Talk:Ed Schultz

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ed Schultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0204-FEB_MANOFMONTH

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ed Schultz. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111021032825/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=7187&NewsAreaId=2

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ed Schultz. 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/20100922213549/http://www.chicagosprogressivetalk.com/includes/news_items/2/news_items_more.php?id=8&section_id=2 to http://www.chicagosprogressivetalk.com/includes/news_items/2/news_items_more.php?id=8&section_id=2
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://alb.merlinone.net/mweb/wmsql.wm.request?oneimage&imageid=6275892
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316190944/http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=15438&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7 to http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=15438&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130820150641/http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/19/the-ed-show-moves-to-weekdays-at-5p-et-starting-august-26/ to http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/19/the-ed-show-moves-to-weekdays-at-5p-et-starting-august-26

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverted burying of information re: firing
This was, and is, a significant and noteworthy part of his career, worthy of being included. To give this a part of his MSNBC career is a way of burying the information when, he left his long-term career, alleging bias at MSNBC. By every imaginable metric, this deserves its own section. It might not be in the one it's in, but one sentence to describe it, simply is not enough. WobInDisguise (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this here for discussion; I was about to do the same. For reference, Your preferred edit is . My preferred edit is . You want to make a whole subsection, titled " Allegations of bias at MSNBC against Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign and subsequent firing", out of comments he made to National Review in an interview after he went to work for RT. In the comments he claimed he had been fired by MSNBC for supporting the campaign of Bernie Sanders, that he was ordered not to cover the launch of Sanders' campaign, and that MSNBC was "in the tank" for Clinton. He also praised RT, his current employer, as giving him creative freedom and the opportunity to do "real journalism". I felt the "fired because of Sanders" and "MSNBC" comments were worth covering, but in a sentence rather than a subsection, and I trimmed it to that newsworthy content. The balance of his complaints about MSNBC were clearly untrue, such as his claim that he was ordered not to cover Sanders' announcement, when according to the Examiner source he did cover it and so did the program that followed him, Al Sharpton. And he was fired, not at the time, but two months later along with two other people as part of a reshuffle. And as for his praise for RT, I am not surprised that he feels obliged to kiss up to his employer, but that is not the reputation that RT has; it is owned by and reportedly dictated by the Russian government. So now you have restored the whole subsection; I am leaving it there while we discuss. IMO it should be trimmed back to a sentence, namely that somewhat newsworthy claim (I say somewhat because it was covered only by a couple of right-wing outlets, the Washington Examiner and the Free Beacon - but it is his own words so I think we can use them) that he was fired for supporting Sanders. If you want to include the rest, and if others agree, we could do so but would have to also include the evidence I cited here contradicting his claims. IMO that would way overbalance our coverage of one interview, in this article which is supposed to be a biography of his whole life. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We will need more opinions. It doesn't seem like this page has any regular watchers. I'm pinging some of the people who made significant edits to this article in the past year: Do you care to weigh in on the discussion above? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No opinion. My involvement with this article has strictly been the reversion of vandalism and subsequent minor content editing.  General Ization Talk  20:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have examined the circumstances, and have formed an opinion. I believe that the longer section supported by WobInDisguise is heavily reliant on two sources, and gives undue weight on this particular subject matter. It is my opinion that the coverage is at a satisfiable extent with MelanieN's version. If anything, both citations could be used for the single sentence. That way, redacting Ed's specific comments would be fine, and would still be readily accessible to anyone clicking on the links of those citations.


 * Also, I feel that the sub-section heading is a bit long, and the title alone disrupts the flow of the article. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, made some c/e edits to section under discussion not realizing there was an ongoing discussion here. In any event, I don't see anything wrong with the section. From reading its contents seems similar to the "Controversies" sections in many existing articles, except that here it's within his "Career" section. Since the events occurred as part of his career and his career's events appear in chrono order, I have no problem with the section (or its length). Mercy11 (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

“Natural Causes”
When I studied journalism in college in 2012-2014 we were taught that we could not write “natural causes” for a death. Why? It is a weasel phrase and it is inaccurate. Journalists are supposed to find the cause of death and report on it. Why? Partly so we know that somebody actually died.

If somebody died before the average lifespan, I contend that their death is not natural causes. If Shultz would have died from natural causes he would have died in his 70s. 75 is the average lifespan for a man in the U.S. He died over a decade early for some reason. Does anyone know why?

I think every Wikipedia article that cites “natural causes” as a cause of death should be notated with something that indicates more information is needed. Does anybody agree? How could this change be made? Also, does anybody know how Schultz actually died? Jasonagastrich (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're determined to get an answer as to the exact cause of death, the primary source would be the coroner's report. I would expect the report to say something along the lines of it being a natural death (as opposed to a suicide or homicide) with no particular expansion as to why he died.  If you think the "death" section could use copy-editing (or that the article could be restructured to put that as part of a "Biography" or "Personal life" section so there isn't undue weight in the section headings to his death), go ahead and edit it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) We are limited by what the family chooses to announce, and there is no call for us to "investigate" further. There is nothing wrong with "natural causes". A person can die of natural causes at any age. "Natural causes" usually means illness; basically it's a way of saying it was a natural death, it wasn't homicide, suicide, or accident. If the family chooses not to reveal all the details ("liver cancer", "stroke", "ruptured aneurysm", or whatever), that is their privilege. It may be too painful for them to have to explain it to the world. And as long as it was natural causes - nothing suspicious or newsworthy in itself - then it's basically none of our business. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We were told to get a copy of the death certificate. I do not think a death certificate ever says natural causes on it. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I am surprised that “natural causes” is allowed. Perhaps the human body can live for ever and perhaps death is not natural at all. Also, sometimes people die from chemotherapy and not the ailment and I think it would be wise and encyclopedic to mention chemo when that happens. Some people could continue to live without chemotherapy. Jasonagastrich (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not journalism. We are a tertiary source: we summarize what has been reported by reliable secondary sources. We do NOT do original research or go hunting up primary sources. If "natural causes" is good enough for the sources we draw our information from, then it is good enough for us. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your candor. I have brought this to AP’s attention along with major news networks. U.S. journalism has some serious issues nowadays and this is one of them. Jasonagastrich (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

== Schultz, who was touted as the "Voice of the Bison" for many years at WDAY, left in 1996 and began broadcasting for KFGO in Fargo, doing play-by-play work on University of North Dakota (UND) Fighting Hawks football broadcasts beginning in 1998. Schultz left as UND play-by-play man in 2003 to focus on his national radio show. ==

I am pretty sure he was with North Dakota State University (NDSU) and not the great University of North Dakota (UND).