Talk:Barbara West (TV news anchor)

Vandalism / Sections Deleted
I restored the article back to the October 28 version. User 'Steve Dufour' deleted entire sections and then proposed the article for deletion.

The article is not going to be deleted. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on news anchors.(Independent4ever (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC));

Biased towards criticism?
Is it really appropriate to have 3 sentences of biography and 4 full paragraphs of controversy/criticism? See WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. --Rividian (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably be marked as a stub pending expansion of the biography sections. This blog link doesn't meet WP:RS standards, but might be helpful in locating Reliable Sources http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/10/conflict-of-interest-orlando-journalist.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.27.79 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right. Unfortunately, his whole article (and her 15 minutes of fame) started because the controversy over her interview with Senator Biden.  I agree with your recommendation.


 * BTW, I suspect that last zinger about her husband's political donations are intended to make us think she is biased. I guess the correct thing to do now is go through all media people who have Wikipedia articles about them and list their political donations and apparent biases. Seems pretty dopey to me.  138.162.128.53 (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) bluetidalwave.com is not a WP:RS, 2) the Orlando Sentinel report that she is a registered Republican whose husband worked for the GOP is in there. Readers are smart and will figure it out. There is no need to use poor sources and repeat claims to beat the readers over the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bluetidalwave is not meant to be an "information" source, it is meant to show that left-leaning blogs have criticized her for her interview (the BTW article got over 1000 Diggs). It is important to show that she has been criticized for a conflict of interest and I included a video from Countdown with Keith Olbermann to further back this up. Any more removal of these references will be reported. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a novice observer here, but it seems that this whole page is set up as one big hit job. Notability appears severely lacking in the big picture and a single controversial interview doesn't justify a Wikipedia dossier. It may just be a better idea to scrap the whole page, or exclude the extraneous information concerning party affiliation and alleged conflicts of interest.  The partisan door swings both ways, after all.

Cleanup
I've tried to cleanup the page best I can to make it more readable & sensible. For disclosure's sake, I have met Mr. West and I know some of his friends. I don't agree with their views, but I do agree that things have gotten out of hand here. Cwolfsheep (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Was it really Wade who just editted the article? If so, does he really believe 90% of all reporters are Democrats. If that type of evidential thinking informs the family, no wonder why those questions were asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In the 2004 presidential election, although 21% of journalists refused to disclose their vote, 52% voted for John Kerry vs 19% for George W. Bush. Maybe not 90%, but in a general election, that would be a landslide. Meanwhile, in 2007, out of 143 journalists, 125 contributed to Democrats and liberal causes, 16 to Republicans, and two to both parties. I leave you to figure the percentage.--Foxhead (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which has nothing to with this anyway.... --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who remembers the 2004 and 2000 election doesn't buy that, but let's look at what you provided. Your citation is the Media Research Center, founded by L. Brent Bozell III, which claims: "...within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, ... is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC)." Please that's like citing the WorldNetDaily and Rush Limbaugh for your figures. A group that starts with the conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it is not a academic study. As for your second source, on what basis was those specific 143 people choosen? If its just a list of names, it is not representative of the "media", which means it doesn't show what you want. If it's not random names, clearly the list was drawn for a point (like Media Research Center). Afterall it seems to ignore many facets of the media, such as Conservative talk.
 * At least you do admit the 90% seems to be pulled out of thin-air. The whole blame the media claim is a worn conspiracy. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is Definitely not speaking from a neutral voice. I have tagged it with a NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.196.13 (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that there is a lot of sockpuppeteering going on....
what is with the surge of random IPs editing this one article only and claiming that this article is not "neutral". When did stating the facts become "biased"? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Some media commentators...
The phrase "but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain" uses weasel words (WP: Weasel) and lists one source with one commentator's opinion. I'm not against including this information if reliable sources can be found. Otherwise, this should be removed. JenWSU (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I took the WP: Bold move to remove the dubiously sourced content until such time that a reliable source can be found. Also, this section disrupted the flow of the article, mentioning questions posed to John McCain before the next section which introduces the fact that he was interviewed. JenWSU (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Biden did not lose his temper, and the questions were ones which one would expect to be asked at some point in a campaign. McCain was also asked questions about taxes etc. and also did not lose his temper. Using this as a place for discussion of anything else would turn this BLP into an article on the campaign, which already has enough articles. Collect (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To JenWSU: I boldly reverted your deletion. Could you please go further to designate why the sources used are dubious? Conde Nast is a well known reliable publisher and the Senior News Editor at the Huffington Post would appear to fall under the rubric "media commentator". SmallRepair (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem here is that this section says "some media commentators" (WP: Weasel) impliying that this is a widely-held criticism. Beyond that, these two sources are Opinion pieces. If they are to be cited it needs to be made clear that this is the opinion of these two bloggers. If you read these two sources it is plainly evident that they are biased. JenWSU (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. It should be rewritten and attributed explicitly to them -- and in fact, in the case of Zaleski, it would be fair to characterize her as a "liberal commentator" or a "left-of-center commentator". SmallRepair (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
I filed a request for semi-protection @ Requests_for_page_protection. I hope that at least gets the random IPs off long enough to clean things up. Cwolfsheep (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest statement
There was a sentence at the end of the Republican ties section which stated that West had a conflict of interest in her interviews, and it specifically mentioned that blogs and Keith Olbermann were sources. So I deleted the contribution. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If being registered to vote under a certain political affiliation actually created a conflict of interest then no politician could ever be interviewed. That right there is enough to invalidate the contribution, but...
 * 2) Blogs and crazy Keith Olbermann are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia. Neutrality, folks, neutrality!


 * Olbermann, crazy or otherwise, has a POV. And a POV is allowed in Wikipedia. From WP:NPOV:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." Hence why you were reverted. SmallRepair (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not verifiable sources in the first place, and neither is Keith Olbermann (and his views are not neutral either). This is an obvious WP:BLP violation. Hence, why I will be reverting it back. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Olbermann is not neutral, granted. But, as my quotation above, that is allowed. Please be sure to read up on WP:3RR to avoid getting blocked. Keep the discussion here. SmallRepair (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please view your talk page. Reverting bias, poorly sourced material, amongst other things, in the biography of a living person is an exception to the three revert rule. If you apply another revert I will be forced to officially warn you, and if that warning is not heeded I will be forced to report you for edit warring. I should also point out WP:Blp; in the biography of a living person, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the discussion here. Olbermann is an allowed source. The other blog may in fact not be allowed. But right now I'm concerned with a 3RR violation and you don't address why Olbermann is not allowed when in fact policy permits it. Simply making declarative statements isn't sufficient. 21:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallRepair (talk • contribs)


 * As I tried to make clear in my comments on your user talk page and this talk page, I have not violated the 3RR. This is a clear exception to the rule since it is biased and poorly sourced material on a biography of a living person. And more to the point, Keith Olbermann is NOT a reliable source. He is a political, non-neutral, and unverifiable commentator. Not only does policy not permit this, it explicitly prohibits it -- especially on a biography of a living person. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The blog is not meant as an informational source -- they're meant to show that some left-leaning blogs are critical of this. Olbermann is allowed, just as Bill O'Reilly is allowed. You obviously have a partisan vendetta to make Mrs. West look good and leaving out those who were critical of her is definitely not fair. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yeah, and some people say that weasel words are great! This is one of the clearest cases of WP:BLP violation that I've seen on Wikipedia. Please review WP:SOURCE for an explanation of acceptable sources. Blogs and political commentators are not acceptable. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't give a link -- please show where it says that political commentators are not acceptable? It doesn't exist. SmallRepair (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SOURCE clearly explains what qualifies as verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Please read the policy for yourself. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * S/he can't...if they stopped using political commentators or commentators -- there'd be no criticism sections for ANY politician. Everything would be a "sunshine piece". I have to wonder if Amwest is using IP sockpuppets to do more reverting for him/her. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assumption of bad faith is troubling. I have posted a 3RR warning on your user talk page. If you do not heed the warning I will be forced to report you. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Report me then because I have done absolutely nothing wrong. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To Amwestover: We will let an admins from the ANI/3RR board determine how cut and dry your violation was -- again, making "clear" declarative statements isn't an argument. Please quote policy that states that a BLP can not have criticism of the subject from anattributed commentator with a POV? I have above (I hope I don't have to cut and paste it) shown why it can be. Please counter with an argument rather than just automatic nay-saying. SmallRepair (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorial statements are suposed to be avoided in BLPs. If you desire editorial statements, then the floodgates will be opened, and a few dozen competing statements will get inserted. The gist of all controversies is currently included properly. Trying to push the issue will probably not result in a better article. Collect (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I understand that you personally believe that editorial statements are to be avoided but as I'm sure you can see from the above discussion (and elsewhere) that this contradicts Wikipedia policy. NPOV does not mean no point-of-view. And, yes, there should be additional reliably sourced opinions; please add them. As to the issue of whether they are redundant, could you point out where the conflict-of-interest is addressed elsewhere? Thanks. SmallRepair (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Two issues. One is having several sentences all suggesting the same thing - that the interview with Biden was too hard for hm. One sentence is sufficient, this is not a novel. Second is the absure COI claim. West is not paid by the GOP but by a tv station. Hence no COI at all, and certainly a lot less than many of the others cited. As this is specifically contentious, the burden is on you to prove it is needed in this BLP.  "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." In the case of Olberman, it would be reasonable to then include material about his apparent biases, which would mke this article untenable. I am trying to keep the article on track, instead of derailing it. "Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." very well may also apply. Elsewise, I trust you will back my insertion about Keith? Fair is fair, no? Collect (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Therefore" has accused me of not participating on this Talk page. I hereby assert that I do, indeed, use Talk, and have done so assifuously. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again using talk: Contentious statements require Consensus BEFORE being reinserted, per BLP guidelines. "Therefore" warned me on my own talk page, and implied he has gotten people blocked for not bending to his will.  So far, he has not deemed it necessary to reply here to my points. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still using Talk. Added balancing info on Olbermann per WP:BLP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not responding here up to this point; you had only recently added in your most current thoughts. I was concerned that you were reverting but not participating in other editors' comments. I encourage you to read up on WP:BRD -- first, boldly edit. You did, which was a good thing. Secondly, you were reverted, not a bad thing. Finally, come and discuss (BRD -- great mnemonic to remember). Don't edit war. You are edit warring -- please carefully read up on WP:3RR. I'm not warning you to "bend you to my will"; in fact, I was only involved with one other editor who was banned for edit warring. 3RR is seriously treated here. You may continue to revert but you will be banned. You are bending to the will of Wikipedia policy and not my own personal whims.


 * There appear to be two sections you are concerned with. I'll address them. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent McCain interview
"When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, characterized it as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was 'well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden'."

You argue that this is this is a redundant statement. I would argue it is an additional point; commentators argued that her first McCain interview was soft-ball but the later one was tougher due to the criticism she received for the Biden interview. How exactly is this redundant? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One sentence is sufficient for the claim. Choose what sentence you want. If you use two, then allow two in rebuttal. I assure you that it makes more sense to not look at edits as Lay's Potato Chips. Collect (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A little piece of talk page advice per WP:TALK -- avoid excessive bolding -- I really get it without it. I'm not too sure what policy you are arguing here. There is only one sentence claiming that her subsequent interview was tougher. I agree that additional viewpoints should be added and that is what I'm doing now. I'm going to add in O'Reilly's thoughts next. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no Mr. Bill! The WP SIC patrol? You deled non-partisan cites. Why? Collect (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! Very funny -- you caught me. :) I moved the Olbermann cite as a source for characterizing Olbermann as liberal. Please provide similar cites for Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Our goal here is to improve the section as it relates to the this event not to attack the messengers. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with a NON-PARTISAN cite? Seems that you only want partisan ones? When a non-partisan cite describes Keith, I regard it as a stronger balance than using any rightwing cite. Don;t you? Collect (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I included it as a source for "liberal". The section uses a mixture of partisan and non-partisan (even without all caps) references -- the partisan, naturally, are used for the criticism/support of West. So, no, I don't have a preference. My goal is to provide balance to the subject of West, not balance to the subject of Olbermann. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it in fact proper to balance the subject of Keith. Burrying the coote at the bottomof the page is disingenuous at best. You appear to have no valid reason not to place it in the corpus of the article. Collect (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Well, all appearances aside, I believe I have given reasons. I will expand You recommend this:"... the liberal MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party. The non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts 'aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.' [16] The conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned ...."


 * This is written poorly -- it flows horribly as if it is stuck in the middle of the flow of the section.
 * It is about Olbermann and not about West. We have agreed to characterize Olberman as liberal. Put this statement in Olbermann's article where it belongs.
 * Please answer this question that you have yet not addressed: are you recommending that we put in comments about criticism about O'Reilly and Limbaugh also?
 * As a compromise (we are trying to collaborate here), I've agreed to put this into a reference. I wouldn't characterize it as "burying" but trying to put it in an appropriate place. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As initially written it did not "flow poorly." It is due to reversions that the sentences do not "flow." If you went back to my earlier edit, you would find that the sentences "flow" perfectly fine. Collect (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, help me out here. Below, you stated:"Per WP, when a source is biased, then material relating to the bias of the source is proper balance." Could you please point me to policy that makes that statement? Per WP policy, our objective is to characterize Olbermann's POV which has been done (i.e., liberal) as has been done for the conservative commentators. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Giving a full cite for the single word is better than assigning the gist to the footnote. Honest. As it is, it looks like you want to say only rightwing commentators have any problem with Keith, which is belied by the cite you shrink to a footnote. Collect (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is what footnotes are for -- to provide citation for a statement. I disagree that the statements are saying the "rightwing" commentators have any problem with Keith. In fact, that isn't what they are saying at all. Limbaugh and O'Reilly and the news director are disagreeing with Biden and all her critics, not Olbermann per se. The objective here is to provide balance to the West event. Again, this is about West, not about Olbermann. I've compromised to add in the (IMO) unnecessary AP quote which is about NBC news and not about Olbermann anyway -- I mean, it doesn't make any sense. Olbermann is liberal, agreed. What does the assertion that NBC news isn't liberal at all relevant here? Is your main concern that we are using the term "liberal" rather than "left wing"? And, for the fourth time, I will ask: are you recommending that we add in criticisms of O'Reilly & Limbaugh? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are using a cite for support of the word "liberal" and that word is not in the cite, the cite is being improperly used. If the cite from a non-partisan source says "left wing" and the term is placed in quotes, that is proper indeed. Collect (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep your head a-spinnin', but I responded to this at Talk:Barbara West (TV news anchor). I will probably cut and paste all of this info to that section later so we can keep it all on one rubric. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

COI accusation
"Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC television program Countdown with Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party."

You argue that "citing editorial opinions is not part of BLP". But as another editor above pointed out:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." You state that there is clearly no COI issue here. I may or not may agree with your argument; it may or may not be accurate to define COI as only related to direct payment. The issue here is that the editors are not asserting that she has a COI but that commentators have made that claim. Wikipedia isn't about truth but about verification. See WP:ASF:"Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. [emphasis in original]" Here we are not asserting the opinion but a fact that someone made the assertion. From WP:BLP:"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" This isn't a "conjectural interpretation of a source" as you boldly asserted above; it is what they asserted -- no interpretation was necessary. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are insistent that you will hold your breath or keep making 3RR threats. OK. Then let the balancing mechanism of WP work. You cite Olbermann, others can dispute his biases. Simple! Collect (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a breath. I'm not doing any such thing but instead trying to engage you in how Wikipedia policy works. I agree that Olberamnn should be characterized. I'm also trying to add in other viewpoints. Certainly we aren't going to add in how other dispute their biases also. It has no place in this article. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You deled non parisan cites? Um -- you think when a non -partisan cite criticizes Keith that he might be more damaged than if you just put in right-wing cites? Let's keep the non-partisan cites in, please. Collect (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, don't you think that this is more appropriate for the Olbermann article than here? Do you not think that there exists hundreds of non-partisan cites that characterize and criticize Limbaugh and O'Reilly also? They have no business here is all I'm arguing. I'm working hard to expand on the support for West in order to give the section balance. I'm not really interested in adding in criticism of the commentators. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue at hand is whether it is proper to balance Keith's cite. I provided a non-partisan cite, but you seem to think a non-partisan cite should not be allowed, but rightwing cites should be used? I feel that the non-partisan cite is, perforce, a strong balance to Keith's cite. Don't you? Collect (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded above so as not to have the same conversation in different parts of the talk page. Thanks! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, it was you who bifurcated all of this -- not I. Collect (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Olbermann characterization
You are arguing that Olbermann should be characterized with: The Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." The Tulsa World's Jay Cronley wrote "On one channel there's the irrational Keith Olbermann fighting to keep froth off his chin" and "This is like an attempt at the conning of America. " I think you are on the right track here but I think a better technique then this sledgehammer (these sources are best used on Olbermann's page) but instead to characterize Olbermann which is the usual style in wikipedia. I would suggest making this change:"Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC liberal commentator Keith Olbermann television program Countdown with Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party." Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You use a sledgehammer? -- I used two NON-PARTISAN cites in response. Limbaugh is not as strong a rebuttal as the two cites I gave. Per WP:BLP since you threatened me with an editwar, I sought to find a balance. Try to live with it. Collect (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to debate whether the second source is non-partisan (using all caps or not). Since we are going to add in Limbaugh and O'Reilly, do you think it will be really useful to add in criticism of these two commentators as you are suggesting for Olbermann? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The you will keep in the absolutely non-partisan journalism cite? Collect (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Collect changed the "liberal" characterization to "left wing" per the AP source. Commonly on Wikipedia, we avoid the use of "left wing" and "right wing" as they are vague. Left wing can mean anything from communist to anything left of center. Right wing, similarly, can mean fascist to anything right of center. Wikipedia prefers the more neutral "liberal" or "conservative" or even "left/right of center". Or are you arguing that we should change the term conservative to "right wing" for Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Easy to dig up sources that characterize them in that manner. I would be happy to consistently use one or the other as a compromise (I'm sure you see that using only left-wing but not right-wing isn't neutral) but I guarantee that both left- and right-wing will be reverted by another editor. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In WP, when a cite is used, the person reaing the article expects that the cite is being represented accurately. Using "liberal" where a non-partisan cite says "left wing" is intellectually reprehensible. Place it in quotes, and no one should revert it since it accurately represents the cite. BTW, "left wing" and "right wing" are found many places in WP, so do not claim otherwise. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the page to be consistent stylistically. I apologize for being so reprehensible in supporting a neutral approach to this section. I promise you that these non-neutral characterizations will not survive but am willing to go along with you since you seem to be focused on these. I'll defer to your experience about the use of "left wing" and "right wing" on other pages (which isn't my experience) but that has nothing to do with this page; please read up on Other stuff exists. Just because another page is contrary to policy (or in this case, good writing), doesn't mean it has to happen here. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Room for improvement
Please read below where I do believe that you are correct that other opinions to balance those of the criticism should be added. I said"That said, I agree that the section requires additional viewpoints -- for instance, it should include reactions from the conservative side that said that Biden's attitude was wrong, the interview was proper and that West's affiliations should not be used to judge her. This was addressed on the Larry King show, Chris Mathews show and the Rush Limbaugh show among many others." If you would like (and we can agree with the changes so far), then you may add these other viewpoints or I would be happy to do the research and add them. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave positions from the MIDDLE, which I think is a stronger rebuttal of Keith than using a specific right-wing cite. Sorry -- I tend to think the center is a better source here. Collect (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are using sources (one certainly not in the middle) that are criticizing (or more precisely, in the case of the AP source, characterizing) Olbermann. They offer zero balance to the issue of the criticism of West. We need to add in balance on that. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 14:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP, when a source is biased, then material relating to the bias of the source is proper balance. Since the journalism cite is absolutely non-partisan, there is absolutely no reason not to use it to characterize Ketih's biases. Collect (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only was Keoith now not even listed as "liberal" the entire NON-PARTISAN cite was deleted. This is unconscionable after I thought we had reached an agreement (though, contrary to your edit summary I NEVER suggested that "wings" be used everywhere -- just that when a cite is used for the word "liberal" and that word is not even in the cite, that the use is improper). Therefore, I reinserted the non-partisan cite. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This section has nothing to do with West. It states that NBC isn't liberal. It looks like you want to insert criticism of Olbermann but don't want criticism of conservative commentators. That is an unbalanced POV that WP:NPOV excludes. Two alternatives: include criticism of all commentators or none. This isn't the proper page to include criticism of any of the commentators, so I reverted to none. I would support include words such as "conservative" and "liberal" or whatever but not this one-sided approach. SmallRepair (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The commentator's position is a valid point to be addressed by giving a balancing view. In fact, I chose a totally non-partisan cite for the balance. I am sorry that you feel Keith's views do not need balance -- but BLP is clear. Otherwise, I shall go back and suggest deleting the entire stuff about Keith - ok? Either have balance, or leave it out. Collect (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I see we are full circle here. You are attempting to re-insert your original POV edit. You are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You refuse to listen to editor's arguments and refuse to answer their direct and obvious questions. You can't insert so-called balanced information that is irrelevant to the subject or at least you need to have the version which includes non-POV characterizations of all the commentators and not just the one you are obsessing on. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neat! A nonpartisan cite is POV, but a cite from Keith Olbermann is not POV? Incredible! Collect (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I will go over it again. The Olbermann quote is clearly POV which is allowed as repeatedly made clear to you; I strongly recommend you re-read this talk page so it doesn't have to be repeated here. Olbermann's statement is balanced by both Limbaugh's and West's statements which brings neutrality to the section. Your objective: to add in a statement that NBC isn't liberal. Why do you want to do that? You want to add in criticism of Olbermann. Do you want to add in criticism of Limbaugh and O'Reilly also? (That is the fifth time I've asked that). Your actual goal is to characterize Olbermann as "left wing" using said source. I've explained why Wikipedia doesn't encourage the use of "left wing" and "right wing" but prefers the more neutral "liberal" and "conservative" or "left of center" or "right of center" unless, of course, in the case of a neo-fascist or communist do these terms have value. Either we characterize *all* of the commentator's POV (liberal and conservative) which can be done without the necessity of using sources since their respective pages do characterize them as liberal and conservative (but notice, not left or right wing), OR we characterize them *all* as "left wing" and "right wing" with respective sources OR we don't characterize them at all. Your objective is to characterize only Olbermann as left-wing. That is unacceptable. I get it. You don't like Olbermann. You need to let your personal biases not guide your editing. You will never find consensus for such a one-sided addition to the article (i.e., without including also similar stuff about Limbaugh and O'Reilly). I disagree using the "left wing" and "right wing" characterizations but you seemed intent on utilizing "left wing" and so went with it knowing full well that that would be quickly reverted as that is absurd. I concur with either utilizing "liberal" or "conservative" without the need for citations or for not characterizing at all. There. I've summarized again the points here. To date, three editors disagree with your idea of characterizing the commentators as "left wing or "right wing". I don't know what else can be said without repeating it umpteen times. I hope that you noticed that I removed the use of the term "conflict of interest" from the article to address your concerns. I wish you could see that we are working here in good faith and collegially. Having to go over old ground repeatedly serves no purpose. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
This article has been placed under protection for the next 24 hours. Please discuss the *issues* at stake here. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete Section: October 27, 2008 McCain Interview
Her interview with John McCain on October 27, 2008 has nothing to with the controversy. Why is it mentioned?


 * I returned text that was removed that provided the necessary context for the McCain interview. SmallRepair (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I live in Orlando and have meet Mrs. West and her husband. I have noticed that this biography pages is only listing the second interview that she did with Biden that had hard questions and only listing the first interview with McCain that had easy ones. This implies a right wing only view point. Since Mrs. West has done two interviews with both (the first ones being easy and the second being hard) I believe the harder interview of McCain is vaild to be in the article to provide a balanced neutral view point. Joseph M Boy (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to controversy
I cut down the "controversy" section to two sentences and removed the "guilt by association" info on her husband. One "controversy" should not dominate the whole article, if Ms West is notable at all that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And I reverted the same. Please discuss suggestions here. I have faith we can work out a good solution to the perceived problems on the page. The "guilt by association" was brought up by two different commentators and not an independent assertion by an editor, as required by NPOV. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think my version: "On October 23, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden with questions she personally wrote. She was later criticized for asking unusual questions and for her apparent hostility towards Biden." (with 6 footnotes for people who want more details) is fair. I don't think the information that her husband is a Republican should be mentioned in the article, that would not be normal for most WP articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand you think it is fair; presumably that goes without saying. Now we need to get together and discuss on what basis of Wikipedia policies should govern the text vs. your personal opinions, and let's do so without edit warring. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think her husband's ties to the Republican party are relevant in this case. Steve Dufour, it is unethical for you to delete and vandalize an article and then nominate it for deletion. (Independent4ever (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * Her Republican ties are part of the whole controversy. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. What percentage of the article do you think should be devoted to the Biden interview? Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe we should be discussing percentages per se. But, in the spirit of moving this conversation along, I suggest the following rewrite. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite
2008 presidential race interviews controversy

On October 23, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden with questions she personally wrote. West asked Biden if he was "embarrassed about Barack Obama's affiliation with ACORN" given allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN in elections past, likened Obama's response to a question from Ohio voter "Joe the Plumber" to a quote from Karl Marx, asked how Obama's views on distributing the wealth differed from Marxism, and questioned if Obama's view might lead the U.S. "into a socialist country much like Sweden." At one point, Senator Biden asked West if she was joking, and later suggested she was offering "talking points" against Barack Obama.

The Obama campaign responded saying " This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question. Let's be clear: This station's interview with Joe Biden wasn't tough -- it was just absurd." A subsequent interview with the candidate's wife, Jill Biden, was cancelled. Obama's Florida spokeswoman, Adrianne Marsh, called Biden's interviewer, Barbara West, "both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts." WFTV's news director defended West, saying she had not been inappropriately tough, but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain which they characterized as softer. when she had asked him questions such as "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box &mdash; in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?".

Later, after West interviewed McCain again, On October 27, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. West asked McCain about alleged in-fighting between his own staff and that of Sarah Palin and whether it was indicative of Palin's belief that the ticket is not going to win, the strength of McCain’s own campaign, why independent analysis showed that Joe the Plumber would do better under Obama's tax plan, and whether the wealthy really need tax cuts. McCain jocularly requested West not say "anything mean" or else he "may get angry." Mark Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, characterized it this interview as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".

===Republican ties=== West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, who contributed $2,250 to four Republican candidates from 2000 to 2006. His biography as a board member of Solgames USA Inc. states that he is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." This has led Jeff Bercovici from Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC television program Countdown with Keith Olbermann to question whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews. West herself is also a registered Republican.

Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can break up the rewrite proposals into different sections, so it's easier to comment on them. (Independent4ever (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * I took the liberty to structure a discussion section with your comments. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Campaign length verbiage
1. "This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question." I agree this can be deleted. This is just the opinion of the campaign and adds nothing to the discussion (Independent4ever (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));

McCain interview detail
2. "which they characterized as softer ... "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box — in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?"." I think the quotes should be kept because they mirror the partisan line of questioning in the Biden interview. In addition, I think it's necessary to add the date (October 14, 2008) to provide the proper context. It was there before, but someone deleted it. (Independent4ever (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * I would argue that the thrust of the controversy is the Biden interview which requires some detailing. The sources contrasted that with the McCain interview and let them do the characterizing of the comparison as a less aggressive interview. The interested reader could, naturally, go to the source for the details. I believe it reads better without so much detail and lessens the weight given to this notable event. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think we should remove it to reduce weight given to this notable event, then yes. In that case, we should also redact her second interview with McCain as you suggested. (Independent4ever (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC));

Subsequent McCain interview detail
3. "Later...may get angry." I think it may be appropriate to add a couple of quotes from that interview as well, showing she asked tougher questions. Other than that I am okay with your rewrite. (Independent4ever (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * My response would be the same as above: The critical interview is the Biden one and the others are used for contrasting purposes. I don't believe that it is necessary to add so much for these lesser events. The point is made without leavening the section with the quotations. The point of this section is to highlight the Biden interview and to discuss reactions to it -- one of which is that some commentators believe that it contrasts with McCain's interviews. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just think if we leave the reference to the second interview with McCain, a couple of quotes will add balance to the article. If you think otherwise, I won't object to redacting it the way you indicated. (Independent4ever (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC));

Husband's bio detail
4. "His biography ... states that he is a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." I think the reference to Wade West's biography is relevant because it underscores the fact that he is a political strategist for the Republican Party. You can be a private citizen and donate to the Republican Party, but he did much more than that. (Independent4ever (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * The difficulty is that the redacted section doesn't indicate he was a Republican strategist. In fact, in interviews, West has said he has worked for Clinton and both Bushs. It adds nothing to the basic fact that he is (was) a political strategist. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that Wade West has also worked for Democrats. I assumed political strategists were always partisan. If we can find references to his work for Democratic candidates, we could add them to the article. However, leaving out the quote from his biography would be a mistake because the reader would not understand that he is a "political strategist". The reader needs to understand that West's husband is a political consultant. That is an important element of the controversy.(Independent4ever (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC));


 * Doesn't this:"West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, [emphasis added]" just about say it? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Point well taken. However, since the proposed version says he's a "former" political strategist, readers may think his ties to the Republican Party are minor. The quote would seem to correct that misunderstanding because it underscores the extent of his work, i.e. "consultant for ... 85 members of Congress and members of the President's Cabinet." Clearly, it wasn't just something he did on the side and for a short period of time(Independent4ever (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC));.


 * That makes sense, then. I'll incorporate the quote in some fashion. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I ended up pushing the text into a footnote. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 01:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Details of her husband shouldn't be included. He's consulted for a number of different people and groups and drawing attention to his Republican links is borderline synthesis. Just because a couple of fairly minor sources have suggested that it might have caused bias doesn't mean it should be included. The same goes for the fact she's a registered Republican. Unless we are going to mention the affiliation of every journalist on their page then this is really bad. Using Raul's Razor ("An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie") this article clearly fails. It reads as if she is clearly attacking Biden because of her Republican views. The whole section should be cut to be as short and factual as possible. Trebor (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I stated above:"In fact, in interviews, West has said he has worked for Clinton and both Bushs."which I got from reliable sources vs. his purported statements on Wikipedia which, as you know, have no standing here. Hence why I redacted the term "Republican strategist". I'm unsure how WP:SYNTH applies here, borderline or otherwise. That is when an editor:"puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources" That isn't happening here. There are two sources which each independently put these facts together and draws the conclusion not the editors.


 * I am not the author of this section but an editor working to resolve the undue problems (which I'm sure you've noticed we've taken steps to remedy) and perceived POV problems; I come with no sympathies per se. I don't see how this paragraph (after I rewrote it) reflects the author's bias. It (properly) reflects the source's biases which is allowed on Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." Labeling this section as having a POV problem is not a sufficient argument. The criticism is attributed explicitly to those making said criticism which satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:V. You may characterize the sources as "minor" but they are both reliable sources. And, you are correct, they are "clearly" claiming her bias was the motivation for her mode of attack -- but not the page editors.


 * That said, I agree that the section requires additional viewpoints -- for instance, it should include reactions from the conservative side that said that Biden's attitude was wrong, the interview was proper and that West's affiliations should not be used to judge her. This was addressed on the Larry King show, Chris Mathews show and the Rush Limbaugh show among many others. I can work on that but would like first to resolve this issue. Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. A couple of defenders could be quoted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added in Limbaugh and O'Reilly's defense of West, expanded on the news director's opinions and added in West's defense of her claimed COI problems. I believe the section is more balanced now. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why in this section? Collect (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why in this section what? I was responding to Steve Dufour. Isn't the best place to respond to Steve's comment here? Or are you asking why reactions to the interview should be included in the interview section of the article? Or are you....? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 18:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Steve's comment is a full week old -- the section where you added O'Reilly has nothing much to do with "husbands bio detail" at all. The COI nonsense is now heavily overweighted, as I stated before. Collect (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, nothing to do with the bio detail. But if you read above, you will see it flows with this thread. I said: There are problems, there is a need for other opinions. Steve said, Yeah, there should be. I said, there, I done did it. This has nothing to do with the above thread. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You bifurcated everything -- and now you say this "flows"? LOL! BTW, the non-partisan cite used the word "left wing" and not "liberal". Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your confusion arises from the misunderstanding that every comment here is directed at you; actually, I was talking to Steve. I will respond to your use of "left wing" under the proper section. Your welcome. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 19:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of minor points
In the sentence: "On the official biography page for Barbara West on WFTV.com, she lists her first two specific accomplishments as covering the inauguration of President George W. Bush and covering the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. [1]", I think it is original research to take out only two items from her work profile out of the half dozen or so it mentions. If we are going to use that as a source we should include all of the info it contains, which is not so much. (On the other hand, we could take it off and make the article about the interview, not her.)

The information about her husband and her Republican Party membership could be moved up from the section on the interview to a new "personal information" section. This would actually make more impact if the reader knows about it before reading about the interview. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly with both ideas -- her biography needs to be given much more meat and I would encourage such an effort. Glad you're back -- hope you had nice weekend! &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please go ahead and make the changes. I am not going to edit the article anymore, as I said on my talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a couple changes since the 5 day ban on me editing the page is up and Therefore informed me that he does not have the time to make them himself. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture
I don't think the picture is really needed. Most people know what a TV interview looks like. I am not an expert on WP policy or copyright law, but it seems to me that WP using a coyrighted picture in an article which the copyright owner is probably not too happy about might not be such a good idea. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something, but this all seems rather neutral to me - why wouldn't she be happy about it? It just gives facts. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 12:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP has very stringent policies about use of copyright images. I probably would allow many which WP deletes, but WP policies govern.  Collect (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would rather see a picture of just Ms West at the top of the page than a picture of the interview, which is only a minor part of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an additional picture of West would be nice but the inclusion of the interview picture adds value also. SmallRepair (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and put one on if you like, or someone else. Downloading/uploading a screenshot is way beyond my pay grade. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please consider a new article on the interview
One of my main interests on WP is biographies of living persons, and defending people who seem to be unfairly treated by their bios. Although I am a conservative (who voted for President Obama) I have defended people of all political shades, and non-political people too. I personally don't think a local TV interview of a vice-presidential candidate is all that important. However, I see that some people do. Would you consider starting a new article on just the interview? That article could be a long as you want and could include the opinions of experts and pundants from the four corners of the earth. Then the information given in this article could be trimmed down a little so it doesn't overweight the rest of Ms West's life. People who are interested could follow a link to the other article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't support this idea. Your personal political background is not important here. Our goal is to edit a page that is neutrally written irrespective of our POVs. What exactly does this have to do with "defending people who seem to be unfairly treated"? If you have problems with neutrality, let's talk about them and repair it. This section appears to have gone through many changes to insure a neutral point-of-view. I would think it better if you could expand on her biography if you think that it is lacking. If her biography was fleshed out, then this section would not have as much, as you say, relative weight. We typically fork out sections to child articles when the parent article is becoming too big. That isn't the case here. The section has already been pared down to its essentials: information about the interview and the reactions from her news director, Obama camp and several pundits giving differing viewpoints. SmallRepair (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Is her interview with Biden notable? If so it seems to me that it could have its own article.  If not then it shouldn't take up so much space in this article. Someone could look up some of the other things she has done as a TV journalist and write a couple of paragraphs on each one.  But I don't think that would be such a good idea since the purpose of a bio article is to give basic information on a person. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The interview is not particularly notable. Nor does it properly belong in a BLP. It was a single news event, and the emphasis given it here is undue. The manner in which it is oresented in POV. When presented with an attempt to offer balance, the article was made even more POV for some strange reason. The entire interview section at this point shoiuld be simply removed. As to calims that the article is balanced, I found no other ones where the small financial vccontributions of a husband were placed into a BLP. . Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel that the interview is just a news event and not notable. However some others seem to think it is notable.  That is why I am suggesting that they start a new article about it.  I couldn't start the article myself since that would be insincere of me. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shall we ask what the consensus is? Right now, I do not see a lot of support for keeping this in as more than a couple of sentences at most. Collect (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the interview is notable, as it put her into the public spotlight. However, there is too much weight put on this one event. A year from now I doubt people will want to know this much detail. JenWSU (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two different arguments being made:


 * The interview isn't notable.
 * The interview should have its own page.


 * Steve, these two points contradict each other. New pages require notability -- in fact, the standard for new page's notability is much higher than the notability requirements for article content.


 * As for page content, this is a clearly notable event as it received international coverage. Steve argues that because the inteview is notable, then it could have its own article. That standard isn't a Wikipedia standard -- two entirely different standards. The bias is against creating a fork of sections of articles unless to shrink the size of the entire article which becomes ungainly. That isn't the case here. I would (as always) encourage Steve's and Collect's efforts to creating a more complete article. You can not fault the one section, which is the most notable event in her life to-date, because of a sketchy biography -- that is the fault of page editors and not the problem of the section editors. Collect's declaration "nor does it belong in a BLP" is contradicted by BLP policy as has been pointed out several times above -- I encourage him/her to argue policy vs. making declarative statements. Collect argues that it was a single news event. That also isn't WP policy. I am unclear what his point is -- there are thousands of news events that are included in WP. Collect claims it is POV saying that when balance was added to the article in due diligence, that it was made more POV "for some strange reason". It would have to be strange since adding balance, by definition, solves POV. I'll address weight issues more fully in the next section. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Therefore. The idea I was trying to convey is this: If the interview is an important historical event then give it its own article. (I could also add that the fact that it was an interview of Joe Biden is more important than the fact that it was an interview by Barbara West.) If the interview was not an important historical event then just mention it in this article. We can not have a discussion of every interview or story that Ms West has done. Focusing on only the one controversial one gives an unbalanced picture of her career. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You make some valid points. The issue here is if another West interview receives multiple reactions and reports in reliable sources, then it too should be a major addition to her biography. I would encourage adding in some of her more important interviews which would be an appropriate and constructive improvement so that the reader may have a more complete picture of her career. But because that is a current deficit in the article doesn't justify removing this notable interview and the reactions it caused -- you see what I mean? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made my suggestion for a trim-down in the next section. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing weight
If you don't feel like starting a new article on the Biden interview, here is my suggestion to remove some of the weight given to the incident. I would take off these last sentences of the section: "But some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain which they characterized as softer.[9][4][10] When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, said it was tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".[11][12][13] While saying he may have asked things differently, commentator Bill O'Reilly said that Biden and her critics were unfairly characterizing her questions as "far-right" and that Biden had overreacted and should have answered her questions.[14] Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and [MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West was influenced in her presidential candidate interviews by her husband's connections with the Republican Party.[15][9] Commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned why other reporters with political connections by marriage aren't also questioned.[16] West said that while her husband had worked for Republicans he was also involved with Democrats and denied any impact.[17]"

The Obama/Biden campaign's charges and the station's reponse are still there. What is removed is just back and forth opinions. They would be great in an article on the interview, but seem a bit much for this bio article, when no opinions are given about West's work as a whole. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we have two different threads going on here, so I moved Collect's to a different heading so I can respond separately there and respond to the weight thread here.


 * I wouldn't want to strip out the full extent of the reactions beyond the immediate parties as that would mean leaving out a part of the picture. I don't agree with the expansion of the last paragraph that was the result of Collect's additions today. However, I would suggest a more summary style approach may be in order. My suggestion: But some media commentators criticized her performance claiming she gave a softer interview with Republican candidate John McCain.   In response to the assertion that she was exhibiting right wing conservative bias and grandstanding  other commentators said that was an unfair characterization and Biden had overreacted. A few noted her husband's connections with the Republican Party questioning if that was an influencing factor on her questions,  a charge West absolutely denied.
 * Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be an improvement. I would take out the expression "right wing."  I might be a little old fashioned but to me "right wing" implies people far to the right of the mainstream which Ms West does not seem to be. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Change made. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With all the (6) footnotes, I would like the non-partisan footnote included. Seems you should have no objection to that? Collect (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would object to the totally irrelevant footnote that NBC isn't liberal. I will ask you for the sixth time: are you suggesting adding in the two other "non-partisan" footnotes proffered for characterizing Limbaugh and O'Reilly? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with section
By the way, the Bercovici cite improperly implied that he wrote his editorial for the print Portfolio Magazine, when it was actually a blog entry. Aslo the Olbermann cite was not to the transcript. In neither case were their words directly pertinent to the claim made as to what they said, so I corrected the cite to a transcript, and used Olbermann's own words for his ref, and I gave a more accurate precis of Bercovici's blog. Still POV, but the inacurate use of refs is not a good idea, even to try pushing a pint. . I still think this is a "single event" and falls under "NOTNEWS" and "BLP" problems. Collect (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the referneces. It is not good form to question the bias of other editors. See WP:AGF. You have made three WP policy arguments here by waving acronyms around. Please argue policy and not acronyms. None of the policies you are quoting are applicable here. I invite you to review the proposed (and denied) deletion page for this article where other editors argued these points (I mean, actually made an argument vs. simply throwing around acronyms) and were refuted. That way we can avoid repeating the response here. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 17:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that accusing editors of "throwing around acronyms" is rather ill-tempered. And you should note that the fact that a consensus was not found for deletion does not mean any of the arguments raised were invalid. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, pointing out what another editor is doing contrary to standard techniques of argumentation may be seen as ill-tempered by said editor but is commonly pointed out to by editors. The difference on the deletion page is that they made arguments vs. just citing acronyms; the latter isn't an alternative for the former. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

one little word
Transcript says "How is Sen. Obama not being Marxist" and not "a Marxist." per cite. Collect (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Collect. Which transcript are you using? Mine says,"How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around? [emphasis added]" My source is and . What one are you using? I also got the line verbatim from several of the sources. I agree it makes (little) a difference but we should stick with the facts. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Dallas cite specifically does not have "a" in it. A couple of others are now broken links. I listened tot he WFTV video and did not hear any distinct "a" so this is likely a "transcript artifact" for CNN and the like -- since the use of an adjective v noun is not something they really habdle well . Do you hear a distinct "a" when you relisten?  So far I have found both versions online (sigh). Collect (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your ears on this, then. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I recall Neil Armstrong's quote which was generally miscited "One small step for a man, One giant leap for Mankind." Transcripts can err. Collect (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another editor does not believe that there are two different transcripts (sigh) and has insisted on adding "a".  Of course he didn;t post here. Collect (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you give a link to your transcript please? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Transcripts at CNN and Fox News: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/27/sitroom.02.html, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444507,00.html comment added by RatheVyrm (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's four transcripts (including the two I listed above) that uses "a". I suspect that this is more Collect's wish that there isn't an "a" which I don't believe is a Wikipedia standard. I'll put it back in. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas cite and some others miss the "a" but it is not exactly a major deal. Collect (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are absolutely right -- it doesn't use the "a"! My bad. So, I went to take a listen and the "a" is there as clear as day. See the youtube vid: at about the 2:50 mark. I agree with you that there is a nuanced difference, the "a Marist" was what she said. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

too many cites spoil the soup
I consider 6 cites for a short sentence to be overkill. How many is reasonable, remembering that the cites are there to support the sentence and are not supposed to be a huge part of an article in and of themselves. Collect (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The cites are to provide backup for "Some criticized". Citations provided were to avoid the problem with weasel words. It is not uncommon to have six citations particularly when they are there to offer support for the "some". There is no Wikipedia policy that states that "too many cites spoil the soup". Thoughts? &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Six is very uncommon -- though one person playing games gave 13 cites for one word. Choose three ok?  Collect (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I did nominate the article for deletion, I disagree here. One purpose of footnotes is to direct the reader to other sources of information.  In this case they might be interested in reading some of the criticism mentioned. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve here. Although six isn't common for each factual statement in Wikipedia, it isn't that uncommon when it is used to source a "some people said" statement. The alternative here is to list each of the commentator's specific criticisms, noting their respective POVs, an approach this article's editors have stepped back from to avoid giving this section too much weight. The listing of sources is the alternative. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I shrunk the number to four. I think you made a mistake, Collect -- you removed four of citations (all sources for "some criticized") while leaving only two to WFTV -- one that pointed to nothing, the other to the McCain interview. I fixed this. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't choose them other than just taking the last four. No intent otherwise to be sure. I told you to pick, remember? Collect (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right -- sorry about that! :) &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Political Affiliations
The article cites that Ms. West is a registered Republican, but I'm not sure if this is relevant considering, after looking over several other members of the press' wiki pages WP does not cite their political affiliations. Advocate7x70 (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the heat of the campaign, some appeared to feel that her attitude in the interviews was flavored by her political affiliation, rather than the other way around. Amazingly enough, some very biassed "journalists" are officially "independent."  Collect (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be precise, the news source (per WP:V) felt it pertinent. Most journalists, by personal choice or by the directive of their news organizations, do not register nor get involved with political organizations. Hence why they declare themselves independent irrespective of their obvious biases. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Barbara West (TV news anchor). 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/20081102181452/http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html to http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015083044/http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html to http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031021558/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/news_columnist_mikethomas/2008/10/thats-the-last.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2008/10/thats-the-last.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081102181452/http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html to http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029025339/http://www.wftv.com:80/video/17459312/index.html to http://www.wftv.com/video/17459312/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015083044/http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html to http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081027060446/http://www.wftv.com:80/video/17790025/index.html to http://www.wftv.com/video/17790025/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028180611/http://www.wftv.com:80/video/17810719/index.html to http://www.wftv.com/video/17810719/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)