Stickee (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

More of Williams' accounts being questioned

While editors here have been involved in back and forth discussions of the material already in the article, several more of Brian Williams' accounts of his past have come into question. A reasonable summary is at http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/media/brian-williams-investigation-questions/ , which I include because it mentions all of, them, rather than because it's the best source for each. In short:

• Williams has said he was embedded with Seal Teams Six, but Special Operations personnel claim that they never embed reporters with Seal Team Six.
• Williams has said he was at the fall of the Berlin Wall, but Tom Brokaw, who verifiably was there, has said that he was the only American reporter present initially. NBC has seemingly said both when either account was convenient. Williams certainly reported from the scene after the checkpoints had opened.
• Williams was at Catholic University as a student when Pope John Paul II visited. He has said that he met the Pope in person after chatting up a Secret Service agent to get his itinerary. This account has also been disputed.

I absolutely sympathize with those who think that the current controversy dominates this article. However, if we're going to cover it at all, we ought to cover it thoroughly. Since these allegations are part of the story, they ought to be part of the article. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go aheand and challenge the notion that "if we're going to cover it at all, we ought to cover it thoroughly." It does not need to be all or nothing. A perfectly reasonable way of dealing with this is to paraphrase and to summarize. The current coverage here rivals many newspapers, and it's not our goal to give newspapers a run for their money. Coverage of this issue needs to be drastically pruned. As in, by 2/3rds. Marteau (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with summarizing, and eventually that will have to happen unless there's an article split. I don't think there should be omissions just because of the space issue. Also, I have said it before, but I wish there was more in the article about Williams' career as an anchor generally, which would help balance the article. He does in fact have many positive accomplishments, but prior to his Rangers speech the article summarized his tenure as NBC Nightly News anchor in one paragraph. It's no wonder that the present issues outweigh that in the article prose. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In a WP:BLP, we need to be very careful. The fact that some people say bad things about the person is grist for some mills. But, we don't include suggestions of lying based on someone else saying "I don't recall" or "I didn't see that", neither of which is contradictory. This has nothing to do with space. It has to do with accuracy. An encyclopedia shouldn't try to win a headline war. When the dust settles, WP can post all the facts. One would hope it wouldn't also have to post an apology if it published too quickly. Objective3000 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Limiting the Controversies section only to the Iraq-helicopter episode and the Hurricane Katrina coverage, and skipping -- for now -- all the subsequent questionable yarns actually has a good rationale. The Iraq-helicopter story is the one which NBC itself has found to be a misrepresentation, and for which Williams was suspended. The Hurricane Katrina coverage was what vaulted Williams toward the anchor stratosphere, and is what won NBC News the Peabody. Both were broadcast as part of NBC Nightly News.

The Seal Team Six, Berlin Wall, and Catholic University narratives were not related on the newscast proper, have not been elementally entwined with NBC Nightly News and Williams' role there as anchor, and are decidedly secondary. And more like them may well continue to come up as time goes on. They don't rise to the level of importance that should have them included in the article. Bruiserid (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. There are reliable sources that show the network is questioning his Katrina stories, so we're good there. As for the Berlin Wall bits, etc., unless the network comes out and says they are investigating those stories, then I don't see a reason to place them in the article at this time. I understand what the IP is saying about getting the whole story, but unless these tales are under investigation, and the outcome impacts Williams' place at the network, I'd prefer to leave them on the talk page.

And I'm still not comfortable with any source that offers somebody's opinion when they weren't even there with Williams or there at the same time as Williams. These bits about, "Joe the Shmo says he saw the Berlin Wall come down on Thursday, the same day Williams' claims he was there." And then it will be sourced to a blog or sometimes to a real source like The WashPost. But then when you read the WashPost article, you can't find that claim anywhere in it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! OK! The lies are lies only if the subject's employer says so.
If it is the WP, the NYT, CNN, the Picayune-Tribune, or anyone else who finds the lies, then by your standards, well, then, it's not encyclopaedic to include.
Nice! ! XavierItzm (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. But if we open the article to every story going round, then this BLP becomes rumor central and not an encyclopedia article. If you want to include every bit about his school claims and whether or not he saw the Berlin Wall fall, and add in quotes from all those who question his claims of a 'hardscrabble life' in middle-class New Jersey, then create a separate article. But I don't think an article that consists of innuendo, rumor, and gossip will stand for long. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources you mentioned only state that there are such claims or, even less, that some people didn’t happen to see the same things. Hardly surprising given the situations. They do not indicate “lies”, and using bold text doesn’t make them lies. Pardon me for saying so, but I tend to think anyone casually tossing around the word “lie” here, has an agendum and should avoid BLPs. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are adjudicating yourself an interesting censorship position.
If the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and the main New Orleans journal reported it, the encyclopaedic action is to include, as reported by the Reliable Sources. You could still qualify as "allegations," "reports," etc.
However, your choice here is to censor what the WP, the NYT, CNN, etc., have openly reported.
Interesting. XavierItzm (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any of the ponderings that you keep adding to the article are true. These are just people saying that they think some additional statements by Williams are unlikely. This is a gross WP:BLP violation. No, WP does not censor. But, it is judicious on what to include. You do not flood an article on a man with a 30-year career with every potentially negative scrap of gossip you can scrape up. The section is already tagged WP:undue weight, and you’re adding a negative story with nothing but conjecture. How can you seriously think it’s acceptable to include the line: "'that doesn't pass any sniff test,' another Seal officer told Bergen."? Frankly, if I came upon this page, I would stop reading right there and say this article is too biased to take seriously. Someone please remove this paragraph. Objective3000 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:BLP that calls for any Wikipedia editor to decide when to censor the NYT, CNN, or the Washington Post, which are generally accepted in Wikipedia as RS.
Are you saying the NYT, CNN, or the WP are not RS?
XavierItzm (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The policy is to go with reliable sources. In this case, I don't think the Seal story is gossip. There's a record of Williams' saying it and the military is denying it. I've trimmed that section up a bit. We don't need all those reporters' names. It's enough to say CNN. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The 'military' is not denying it outright. They are using weasal words to make non-denial denials because they don't like what he is saying. That is, they are trying to censor Williams. Objective3000 (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC).

You keep mentioning it came from the "NYT, CNN, or the WP" as if those words were an incantation guaranteeing its includability. That a thing comes from a reliable source goes only towards its verifiability. Suitability for inclusion in an article is a different matter and is not guaranteed for any reliable source, see WP:ONUS "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion...While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted..." So please do stop mentioning it came from a reliable source... we know that. The question is not its verifiability, the question is its suitability. Marteau (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Gossip columns

Since when have Page Six and the Daily Mail become RS? There is plenty of actual negative comment here, deservedly so. Why do we need to add wild gossip and speculation from tabloid gossip columns? Will this be another embarrassment for Wikipedia? Would someone bring order to this article? Objective3000 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Daly Mail reference is merely that "Williams' name was removed from the "Nightly News" opening title credits." Are there any parties denying this assertion?
Besides, it is useless to question the Daily Mail's reportage, as the exact same thing has been reported by the Baltimore Sun and Ad Week. XavierItzm (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The article already states that he was suspended. How many ways must the same thing be repeated? This is a WP:BLP. Negative comments must not be included without consensus. And why would anyone consider for a moment an encyclopedia citing Page Six or the Daily Mail? Objective3000 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Having deleted the entry is prima facie evidence of bias.
People who might not like the Daily Mail or the New York Post's Page Six saying that the Brian Williams name has been removed from the Nightly News branding, could have left the Baltimore Sun reference
Deleting the whole entry, which is undeniably true, correct, and factual, shows a sickly attempt to sanitise and censor the Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

NBC's having removed Williams' name from the title of the broadcast is *different from having suspended him, and it's important. Further, it's not a "negative comment"; it's a fact. The Daily Mail is another argument -- but here's a further cite from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbc-suspends-brian-williams-as-its-lead-anchor-for-six-months/2015/02/10/bc6b79d0-b187-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html Bruiserid (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that we can say that this is an important difference without making an assumption. However, I combined the two closely related events that occurred on the same day without requiring a second paragraph. Objective3000 (talk) 12:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, what's the assumption? And I'm not arguing; I truly want to understand your reasoning -- Bruiserid (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The assumption is that removing his name from the title is different than suspending him, as opposed to an automatic consequence of general policy, specific contract, obvious edit, or some other trivial reason. It is an assumption that this is "important", and deserving of its own paragraph. Objective3000 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. With respect, I disagree on all points. It's not an assumption that Williams' name being removed from the title of the broadcast is different from his being suspended; it just is. If I said, "I woke with a terrible leg cramp, and I could not walk across the bedroom," those, also, would be two different things. They might be proximal in time; one might have been a consequence of the other; but they are two different things. The technicalities of why NBC News removed Williams' name are not public knowledge, but the removal itself is not trivial. As to the idea that this being important is an assumption, if that is the case, I'd say that every single point an author or editor includes in any article proceeds from his or her "assumption" that the point included is important. If we let out every point that any contributor had "assumed" to be important -- poof! No article.

Further, moving the broadcast's name change down into the helicopter/rpg section detracts from the article's orderly progress. It's something that happened to the Nightly News itself and belongs in the Nightly News section. By the time the reader has finished the section, he or she should know that the broadcast's title has had a material change. (And as an ancillary point, combining the suspension and the name change in one sentence muddies up the citation of the NBC News President's "Note" on the subject. Within the note, she suspended Williams, but she made no mention of changing the name of the broadcast. As the article reads currently, it implies that the broadcast's name change was addressed within the note on his suspension, and it was not.)

It appears from your comments that you object to Williams' current problems being mentioned at more than one spot in the article; once again, with respect, these are very large problems and have absorbed very considerable attention in the news-consuming population and in the media. While unfortunate for Mr. Williams, these current events pervade most aspects of most conversations on his career; it seems almost inevitable that allusion to them would occur in more than one place in a comprehensive article.

I would like to revert your edit but await your reponse and have no intent to start an "edit war." I just think the article is less good with this most recent edit. Bruiserid (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A name change logically follows a lengthy suspension. And they happened the same day. Which is why I put them together. I’m sure we will be hearing that his parking space has been reassigned, his dressing room rekeyed, and other related actions as some sources try to suggest that he will not return. But, this is for purposes of speculation. Talking about the network actions in three sections in an article that already has an undue-section tag is overkill. Yes, this moment in his 30-year career does dominate the discussion – today. Let’s avoid WP:Recentism.

Hmmm -- references to Williams' parking space and dressing room key seem to be imaginary, and, more important, unhelpful. We are talking about a change in the title of NBC News' keystone public broadcast, its Nightly News, and not changes that would be "inside baseball" within the NBC News organization. And we are not speculating about Williams' return. As to the name change "logically follow[ing]" the suspension, I'd say that's closer to an assumption than anything else in this section of our discussion has been. Please note, also, as regards "undue weight" -- the change in the broadcast's name is distinct from the "piling on," or lack thereof, in the "Controversies" section of the article. And I don't think we need to "avoid" this aspect -- Bruiserid (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding it. Two things happenned at the same time, Feb 10. I just combined them instead of leaving the same event split into two sections. And, of course they would remove his name from the title. He's not there. This article has become an extreme example of a failure of WP:BALASPS.Objective3000 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was merely responding to your enjoining us all to "Let's avoid" this. And we just disagree as to how Williams' suspension and the renaming of the broadcast should be treated. You see the events as one and the same, and I see them as distinct occurrences, each worthy of inclusion in the right spot. I don't think it's a matter of balance (yes, I read WP:BALASPS), undue weight, and all the rest. And the article does not really seem like an extreme example of anything. Editing a Wikipedia article is an iterative process, and there's really no need to label that process in a peremptory fashion. Once again, it's unhelpful. Bruiserid (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree that pointing out the disproportionate amount of space taken for a recent news story in a BLP about a person with a 30-year career is unhelpful. And, frankly, I think it is unhelpful to repeatedly characterize efforts at balance as unhelpful. WP guidelines give specific warnings to avoid what is happening to this article. Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not simply a recent news story, or, as implied, a mere footnote in a 30-year career. It's someone at the pivot point of public conversation, and of great influence within it, having been suspended from his job for admittedly misrepresenting elements upon which that conversation is based. And the "Controversies" section may have gotten as long as it has partly with editors going to great pains to demonstrate precisely how the controversies developed.

I don't have any problems with what is happening to this article -- it's just going back and forth, being edited -- nor do I think WP guidelines are at risk. And I don't believe my comments are disrupting efforts toward balance. I just disagree with your contention that a change in the name of the program is a small thing; or that the number of mentions of the suspension within the article is excessive; or that disagreements on these points constitute violations of Wikipedia norms on balance, undue weight, recentism, or anything else. Bruiserid (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The “controversies” section contains controversies that may have nothing whatsoever to do with the suspension. And they are written in a manner that suggests wrongdoing with hearsay evidence from detractors who have their own motives.Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is out of control. There is NO proof that Williams misrepresented anything related to Seal Team Six, Katrina, or the Berlin Wall. Yet, all these are piled in here suggesting that he lies about everything. The press these days tend to go after people like vultures over a wounded animal. But, that is not the mission of an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not "out of control." For now, the sections on Katrina, the Berlin Wall, and the Seal bit are all stable and should be left alone. Bruiserid is making a good point. I agree with him that the WP guidelines are not at risk here. He's attempting to edit collegially and should be supported in that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a section called Headline News.' It stands to reason that the encyclopaedic content regarding it should be self-contained. Right now, someone interested in the Brian Williams era would have to hunt all over the Brian Williams article to discover that Headline News with Brian Williams is no more. Fairly absurd, I'd say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's in the lede. Do you really think it needs to be stated in three sections? And calling this vandalism is way out of line. Objective3000 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's called the Nightly News and was previously called Nightly News with Brian Williams. So long as the Nightly News is there, I don't think we need to mention that they've removed his name. Best not to focus on the smaller bits. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

What about having this bit in the lede: ". . . in February 2015 Williams was suspended and his name removed from the Nightly News after misrepresenting. . .etc." That should take care of it and then no more mention of that bit anywhere else in the article. What say you all? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your tone, the effort at compromise, and the creativity of your solution; but, interestingly, I think the broadcast's name change, if we agree it's different from, yet less important than, the suspension (and, arguably, a "smaller bit"), probably does not merit the emphasis it would automatically get by being included in the lede. And so, I'd say: put the name change down in the Nightly News section, as it was before it was moved and [mistakenly] folded into the NBC News management's note on the suspension (under "Helicopter and RPG Story"), or dump it! I hope you follow my reasoning, as I'm glad for your effort to find a "third way" and am not rejecting it out of hand, nor being stubborn. Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bruiserid, Aye, All right then, that's sorted. I believe that's what Objective3000 has done. We'll leave well enough alone then. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Berlin Wall fell over several days

The gates to East Berlin were opened on Nov. 9. but the fall of the Berlin Wall took several days or even weeks. At least that's what you can read in Wikipedia (but should we trust Wikipedia?):

The fall of the Berlin Wall (German: Mauerfall) began the evening of 9 November 1989 and continued over the following days and weeks, with people nicknamed Mauerspechte (wall woodpeckers) using various tools to chip off souvenirs, demolishing lengthy parts in the process, and creating several unofficial border crossings.[83]"

These facts inform me that when Williams said he 'was there when the wall fell' is roughly accurate. He arrived 12-24 hours after Tom Brokaw, who was famous for being in Berlin the night of Nov. 9, when it all started, when the Gates between West and East Berlin opened. That's not necessarily the same thing as the "fall of the Berlin Wall."Haberstr (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually a lot more than "several days" - try until sometime in 1992. As long as Williams got there in 1992 he could say "I was there when the Berlin Wall fell." That loophole is several miles wide, literally. Sort of like saying a person on 9/12 inNYCwas there for the destruction of the WTC as it was still burning then. Avoid making paper airplanes <g>. Collect (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The comment that "Berlin Wall fell over several days" becomes irrelevant once one realises that Williams stated
"I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down."
He was clearly not boasting of having been at the gate some night in 1991.
Instead, he was clearly wanting to mislead, lie to, deceive the public, wanting to appear as Brokaw did. XavierItzm (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

We don't know exactly when Williams arrived in Berlin. Was he there later that night, after the Brokaw broadcasts were over? We don't know. We know only that he was not there when Brokaw was making his famous broadcasts. There were many flights into Berlin and every major broadcaster was trying to get to the city as quickly as possible. What if Williams arrived later that night, at midnight or 1:00 a.m., and raced over to check out the wall? Speculation should not be published in Wikipedia for BLP.Haberstr (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is really nitpicking. According to Mary Elise Sarotte, professor of history at the University of Southern California, a visiting professor at Harvard and the author of “The Collapse: The Accidental Opening of the Berlin Wall”, the “opening” that night was very late, an error in miscommunication, partial, and consisted of some demonstrators getting through due to fear of the guards. Declaring that the next day was not a part of the “fall”, or that it occurred at any specific moment in time, is a bit extreme considering all the politics and characters in motion. Objective3000 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That the wall was opened as a result of miscommunication between the highest Socialist authorities and their lackeys, there is no doubt
This is however, utterly irrelevant, when Williams himself, like everyone else, including the BBC, attributes special significance to 9 November 1989. Williams has said:
"I was at the Brandenburg Gate the night the wall came down."
and has contradicted himself by saying
he was "very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there," Williams added. XavierItzm (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Why only two commencement speeches? Why not all of them or none?

I vote none. He's made many commencement speeches at various universities. Tulane, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Catholic to name four that are not on the current list of only two. And WHO CARES that his son went to Elon? This is not a Williams family newsletter.Haberstr (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is something notable about a speech (and there doesn't seem to be, for any of them) there is no reason for it to be here. Marteau (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They are relevant if he received honorary degrees. Mention should be limited to receiving them. For the awards for his NBC coverage, all the meringue and flowery bits surrounding the awards should go. WP is not his publicist and the quotes from the NYTimes look ridiculous now the coverage for Katrina is being questioned. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I vote include all for which there are RS.
"Look ridiculous" does not seem valid criteria to start deleting awards earned. This is a biography.
He won the awards, if there are RS, include. XavierItzm (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, just because sources are there doesn't make them useful. They are WP:SYNTH. We can have an RfC on the issue, if you like. But I know it is a violation of WP:SYNTH to take one thing and dress it up with quotes from people who were not there and cannot speak directly to the incident that involves Williams. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not certain what you are talking about, sorry.
Are you saying the NYT was not there when it became a RS for awards given to Williams? XavierItzm (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You said, "I vote include all for which there are RS." This is an encyclopedia. We do not include everything. And we especially don't write in a style that suggests we are publicists and not editors. Nor do we write to push a POV, like adding in quotes from people who were not with Williams at the time of any incident, like the Seal officer who said, "That doesn't pass the sniff test." That bit was WP:SYNTH to push a POV. As for the NYTimes regarding Williams' awards, the NYTimes did not give him the award. It's puffery and does not belong in a BLP. Quotes from the organization giving him the award, or what the citation of the award said, that belongs in the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"That bit was WP:SYNTH to push a POV"
How can a RS be accused of WP:SYNTH?. Here is the full citation from the CNN:
""We do not embed journalists with any elements of that unit ... bottom line -- no," one Special Operations Command official said. In the case of the memorabilia that Williams says he received from "his friends" in the Seal community: "that doesn't pass any sniff test," another Seal officer told Bergen." http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/media/brian-williams-investigation-questions/
The claim of WP:SYNTH is being horribly misused here by trying to apply it to a RS. Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

BLPs and undue weight

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Balance. It is a violation of BLP policy to maintain large unduly-weighted sections in a BLP. The justification that someday the rest of the article will be filled out isn't valid for BLPs -- coverage needs to be proportionate at all times. The undue-weight tag has been there for a while, but the undue section appears to be growing, not shrinking. Criticism doesn't necessarily have to be removed, only summarized more concisely. WP:BLPN is an option if this remains an issue. Manul ~ talk 02:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that the undue section is growing.
Just yesterday, it got significantly trimmed, when an editor eliminated TWO headings and synthesised the section quite significantly. The comment above regarding "the undue section appears to be growing" is quite unfounded. XavierItzm (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The section when it was tagged and the section when I made the above post. The latter is larger than the former. I was absolutely correct in saying that the section has been growing.

In any case your point is largely irrelevant. There has been a somewhat large undue section for a prolonged period of time -- a violation of BLP policy. It is of no value niggling about periodic fluctuations in length while the overall length continues to be undue.

I think it was psychiatrist Eric Berne who would give permission slips to patients, inspiring them to do what they need to do. Treat this post as a permission slip to cut down that section. Manul ~ talk 04:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it undue weight when 4/5 of the article are standard bio and only 1/5 deals with the self-inflicted events which have resulted catastrophic to the subject's career (example: Williams had to resign from Medal of Honor committee). Does not look like a mere 20% of the article dedicated to the expulsion is undue weight at all, don't you think? XavierItzm (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well that is a different argument. Perhaps it is worth asking: Is there an undue weight problem in the first place? I see undue weight because the combined length of the early career section and the NBC Nightly News section is approximately equal to the length of the misstatements section. I think an RfC would result in consensus agreement, but maybe it's just me. Manul ~ talk 09:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with 1/5 of the entry being about his misstatements and alleged misstatements and the impact they and the reaction to them have had on his career. If it needs to grow much larger, someone should make a separate and expansive entry on it. Frankly, the whole thing is a major journalistic event: the No 1 anchor, arguably the most famous newsperson in the US, seems on the road to being fired for habitual on and off air exaggeration. And that's not even the most interesting part which is that, apparently, the Iraq exaggeration was there from the start, and it was a team effort by NBC producers, assistants and Williams. But, for now, anyway, 1/5 seems very reasonable to me. Also, I don't believe we need to pad the other sections with fluffy, minor stuff like commencement speeches.Haberstr (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Being a BLP, 4/5 should be standard bio and 1/5 his fabrications. This is not an attack page or a page for puffery. The excess additions surrounding awards should be removed. As for his fabrications, only those that are directly disputed by active participants, like the helicopter crew, should remain. This isn't the Daily Mail. We are not reporting. As for the Seal Team Six stories, unless an actual Seal member comes out and says, no, it didn't happen like that at all, then it should stay out. Same with the Berlin Wall. Unless NBC says, no, he wasn't there to see that event, that should stay out as well. And please, arguing that these synthetic edits have reliable sources is not going to make it any less synthetic. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't accept the 1/5 figure; measuring the text of the body alone, it's closer to 1/3. Also see the other way of assessing weight that I mentioned. Manul ~ talk 18:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is currently at 1/5, and I don't think Haberstr is saying that either. I think both of us are suggesting that is what it should be. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the only thing we may disagree about is the Berlin Wall discrepancy. Williams apparently says one story at an earlier time and then something aggrandizing later. It's not a matter of what NBC says or which version is true, Williams definitely can't have arrived on Nov 9 and Nov 10. (My understanding is that both stories are more or less real-time recorded facts and not recollections.) This parallels the suicide self-contradiction. He either didn't see the suicide (first version) or saw it (second version). We don't know which version is true, but we definitely know one of them is false. I agree that everything else should be pushed out.Haberstr (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it's a stretch but there's a possibility that Williams arrived late at night on 'the first night of the story' but didn't actually broadcast until the day and night of Nov. 10. That would mean there was no contradiction between the 'two' versions of his story: arriving in Berlin on the first night but too late to do any work, and actually doing work on 'the second night of the story'.Haberstr (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This hair-splitting is refuted by the statements of the subject himself, when he said: Quoth Williams, as reported by CNN:
""Williams cracked that he was "very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there."" XavierItzm (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The key part of that quote doesn't clear things up as much as you seem to think. "By the second night ... we were all there" doesn't mean "we all arrived on the second day/night." Anyway, as long as we keep the quote in, people can interpret it as they like.Haberstr (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reads like something whispered at a cocktail party

Text was removed because "Reads like something whispered at a cocktail party". What, however, if the text is a direct quotation from the article's subject, as quoted by a RS? "At the same event, where Brokaw was honored by the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, Williams cracked that he was "very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there," Williams added." http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/media/brian-williams-investigation-questions/index.html XavierItzm (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that the source is anonymous, this is unencyclopedic; and if it occurred at all, probably just a joke and two utterances pieced together with some extra words added by someone to look like one coherent declaration. Yellow journalism. Objective3000 (talk)

CNN is generally accepted as a RS in the Wikipedia. The source is a long-form CNN report.
Are you engaged in WP:OR to indicate that somehow CNN is now to be no longer considered an RS? XavierItzm (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no encyclopedic content in "pissed off," especially because of the word "cracked," which indicates that it obviously was a joke. By the way, I bet Williams was joking that "everyone" was pissed off, not just himself, since the (implied) follow-up sentence says "everyone." Anyway and for what it is worth, the anonymous NBC source in that piece is more support for the notion that he arrived on Nov. 10.Haberstr (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Keeps getting worse. The word "cracked" in the ref was replaced by "stated", indicating it was a serious claim instead of a self-effacing joke. I believe this is a serious WP:BLP violation. WP could end up a bigger "liar" than the subject of the article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a different internet than mine?
The CNN text reads "Williams cracked that he was "very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there." XavierItzm (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

XavierItzm, If that is the quote from Williams where he himself is saying he wasn't there that first night with Brokaw, then it should be allowed to stand. The bits that shouldn't not be allowed are the comments he makes and then that gets surrounded by quotes from people who were not there with him. Like the military bits about the Seal Team Six. Quotes from actual team members who said, No he wasn't with us. We didn't give him any items from any raid, etc., those can stand. But not some officer who says, we don't embed, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, there might be a misunderstanding here. The RS quotes Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw. This is not just "some officer." This is the person authorised by the Government of the United States to speak regarding Seal Team 6 operations. XavierItzm (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ken McGraw did not call him a liar. You did. Objective3000 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. So you accept Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw said Special Team 6 does not embed, whereas Williams said he flew with them. QED. XavierItzm (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Two problems with your synthesis. First, "We do not embed" is not the same as "We have never embedded", which he failed to say. He was stating policy. Nowhere did he say the policy has not been broken. This is a common form of non-denial denial. Second, Williams may very well have gone on a trip with the team that was not a part of the official embedding program. Making both sides correct. In other words, there is no contradiction and the military did NOT call Williams a liar. You called him a liar. Objective3000 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite a bit of hairsplitting there! Next we know, this page may devolve into arguing about what the meaning of "is" is. Point remains the highest relevant military authority, when asked about Williams' self-aggrandising claims, replied: (full citation from the CNN): "We do not embed journalists with any elements of that unit ... bottom line -- no," one Special Operations Command official said. In the case of the memorabilia that Williams says he received from "his friends" in the Seal community: "that doesn't pass any sniff test," another Seal officer told Bergen." http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/12/media/brian-williams-investigation-questions/
If there are any RS for broken policies, or if there are RS that Williams traveled with the team on a trip to Disneyland, please provide, otherwise it appears editors might be engaged in WP:ORIGINAL or in speculation. XavierItzm (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reading after “arguing about what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. Objective3000 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Does NBC Nightly News' name change belong in the article, and if so where? Does it evoke "undue weight" problems?

Editors disagree as to how Williams' name having been removed from the broadcast title should be treated. The discussion has gotten lost within the "Gossip Columns" section of the talk page (see above), so I have pulled it out. I think the name change is material, important, distinct from the suspension, and properly included within the Nightly News section of the article, rather than within the "Helicopter and RPG Story" subsection. I would like to revert the edit which combines the name change with the suspension and moves it out of the Nightly News section because I think the move detracts from orderly progress within the article. I don't believe this topic needs to be avoided. Bruiserid (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning his suspension under the "Helicopter and RPG Story" and not under the "Nightly News" section is illogical... I support brief mention of the suspension in the lead and the Nightly News section, with no mention anywhere else except the lead. Regarding the name change, I see no need to mention that. This is an example of bloated, unnessesary details in the article which can and should be removed. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarise, not provide complete, wall-to-wall coverage. Marteau (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Is "the purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize" something that comes from Wikipedia's guidelines? The emphasis on summary at the expense of clarity, and something automatically preferable, is puzzling. Bruiserid (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. OK, here you go. From policy, WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Marteau (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I had read WP:NOTEVERYTHING before I asked the question, thanks, Marteau. That article also said that "there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries" and actually left encyclopedic merit up for grabs. The article proceeded to expand the guidelines on what was easier to specify -- namely, on "what Wikipedia is NOT," where consensus was more obvious. And so I maintain that this particular detail (renaming of the broadcast) *does have "encyclopedic merit" and does not meet a single instance of "what Wikipedia is not," per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

I say it's an inclusion with merit; you say it's an inclusion without; but invoking "summary" as a reason to leave it out is just arbitrary. The pursuit of "summary," ad absurdum, could reduce content in the article to almost nothing; just as including too much detail would limit its utility. But which detail falls on which side of inclusion in the "summary of accepted knowledge" is largely just a matter of opinion. I could put the broadcast's name change into the article a million times, and you could take it out a million, and there's nothing I have found in WP guidelines that justifies either one of us -- let alone the invocation of "summary," a very broad term. Bruiserid (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Bruiserid.
Furthermore, the article as it stands now is internally inconsistent, mentioning "The NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw", yet failing to mention that the program was renamed "The NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams" and now Brian Williams has become a nonperson in the program's branding.XavierItzm (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

What Marteau said. I see no need to mention the name change at all and only moved it as a compromise that wasn't accepted. The title was changed. Big friggin' deal. This is an encyclopedia, not Variety. Objective3000 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you mean by this being "an encyclopedia, not Variety." Would you please clarify? (And I *am clear on "respect and civility" -- it seems to be on its way out, here.) Bruiserid (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The name change was widely reported by multiple RS. Why the name change needs be censored out of this article boggles the mind. XavierItzm (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So, the name change is removed under the pretext that it's in the lede or some such. Later, it is summarised or some such. As of now, and for the last week or so, it is simply censored out of the article. Interesting. XavierItzm (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I should mention that the article still references the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw," yet, in the process of editing this article, and despite the fact the above thread at some point worked out a compromise to mention that "Nightly News with Brian Williams" is no more, this little fact got censored out later, even though there are multiple RS reporting it. XavierItzm (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we reduce 'misstatements and alleged misstatements' section down to basically 'misstatements'

Let's remember WP:BALASPS and WP:BLP ... We would start the section with and keep almost all the Iraq stuff. Then the one short paragraph on the one actual Katrina misstatement, about the suicide. Then ONE SENTENCE summarizing the alleged misstatements: "Individuals have also alleged that Williams made other misstatements about Katrina, and about the Navy SEALs and the fall of the Berlin Wall." If and when there are more allegations, we add them to the list in that sentence. If more actual misstatements occur, we add a short paragraph on each. Also, we don't need to divide this section into four or more little subsections.Haberstr (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, alleged misstatements (he-said/she-said) should be removed. People that don't like someone come out of the woodwork and make contradictory claims. Most of such claims eventually prove to be nonsense and fade away. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. The OED def talks to a compendium of learned knowledge. Not speculation or something we just heard somewhere. Objective3000 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, let's keep it encyclopedic. Weasel words are obnoxious and contemporary readers are not served by harping on verbiage. Let's trime it down, per Haberstr. GraniteSand (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"Then ONE SENTENCE summarizing the alleged misstatements: [...] the fall of the Berlin Wall.""
And in one fell swoop, the Wiki would go from presenting the well-documented misstatements
to the Wikipedia establishing that items such as the Berlin Wall are mere "alleged misstatements".
Please note that it is rather well documented that Brokaw was there the night the Wall fell, and Williams himself has admitted "So by the second night of the story, we were all there," so your proposed summarisation effectively adjudicates and dismisses the issue.
XavierItzm (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

talk, you're not distinguishing between alleged misstatements and actual misstatements. Do you deny that we do not know when Brian Williams arrived in Berlin? Do you deny that "doesn't pass the sniff test" and "we don't give out souvenirs" are allegations, not facts? Similarly for the New Orleans allegations: Someone saying 10 years later, "We didn't see any bodies" is not hard evidence, especially when a few blocks away there's photographic evidence of bodies floating in the same street. Someone with a personal interest in making the hotel look good saying 'gangs' (what exactly does that word mean?) had not gotten inside, versus the fact that people saw looters getting inside. And so on. Again, allegations and alleged misstatements versus actual, factual misstatements. For me, I can't believe we have "doesn't pass the sniff test" in an encyclopedia.Haberstr (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Have no idea why the New Orleans stuff is even brought up. I have neither written, nor edited, nor commented on anything regarding any Williams lies regarding New Orleans. As to declarations by Seal Team 6 Command that Williams lied regarding his involvement with the unit, well, the sources are crystal clear: he did. XavierItzm (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that he "lied" about either, and your continued use of the word exposes your bias. The military source did not say it was a lie. They used weasel words like "we don't embed" instead of saying it didn't happen or that he unofficially tagged-along instead of being a part of the embed program. Objective3000 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

One more point: if you or others want to create a 'Brian Williams misstatements and alleged misstatements Wikipedia entry, where you can detail all the he said she said and so on, please go ahead. Everything about this story could be included there. However, for the Brian Williams main entry, we have to cut down and leave a lot of stuff out. That's how it works in encyclopedias.Haberstr (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The only story that is confirmed false by the actual people who were there is the Iraq war story. For the Berlin Wall story, if there is a source from NBC that says he was not there when he claims he was, then that can stay. The bits about the military saying they don't embed doesn't cut it. I agree with Objective 3000 that it shouldn't be there. The Katrina bits should go except for the suicide. Otherwise, everything else is just speculation and is keeping the article prone to repeated WP:SYNTH. I'm going to remove the Katrina bits now. If the Berlin Wall story doesn't have NBC saying he was not there when he said he was, then it should go too. I don't have time to check those sources. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"if there is a source from NBC that says he was not there when he claims he was, then that can stay", wrote Haberstr
You want an NBC source, you got it. Williams himself qualifies. Quoth Williams, as reported by CNN:
""Williams cracked that he was "very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there.""
Of course it is special pleading to ask for an NBC source: do we only consider lies lies when one's employer vouches? What about other RS? XavierItzm (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your continued use of the word lie is a [[WP:BLP] violation. BLP includes talk pages of BLPs. Objective3000 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I question your interpretation of BLP and its application to XavierItzm's comments here. I found no mention in WP:BLP, nor, more to the point, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, of "lie," "lies," "lying," or even "liar." And if we instead use "misrepresentation," "inaccuracy," "exaggeration," the very benign "mistaken," and so forth -- the punch-pulling, more "politically correct" characterizations -- do we suddenly pass muster as being without bias? There appears to be plenty of bias to go around within these discussions, coming from both sides of each argument.

Yeah, you'd have to be careful using "lie" and its variants within the article -- but less so in "talk," I'd argue. The WP Manual of Style puts it as follows: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care . . ." XavierItzm appears to have exercised a goodly amount of care within the article, and adequate care here within "Talk." Sure, be assiduous about NPOV in the article proper, per guidelines; but we have to be permitted some point of view while "talking," else what is "talking" for?

This far in, all of our points of view are pretty clear. They can't be disguised with a dash of political correctness, and they don't need to be. Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussion . . ." And, dare I say it, being accused of bad faith or bad behavior, with frequent allusions to WP guidelines -- making necessary the combing of said guidelines and the "close reading" of them to defend oneself -- is a WP:DRAG. Bruiserid (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP. It states: “This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.” (emphasis mine)

There is no question that Williams made statements in the helicopter incident that were not true. There is no evidence that they were made intentionally to deceive or even not, as he claims, poor recollection. But, the editor in question has gone much farther, using the perjorative word “lie”, over and over, in reference to situations that are he said/she said, or, not even clear accusations of lying. That is, the editor is the one making accusations of lying without evidence. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP.

As I said, Objective3000, "I question your interpretation of BLP and [especially] its application to XavierItzm's comments here." In fact, I disagree with it. And, as I indicated, I have combed WP:BLP, not merely read it.

The citation you use from the BLP article, "This policy applies . . ." comes at the end of a paragraph discussing "tabloid," "sensationalist," or "titillating" claims made against living persons. WP doesn't want editors including unsubstantiated scandal about LPs in articles, and then taking the opportunity to repeat it ad infinitum in Talk pages -- arguably, spreading malicious gossip. The policy does not apply (emphasis mine) to the use of the single word "lie" within the context of a discussion already centering on -- name it, then -- "misrepresentations," "misrememberings," "mischaracterizations," and so forth. It's facile to paint everything one doesn't care for with the "BLP" brush, and doctrinaire. The word "lie" can be used "with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression" (from the OED), and there's plenty of evidence here (RSs, YouTubes, etc.) allowing its use. Bruiserid (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Now who’s hair-splitting? The editor has repeatedly called the subject of the article a liar including under many subjects where not even a mischaracterization has been shown. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP specifically designed to malign a living person. Objective3000 (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You must have me mixed up with someone else, Objective3000. I have never said you, nor anyone else, were "hair-splitting." But if an editor is going to cite WP policy early and often, he or she is going to get responses challenging his or her interpretations of it. I do not agree that using the word "lie" is a "gross violation" of WP:BLP policy, especially here on the Talk page, and I have already said why. Calling someone "a liar," arguably, is edging closer to being a problem, but that is different from saying something is "a lie" or someone "has lied." Interestingly, the only occurrences of the word "liar" on what's left here of the discussion unarchived (save one, by me, when listing variants of the word "lie"), are within your comments.

So: you say "it's a violation," and I say, "it's not." No single editor I've met yet is the final arbiter of WP policy, no matter what he or she may decree to be so. Bruiserid (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, as I understand it, it is your opinion that repeatedly saying someone tells lies is not calling him a liar. I think repeatedly saying someone tells lies (even when NO lies have been proved) is calling him a liar. Objective3000 (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean, and you see it elsewise. But independent of that, here is where I finally might get to understand what you are saying, Objective3000; that is, when I read how you answer this: You have said "NO lies have been proved." Williams said, in the Jan 30, 2015 broadcast, "The story actually started with a terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq, when the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG." During his subsequent on-air apology, he said, "I said I was traveling in an aircraft that was hit by RPG fire. I was instead in a following aircraft." So couldn't the Jan 30 statement be called "a lie," proven to be so by Williams himself in his apology? Or am I missing something? Bruiserid (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The word lie is generally used, and therefore conveys the meaning, "to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive". There is no proof that Williams did so; and he did not admit to this. Further, the editor has used the word lie in several other areas where there isn't even strong evidence that the statements were untrue, much less knowingly untrue. They are simply different opinions of what was seen, or doubts by people that weren't present. Caution must be used in a BLP, even on the talk pages, as stated in WP:BLP. The English language has so many ways of saying things. Why deliberatly use provocative wording -- repeatedly, unless you are trying to push a POV? Objective3000 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, "lie" is not the first word that sprang to my mind, nor to my writing, on this incident. That being said, referring to another definition for the word, "used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression," I have no objection to the word's being used to characterize the "got hit by an RPG" story. And no matter the definition used -- mine, or yours -- I don't pay much attention to the word "intent" in any of these situations where someone has done something wrong; it's the deed that counts. Lack of intent is called upon to cover for a myriad of sins, but I've never been a fan. I don't care what was intended -- and I can't know it anyway.

Yes to caution in a BLP, but, once again, my reading of the policy differs from yours; I think "don't repeat it on talk pages" is directed at "tabloid, sensationalist, titillating claims," and not at a single word.

As to POV-pushing: I think you've got a POV, too, and are pushing it; I have one, as well, and am pushing mine; otherwise, we would not be in this debate. Let he who is without one cast the first stone; and somehow, I think, that lets both of us out. Bruiserid (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The word “intent” is extremely important when speaking to an action. Do you not think there is a difference between a driving accident and purposely intending to cause injury? Even a dog knows when stepping on his tail is a mistake. In any case, we should not repeatedly use words that give a false impression and use as an excuse that it fits the third definition.

• The word “lie” may be a single word. But, it is a provocative word.

• Do you actually believe that the editor means the third def and not the first? He has clearly shown animus.

• My POV is that this is an encyclopedia, and we should not use provocative words. Particularly when they imply something which is false. That is, when they themselves could be lies. As for the subject of the article, I have never seen his show and have no opinion on him as I don't have enough info. Objective3000 (talk) 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, not the "encyclopedic"/"unencyclopedic" argument again. WP:Arguments to avoid actually has something interesting to say on that, and I am quoting it:

Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself.

Many editors have invoked Wikipedia's being an encyclopedia as cause to include or delete many things. Every time I have seen the word in a "Talk" comment, I have wished I could phrase my objection to using it as the basis for argument as well as WP policy has already done.

(And as to the car accident comparison in re: intent: apples and oranges. One doesn't repeat the same false story, or one with the same false elements, more than once in the midst of network TV broadcasts, newsmagazines, and late-night shows, by accident; he didn't blurt it out in the middle of a heated discussion and wish he could take it back. So it's not like hitting an icy patch once and wrecking your car --) Bruiserid (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You just proved that you do not understand the concept of proof or the definition of lie. Look, I am being nice. I have not escalated constant BLP violations to the proper boards because I prefer to try to alter bad behavior without "actions". But, this is getting silly. He must stop using the word lie, with whatever definition you find deep in the definition stack. And, you must stop being judge and jury. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column. There are plenty of sources that will draw conclusions based on scant evidence and claimed ability to look into the mind of a person. This ain't one. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(←) Oh, no, -- please forbear and don't take poor XavierItzm to court; he hasn't been around using phrasing of which you don't approve for some time! It's I, apparently, who have annoyed you so thoroughly by challenging your judgments. I would hate to bring trouble upon him.

If you plan to turn me in for something else than disagreeing with you, please let me know, so I can prepare my defense. And so I can put some further study into what is and is not "an encyclopedia," since that appears to be something for you to know and others of us to find out.

As to what I "must" or "must not" do, well, I think I'll retain control of that, thanks -- Bruiserid (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Snarky comments mischaracterizing my words are not useful. Some might call this lies. Objective3000 (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh??? Bruiserid (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently there are three-letter words are verboten here in the Talk page. And verboten by just one user, although he, on the other hand, is self-empowered to use it himself, most recently at 2 March 2015 (UTC), accusing another editor of the three-letter word. Looks like a violation of the "assume good faith" admonition at the top of this very page by the 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC) edit! How about that!
In any event, Williams stated at one point that he was there the night the Wall fell, and at another that he was ""very pissed off 'cause Tom had arrived [in Berlin] first" while "everyone else in journalism" was racing to catch a flight from New York to Berlin. "So by the second night of the story, we were all there."", he concluded. XavierItzm (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh??? Objective3000 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

From the archive

Perusing the archive, one comes to the following from 2007:

• Saturday Night Live - The article says that Brian Williams' appearance on Saturday Night Live was "the the first time that a network news anchor has hosted that broadcast." Although Williams himself said this during the show's opening monologue, it isn't true. Edwin Newman, the former anchor of NBC Nightly News back in the 1970s and 1980s hosted the show in 1984. Here are some sources: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/episodes/Show_367.shtml http://imdb.com/title/tt0695017/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.22.100 (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  

The 2007 Talk page was already on to something regarding self-aggrandising statements. XavierItzm (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. They left out the word "sitting". Objective3000 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ummm the SNL writers typically write the monologues (especially for non-comedians). I doubt this was self-aggrandising but just ignorance. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

I have had a conversation about this tag with User:Objective3000, which they request I do not copy here.

User_talk:Objective3000#Brian_Williams

– Smyth\^talk 22:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight tag

Wikipedia makes clear that tags aren't supposed to be permanent, and this tag has been in place for about 3 months (first put in place in april), and, since then, there's been no discussion on it for about one month. Therefore, I'm removing this tag. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So discuss it, instead of taking unilateral action. This is a WP:BLP where we must be more careful. Several weeks is not a long time for a tag. Albeit, a long time compared to your six days on Wikipedia.:) Objective3000 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol, alright, I got your point. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, could you please explain what you find so objectionable in that section that "lends undue weight to certain ideas"? To me, it appears all the section is doing is reporting the facts about Williams's misrepresentations. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Above editor has left the building (indeffed as a sock). Objective3000 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving to MSNBC is a demotion?

Will MSNBC people consider their station lesser than NBC?

Headline-1: Brian Williams demoted to MSNBC; Lester Holt gets 'Nightly News' anchor job

• http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/06/18/brian-williams-demoted-to-msnbc-lester-holt-gets-nightly-news-anchor-job/?intcmp=latestnews

QUOTE: "... Williams, who was suspended from his “Nightly News” role for six months after it surfaced that he lied in stories he told about his coverage of the Iraq War and Hurricane Katrina, will be heading to MSNBC as anchor of breaking news and special reports." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing considerations.

yes, that's a demotion. He's moving from one the major broadcast networks to a low-rated cable news channel.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brian Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116083357/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3667173/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3667173/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141227142043/http://www.nbcnews.com:80/id/3667173/ to http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3667173/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613201811/http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Brian-Williams-Hosts-Saturday-Night-Live-Tonight/kIg9HROBPUCwfaTYZSN2mg.cspx to http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Brian-Williams-Hosts-Saturday-Night-Live-Tonight/kIg9HROBPUCwfaTYZSN2mg.cspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Brian Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110827101022/http://www.imdb.com:80/news/sb/2006-10-23 to http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-10-23#tv3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020022614/http://nopactalent.com:80/speakers/Brian-Williams/1043 to http://www.nopactalent.com/speakers/Brian-Williams/1043
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613201811/http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Brian-Williams-Hosts-Saturday-Night-Live-Tonight/kIg9HROBPUCwfaTYZSN2mg.cspx to http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Brian-Williams-Hosts-Saturday-Night-Live-Tonight/kIg9HROBPUCwfaTYZSN2mg.cspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207060040/http://gawker.com/5988597/brian-williams-please-tell-us-about-your-grindlingly-middle-class-upbringing-again to http://gawker.com/5988597/brian-williams-please-tell-us-about-your-grindlingly-middle-class-upbringing-again

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)