Talk:Keith Olbermann/Archive 3

"Accusation of bias" section - MRC report piece very messy.
I've tried to clean up the paragraph in "Accusations of Bias" where Olbermann uses a MRC report to show that only 174 out of 600 of his worst persons were conservative, removing the POV/original research statements concerning what the editor opines to be "curious choices" etc. In the end, the paragraph itself is a problem because highlighting Olbermann's failure to disclose the 174-27 conservative/liberal ratio in the MRC report is itself a POV statement on the part of the editor. On the other hand, simply leaving Olbermann's claim concerning the report without any criticism at all (which, correctly me if I'm wrong is itself unsourced) is wrong since the report that Olbermann cites is in itself an attack on the alleged bias of his worst-person-in-the world segment. Since the report itself came first, in my opinon this paragraph should begin by listing the MRC report as an accusation of bias against Olbermann (including the 174-27 ratio), and only then giving Olbermann's arguement that the report somehow exonerates him (so long as you source it). In the end, using this format does weigh heavily against Olbermann since it seems to represent him as a liar without any counter-criticism, yet I don't see any fairer or more professional way to do it. Thoughts? Edders 11:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi salute feud - wording POV
This part is clearly POV:

"Olbermann joked that he had been waving to a friend, and added that "Bill O‘Reilly has defended the Nazis from World War II on three separate occasions," a reference in part to O'Reilly's repeated, incorrect assertion that Allied forces had massacred German troops at Malmedy for the purpose of justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq."

Where is it said that O'Reilley's incorrect assertions concerning Malmedy are meant to justify the abuse and (alleged) torture in Abu Ghraib? If Oblermann himself is saying that this is O'Reilley's aim that should be made clear. As it is the line appears POV and I'm removing everything from "for the purpose" onwards. Edders 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link at the moment, but it is Olbermann saying O'Reilley was using Malmedy to 'excuse/explain' the recently reported violations by US troops. Might be awhile before I find a link though.;) Have to dig through the transcripts of his show. --Bobblehead 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Not nearly as long as I thought. Here's the link from [Media Matters]. It has the direct quote from Olbermann's June 1 show regarding O'Reilly referencing a US atrocity at Malmedy in response to a ruling in October that allowed more Abu Ghraib pictures, then another O'Reilly reference to the atrocity in response to news of the Haditha massacre. -Bobblehead 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. So long as it's clear who's saying what, I don't see any problem with putting it back in. Edders 12:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was just waving his hand he was doing a salute, he was planely doing it, so i have included a picture to prove my point.--Crt101 05:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[User:rcox1963] (Robert Cox, editor of Olbermann Watch). This entire section is wrong and misleading and written, generally, from Keith Olbermann's POV (and that of his fans). If you want to know the truth about this matter you can read my detailed exposition on the Nazi salute including that the stunt was pre-planned and that the allegations made by Olbermann with regard to O'Reilly's referencing Malmedy are false:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/07/olbermann_defen.html

As you will see, O'Reilly was WRONG in what he said but that in the context of the two segments on The O'Reilly Factor (months apart but both with Wes Clark) it is clear that he MISSPOKE. There was no malicious intent by O'Reilly. The same cannot be said for Olbermann who not only took O'Reilly words out of context but then used his inaccurate claims to mock O'Reilly in a manner which trivialized the holocaust (at least as far as the ADL was concerned) not once but repeatedly including on national television with Jay Leno.

Not that I expect the truth to matter much at Wikipedia when it comes to Keith Olbermann but there you have it.


 * Find a reliable source that counters the tone and wording of that section and the opposing view can be included. Unfortunately OlbermannWatch is not a reliable source. --Bobblehead 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what confusing Malmedy for Chegnogne for another does to change what O'Reilly was saying, anyway. He was using past atrocities to excuse or, at best, explain present or future ones. Whether or not one finds that line of reasoning biased, or even logically wrong, Olbermann made an issue of it and Bill O'Reilly giving one city name in place of the other doesn't modify the structure of his arugment. --Falsified

Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism
This section simply notes Olbermann's comments. Where is the controversy? If notable conservatives were really outraged by his reaction to Rumsfeld, there needs to be a link to one or two reliable sources indicating the controversy that allegedly ensued.Hal Raglan 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC) conservatives
 * Yup. Gotta agree with you here. While there might be a place for Olbermann's reaction on Rumsfeld's page, I'm not entirely sure it has a place here. I haven't heard of anyone saying Olbermann was out of bounds with his response.. --Bobblehead 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The source of the criticism used by the original editor was Newsbusters/media Research Center, which is the basically the right-wing version of media matters. Criticisms from Media Matters, FAIR etc. are regularly inserted into wikipedia articles simply based on the fact that they came from these organizations. Like Media Matters, the MRC/Newsbusters have occassionally been given air time on prime time news channels, more so than, say; little green footballs or daily kos. Furthermore, Newsbusters are part of MRC, and it was an MRC study Olbermann cited to defend himself against accusations of bias. If these two facts (Newsbusters/MRC's relative fame and previous involvement with Olbermann) don't constitute adding this criticism to his article then you'd have to apply the same standard to the God-knows-how-many articles on wikipedia quoting Media Matters criticisms. Oh, another possibility would be shortening it and merging it with the Nazi-salute controversy, due to the close proximity (within a month, I think) of the events, and changing the title of the Nazi-salute controversy to something reflecting the fact that the controversy was less who he attacked and more the fact that he was allegedly being fast-and-loose with accusations of fascism/nazism. This was why he was criticized by the ADL the first time, only to return to calling his opponents nazis and fascists and be criticized for virtually the same reason by the MRC/Newsbusters.Edders 09:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But what, exactly, is the CONTROVERSY? Please note the section this comes under is called "Controversies".   If the only source of complaint is Newsbusters, then I don't see how it can possibly be described as a controvery.  And what is Newsbuster's complaint?  That anyone would dare question what a member of the Bush administration says?  Rumsfeld's remarks generated a real controversy (Olbermann is far from the only person to react negatively to Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings).  The actual nature of Newsbuster's complaint should be noted in the article.  Also, I'm not sure how many of Media Matters reports are designated on wikipedia as controversies, so your argument in that regard seems pretty weak to me.Hal Raglan 17:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to admit I don't spend a lot of time at Media Matters or the articles for their targets, but from what I've seen, Media Matters is generally used as a source only if there is a controversy. The link isn't to MM to create a controversy, but because they have documentation of the event. However, if you have some evidence of a non-controversy being inserted into an article with a link to MM, that'd be great.--Bobblehead 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hal Raglan: First, although this is the discussion page there's no reason to go on an unrelated tangent with ragards to what you call "Rumsfeld's lunatic ramblings" - we're all just trying to make a better article article here, not debate whether this or that commentator's opinions are valid. The only reason I mention this is because there are so many discussion pages that have been filled by meaningless flaming just because of someone inadvertantly making their opinion known on a subject that provokes strong feelings (i.e. politics). Let's keep everything civil and to the point, okay? :)

Hal Raglan and Bobblehead: You're right, actually; with regards the issue of whether it's a controversy or not. The salute thing is definately a controversy, whilst criticism of Olbermann over what some commentators/groups believe to be a rather liberal use of the term "fascist" comes under criticisms. This is where Media Matters is used in the manner I indicated. Ironically, for an example of this you need only go to the Media Research Center wiki article, where Media Matters is listed as a critic of the MRC even though there is no widespread controversy. The problem we have here is that there is no Keith Olbermann "criticisms" section in the article. Normally this would be simple matter of creating a seperate one and putting my (and whoever originally inserted the "Comments about Donald...") contribution in there. Yet the two issues - the ADL criticism/controversy and the "comments about" criticism - essentially revolve around a similar issue: Keith Olbermann's use or alleged overuse/insinuation of "fascist" or "nazi" when criticizing others. Therefore I think the "Comments about" bit should come directly after the Nazi Salute controversy since the two are closely linked. How about Changing "controversies" to "Criticisms and Controversies"? It may as well be done now rather than later, since at some point in the future other contributors are going to wonder where to put sourced criticisms. Edders 20:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections are inherently POV and by and large violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. It's unfortunate that many Wikipedia articles resort to these sections as they always degrade into a bitch session about the article's topic.  If the criticism can not be mixed into the rest of the article, then it shouldn't be included.  Basically, Cricism sections are the POV equivalent of a Trivia section (which is far too large in this article, BTW). --Bobblehead 23:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've made a good point. One only has to glance at the Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly articles to see how criticism sections can go out of control, with endless lists of complaints mostly lacking notability of any kind. Edit wars naturally ensue, to the detriment of the articles.  But in this case I think the suggestion made by Edders is the only way to incorporate certain material into the article.  I think we should have a "Controversies" section, which would include the Nazi Salute and probably the email insult thing, and a "Criticisms" section, which is where everything else so far would fit. It will be up to us to monitor these sections and make sure they don't become filled with nonsense.  Do others agree?Hal Raglan 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please explain how a criticism section would not violate WP:NPOV. By its very definition the section would concentrate all of the negative POV about the subject in a single part of the article and exclude the positive POV. --Bobblehead 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very confused. I admit I only started got back into wikipedia recently so I'm no expert even after trailing through the tutorials and guidelines. It was always my impression that there was some sort of unofficial agreement that any criticisms of organizations or people were given their very own section, since they can often grow pretty fast and are usually the most disputed. This seems to be the case for a variety of wiki articles, from the Media Research Center article, to some featured articles such as Galileo (listed as "Modern claims of scientific errors and misconduct", but identical in all other respects to a criticism section). Still, as you both note; criticism sections can get completely out of hand on the most controversial figures e.g. Bill O'Reilly. That said, I think we can agree that there should be a criticism section for notable criticisms that did not materialize into public controversies - a scientist criticizing another scientist's methods would undoubtedly be a worthy addition to an article. Still, who then would make a useful source of criticism for a public figure or a politician? Since such people are themselves public personalitities it stands to reason that they are making themselves open to criticism from less 'distinguished' sources. Edders 08:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, we can't agree that a criticism section is necessary for issues that do not rise to a 'controversy'. We can agree that criticisms have a place in the article, but they should be worked into the prose of the article as necessary, not in their own section.  Criticisms of a scientists methods by another scientist is notable and warrants inclusion because the other scientists criticisms have probably been included in a reliable source and should be worked into the portion of the article where their methods are described.  Please review WP:BLP. Criticism sections appear to violate the Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors as it gives disproportinate amount of space to critics.  There's also a higher threshhold for inclusion of criticisms in articles for living persons and just because someone posts on a blog that Olbermann has a liberal bias or throws out the facist card too often and then criticizes others for doing it, doesn't mean it can be included. Unfortunately Olbermann Watch is not a Reliable source.  There isn't anyone standing between the authors and what they put up on the blog and none of the authors are "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist".  If the criticism is notable enough to make it on a reliable source, then it is of a level to make it into the controversy section. All in all, like trivia sections, criticism sections are signs of a poorly written article. --Bobblehead 10:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that the Olbermann Watch nonsense should be removed. Its simply a blog run by one individual with an obvious and disturbing hatred of Keith Olbermann. And I also see what you mean when you say that these sections, in and of themselves, can be considered to be in violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, since all they tend to be is bulleted lists of negative details (often poorly sourced). A "Controversies" section, on the other hand, would be okay because it would contain important, fully cited, details regarding actual and undeniable controversies involving the subject.   If thats your general view, Bobblehead, there are alot of articles on wikipedia that required extensive editing, not just this one.Hal Raglan 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay you make very good points, so let's break this down:

1: What does Olbermann Watch have to do with anything? I never mentioned them/it/whatever, nor did I cite them as a source in either the page itself or this discussion. Anyway, I agree Olbermann Watch is not a reliable source in case it comes up in the future. I assume you mixed up Olbermann Watch with Newsbusters.

2: So, the source we're referring to is the Newsbusters blog. The newsbusters blog is distinct from, say; Little Green Footballs, Daily Kos and other blogs written by private individuals or small groups because it operates under the auspices of a much larger organization: Media Research Center. For all intents and purposes I'm treating the Newsbusters blog as if it were the MRC itself that was the source. As to whether the MRC is a reliable source: It is a relatively small and not especially well known organization, however its' press releases and criticisms have occassionally been featured on mainstream media news. I would say it is not a reliable source on its own. However, (and this is the important part) Olbermann himself cited an MRC study on bias in the media as evidence of his neutrality. In other words, Olbermann has inadvertantly made MRC relevant to this article.

3: We are not just randomly inserting every criticism a right-wing blogger tosses at Olbermann. We are adding this particular information concerning use of the term fascist because A: The Criticism is from MRC, who thanks to Olbermann's own words are somewhat relevant to this article, and B: The criticism is particularly relevent to the existing Nazi Salute controversy, and took place within a month of the controversy. If Olbermann had said this several months later (even if he did it twenty times a night) and MRC criticized every one, I would not have argued to retain the criticism. However, with A + B combined, I still think the MRC/Newsbusters criticism is a worthwhile addition to the article.

4: In case we're agreed up to this point, now comes the issue of whether inserting/retaining the criticisms section unbalances the article. I do not believe that it does. The guidelines you cite advice that: we should "Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Whilst there is a lot of stuff in this article concerning controversy, a significant amount of it is either benign or focusing on Olbermann's own criticims of others. For example; the feud with Bill O'Reilly section includes nearly as much criticism of O'Reilly as it does Olbermann, even though it is an Olbermann article (NB: I have no problem with this section, I'm just using it as an example). Thus I think the "Fascism..." section should be shrunk, but still retained. Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I took so long replying that the page was edited again! Let me read Hal's remarks now...and I'm not even going to TRY and edit the spelling mistakes I made Edders 12:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, perhaps I should better phrase what I'm saying. I'm not disagreeing that properly sourced criticism of Keith Olbermann should not be included in this article, but I was misunderstanding the source.;) If you have a reliable source go crazy and mix it into the article. --Bobblehead 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll take that as agreement for retaining the "comments about Donald..." section. I'm still going to try and shrink it a bit though. Thanks for a civil and reasoned debate where nobody got called a Nazi :). Edders 09:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Okay, I've shortened it a bit and cleaned up the mischaracterization of Rumsfeld's comments. Should all adhere to NPOV now. Edders 09:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I updated this section a bit in an attempt to describe what Olbermann's comment was about. Previously, it listed a few of the more incendiary quotes with little to link them together or provide context. I think it's less important to try to find the most shocking quotes from the comment, and more important to find the quotes that are most representative of what he said (unless, of course, one of the quotes caused notable controversy, but I'm not aware that any did). But with that said, I agree with others that I have no clue why this is in the "controversies" section. I think that overall he was praised for his comment, although obviously many folks on the other side of the debate probably disagreed with it. But does that constitute controvery? I think it may be notable because the comment has recieved a lot of attention, there are countless copies on youtube, it's big in the blogosphere, I read somewhere that he got a lot of email about it (if I had sources for those I'd put them in), and in the following days there were a number of guests on his show that were also making waves by condemning Rumsfeld for the speech. Then again, it might be something that falls off the notability radar in a month or two, time shall tell. But I think it should be moved out of "controversies". As for the very existence of a controversies section, I support it, but it should contain notable controversies (with sources), it's not a message board for opponents of Olbermann to come write what they don't like about him. -Eisnel 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I liked hiim on ESPN/Fox/Lewinsky but is he trying to get fired? If he is fired we lose his homour too! :(    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs) 15:43, 6 September, 2006 (UTC).


 * Don't think his comments about Rumsfeld and Bush are exactly Olbermann controversies, so just moved them to their own section. Which brings me to wonder why these are in this article and not in the Countdown article. The other issues have spilled outside Countdown, but I haven't heard/seen anything of this latest round of criticism of the Bush Administration spilling outside of the show (except maybe MRC and OW). --Bobblehead 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support moving it to the Countdown article, since it's more relevant to that than his bio. Of course, I'm sure the line between the Countdown and Olbermann articles are blurred in many places. And this might fizzle in terms of notability in the future, but for the moment it seems to be creating just enough buzz to get above the radar, even if temporarily. -Eisnel 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"One night stand"?
From "Comments about Rita Cosby": "Olbermann wrote to a former fan, turned one-night stand "

Is this true? Jossip.com is a gossip site.
 * Jossip doesn't seem to meet WP:RS requirements and is thus deletable from the article. At least, in my opinion. --Bobblehead 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...this is an odd one. Most of the sources for this claim are unreliable (various blogs, gossip sites et al) although there a few exceptions - apparantly it appeared in the New York Daily News, a New York Times article features an official Fox News spokesman making the same claim. Unfortunately I have to register to get in so this'll take a bit. If I havn't found anything by the end of the day just delete it, as it is a pretty serious (well, amusing but very damaging) allegation. Edders 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I found the NYTimes article and it seems to back up everything here (although it doesn't mention anything about how the emails were published in the first place - for whatever reason, there's no mention of the 'one night stand' fan). Edders 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and rewrote the sentence without mentioning the one night stand. If you're able to find a reliable source, feel free to add it. --Bobblehead 14:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds alright to me. Edders 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Olbermann Watch
Should we keep the Olbermann Watch paragraph? It doesn't appear to meet the WP:RS guideline and is more an advertisement for the website. A rewrite of the MRC paragraph should cover the same area covered by the Olbermann Watch paragraph (namely that the report was conducted, what it found, and an anecdote about Olbermann using it to show he isn't biased).--Bobblehead 15:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go wild. The allegations about Olbermann's percieved bias are just repeated in later sections anyway, so we're not losing anything. Edders 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. Olbermann Watch is simply an obscure blog and doesn't come close to meeting the noted guidelines.Hal Raglan 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, the dreaded 'Comments about Donald Rumsfeld and Fascism' section has been rewritten and extended again...Edders 08:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, sorry... I posted my reasoning for that rewrite above. I chose to be bold, but if the community of editors disagrees with what I changed, I expect them to revise it. -Eisnel 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, don't worry about it. It was just funny because we'd just reached a consensus on it. I don't have a particular problem with the wording of it, it's just the length. if you could find a way to shorten it a bit that would be great. Edders 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP!!! too wiiiiddde
The appearance of this TALKPAGE is tooooo wiiideee on my browers. Can someone fix it? 15:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chivista (talk • contribs).
 * Archived the old stuff. There was a rather lengthy block quote that was messing up the formatting. --Bobblehead 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it fits now :)

Harry Reid quotes Olbermann
I noticed it a but late, but does anyone else think Reid repeating Olbermann's opnion is worthy of adding to the Comments on Donald Rumsfeld/fascism section? It's a pretty big deal that a Senator would go so far as to quote a mere comedian (or satirist/whatever).

As a side note, I've removed the extra criticism section. The reason we kept the Rumsfeld/facism bit was because it was related to the genuine Nazi salute controversy. If we list EVERY single time Olbermann attacks someone as some unsavoury figure from history; this article would simply explode. Plus it's written in a slightly POV manner; be careful when stating your own interpretation of quotations. Edders 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A sentence, with cite, referring to the Reid quote wouldn't hurt. I wouldn't go overboard though. It's notable, but not that notable.--Bobblehead 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable for Olbermann, anyway :). Edders 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth mentioning that Reid quoted it on the Senate floor. Even if it's a minor thing, it helps us establish whether this comment has any sort of lasting notability or not (blast my inability to see the future!). -Eisnel 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"We have not forgotten, Mr. President."
Where is Olbermann's impactful commentary on the Bush administration given on September 11th, 2006? The Nation said he "without a doubt the best news anchor on television today" after that, comparing him to Edward R. Murrow. It has been making its way around the Internet over the past few days and it certainly belongs on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.96.31 (talk • contribs).
 * Just added a sentence, don't think it needs much more. Does that fit your needs? Also, don't forget to sign your additions to the talk page by putting ~ at the end. --Bobblehead 17:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is disturbing that one would support his filth-ridden commentary politicizing the deaths of 3,000 people. Someone must remind Keith two things, one he is not Edward R. Murrow, no matter how much he tries to be. Secondly, believe it or not, President Bush is not to blame for EVERYTHING under the sun. Olbermann went as far as to suggest that republicans and presumably the President had something to do w/the 9/11 miniseries because it apparently suggested Clinton didn't do enough. Nobody did enough...face it Keith. Among other things, this fraud suggested "the terrorists are still winning" and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of "irrevelent wars" He gets more sickining by the day--Bairdso66 22:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's amusing to think that it's only "politicizing" and "sickening" when a liberal makes reference to 9/11 (as the Bush administration has done ever since.) Also, please try to keep conversation on the discussion board relevent to the editing of the article, anything more is nonconducive to Wikipedia's mission. Find a conservative discussion board, perhaps. 130.49.17.71 01:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just seen this comment on the internat and I am rather confused right now. It would be nice if there was some information on the article page about what he said, contradictions to other statements (for example I have seen in another 9/11 documentary an assistant of Clinton saying Clinton did not react to the warnings he gave him about Bin Laden etc.) and factual correctness on the whole. I am German which is why my language may not be proper. Greetings 85.212.22.34 18:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
It sounds like you guys know what you are doing, but I can't help but notice that there isn't a specific "criticism" heading. I have seen this heading in articles about much less controversial individuals than Mr. Olbermann. Just an outsider thought.

Zach zachsumsion@yahoo.com
 * A criticism section has purposefully been left out. If you take a look at the criticism sections in other articles you'll notice that they generally turn into one big bitch section and generally violate WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. However, having said that, criticisms of Olbermann are perfectly acceptable as long as they are properly sourced, just include them in with the rest of the article as appropriate. --Bobblehead 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

End of 'Return to Reporting' Section
I think the whole beginning of the last paragraph makes no sense at all. It seems as if someone cut something out after the citation but didn't fix the change. I would change it myself but I don't know much about the incident to put anything there. I think someone that knows more about it than I do should go in and fix that whole last paragraph, it's ugly. SkepticMuhs 9:34 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably my horrible writing style at work.;) Rewriting is always good.--Bobblehead 05:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

KO Trivia -- Raised UU
Hi Bobblehead, Well, a lot of fans were very interested to learn this during PopeWatch. The fact might be good to leave in the article considering that there are anti-KO anti-Semites calling him a "dum" Jew on the Internet. It doesn't take up much room. I can also dig up a transcript for a reference if you give me a little while. Would you consider putting it back in? CuteGargoyle 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to it being added back in once the source is found. If you do find the source, mixing it into the Early life and career portion would be a good thing, IMHO. --Bobblehead 04:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Chris Wallace Criticism: Notable or Not?
Discuss. I'm leaning towards yes, and I suppose time will tell since we haven't yet seen the full extent of the fallout. But I think it's safe to say that referring to the guy as a "monkey" pretending to be a journalist is going to make notability. Hiddekel 21:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable in the context of his increasing Anti-Bush stridency on the air recently, via his new so-called "Special Comments" segment. That probably deserves a paragraph or two in the "Controversies" section. --Aaron 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, his nightly tirades are amusing in how false they are untill he starts in w/the personal attacks. He also stated in his clinton/wallace interview comments that the current admin's policies can do more harm than al Qaida. There seems to be a movement to stop any honest documentation on his clear anger-filled bias--Bairdso66 22:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the question falls under WP:NPOV, particularly: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I did a Google News search for olbermann wallace and got ten hits (a search including monkey only gets six hits), including commentaries from not terribly reliable sources (mostly blogs) - perhaps the most reliable of which is an MTV News article about the Wallace/Clinton interview that mentions Olbermann's rant just once.  I'd say that the Wallace/monkey rant isn't (yet) very significant. Schi 23:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just as a general comment, there seems to be a lot of concern on this page (and about the actual wiki) that Olbermann's biases aren't being properly documented and pointed out. I don't see the usefulness or necessity of this - it's pretty clear that he does have a bias, he does take sides, and he is truly anti-Bush. Big whoop. Not notable. It would be notable, and the duty of media watchers and chroniclers, if he insisted that he was a middle-of-the-road, fair-and-balanced type of journalist, while mimicking partisan points of view. But that isn't the case and never has been. Falsified Just as an update, a Google News search for "Wallace Olbermann monkey" now gives 12 hits, some of which comes from notable, if not unbiased, news sources. Given the (low) level of notability of most of the other topics in the Controversies section, I think this now rates noteworthiness without creating undue weight, but that's just IMHO. I'll leave it to others to jump the tank and include this topic if they so choose. Hiddekel 16:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is notable, given the fact that Chris Wallace is of Jewish ancestry and the word 'monkey' is the slur that arabs use to describe Jews and Zionists.

NY Post page six
The blog addition was pretty clear cut as not being acceptable to include, but I'm not sure on the NY Post page six link. I'm not overly familiar with page six other than that it's a gossip column and that the previous editor/reporter for it got canned for getting paid to include/not include articles about people. Does anyone have thoughts on it being reliable? --Bobblehead 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, gossip columns blurbs aren't reliable at all. However, in this case, it appears to only be serving as a secondary source about that other woman's blog, which quite obviously does exist, so I'd say it's all right. I think the real question is, do we want to subject the average reader to thoughts of Olbermann's sex life? Blech... ---Aaron 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of bias section
Just a note about me deleting the section on accusation of bias. Since the bias accusation is based solely on Countdown with Keith Olbermann and not necessarily about Keith Olbermann himself (except in his role as host of the show) I moved the entire section to a nearly identical section on Countdown's article quite awhile ago. The other subsections in Criticism detail actions that took place outside of the show, or have elements that are outside of the show. --Bobblehead 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" in the "Political positions" section?
Well? The feud is clearly not based entirely on differing political positions of the two men.  Warren -talk- 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was originally its own section and was merged into the "Political positions" section for lack of a better place. Maybe including it as a subsection of "Return to MSNBC" would be more appropriate? Switzpaw (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond in a timely fashion (rather than waiting until an edit that was recommended on a talk page three days earlier is actually put in place, and then deleting it), I agree with Warren on this one. The feud with O'Reilly section was separate at one time and still should be, even though there is a political dimension to it. Their feud isn't really a "political position". It is clearly a big enough part of Olbermann's life to warrant its own section. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved it under the "Return to MSNBC" section, since the feud is pretty much entirely confined to his television career.  Warren -talk- 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Introduction
As with any article of this nature, a dispute has arisen regarding the phrasing of the introduction. The original introduction:"After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and rightward leaning politics in general.". Two editors have insisted on the following change:"After leaving Fox, Olbermann began anchoring several news commentary shows for MSNBC, most notably Countdown with Keith Olbermann in 2003. Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and for his pointed criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain in particular and of rightward leaning politics in general."

The proposed change (second example) violates several Wikipedia policies. The biggest problem is that it is synthesis of thought, in that it specifically states that "Olbermann gained notoriety for his feud with Bill O'Reilly". This is most certainly opinion at best -- said editors have insisted that this is appropriate due to a sampling of google hits, however it is still original research, as there is no definitive claim made in the source material (nor can there be). Likewise, the proposed change violates the neutral point of view by giving those few examples undue weight as "the" reason Olbermann has established a niche. Though they may be contributing factors, we must be very careful not to establish or imply a causal relationship. Thus, the original wording (which lists examples, but does not make definitive claims) is appropriate. At first glance it may feel like splitting hairs, but the subtle change has a serious impact on the meaning of the phrase (especially in the lead section). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I came here in response to the RfC. It seems to me that the differences between the versions are not matters to become too upset about, but I do think that Blaxthos has a point. Now I have to say that, on first reading, I thought the second version was better, in that it is more concise, but on closer reading, I think that the logic of attributing notoriety more broadly is, in a strictly logical sense, correct. As for the discussion above about sources, let's just say, for discussion's sake, that in fact the notoriety does just come from the feud etc. -- if that's the case, then that understanding is still not in any way diminished by using the first version. I don't see how anything (other than a very small amount of conciseness) is lost by using the first version, whereas there is a (small) loss of logic using the second. That said, I want to add that where the second version uses the phrase "and of rightward leaning politics" near the end, that is better than "and rightward leaning politics." Also, although it's not part of the question, what really sticks out to me in the lead is "cloud of controversy" in the second paragraph. I think it would be much better to just say "controversy." My suggestions, I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a fairly limited amount of time to contribute to this discussion due to both the range of other things I want to work on in the encyclopedia, as well as off-Wiki activities ... but I'd just like to make a short statement of support for the wording that Blaxthos feels is the best answer. Not all of Olbermann's increased fame and notoriety comes from attacking right-leaning politicians. In addition to having gained attention for his camapaign against Wal-mart last year, as well as criticism of Hillary Clinton, he has also been criticized for how he conducts himself on football broadcasts. I believe that if we keep the language free of observations as to political leanings, and simply present a few examples of targets of his criticism, readers will be able to draw their own conclusions. WP:NPOV encourages us to do that exactly that: "''Let the facts speak for themselves ... Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think//".  Warren -talk- 20:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Blaxthos!! Good to see you come out of your "I don't like it – the other guys are insane" defensive shell with a nicely worded argument. I'd have given it an A minus were I still teaching. Not an A plus however.


 * If it is "synthesis of thought", "original research", and a "non-neutral point of view" to assume that Olbermann's now not-so-recent "notoreity" ("fame" would actually be a more neutral word) has come from his attacks on the political right then it is also "original research" et. al. to assume that this fame has been gained by attacking "prominent politicians and public figures" in general. Maybe it is the result of a belated public recognition of his sportscasting prowess, or of his impressive baseball card collection, or of his staunch defense of Fred "Bonehead" Merkle. Maybe he actually hasn't become more famous over the last five or so years. Even using Google, fame isn't that easy to quantify.


 * The sources, however, from the most to the least reliable, assume that Olbermann has become more famous, and that this rise in fame has come from his attacks on folks such as O'Reilly, the Bush administration, John McCain, and other rightward leaning people and institutions. As the formidable Switzpaw has invited Blaxthos to do: Find reliable sources that link Olby's rising fame to his criticism of prominent politicians and public figures in general rather than just rightward leaning ones. By the way, Blaxthos is correct in saying that this tempest in a teapot has a larger significance and I will eventually explain what that is on Blax's talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After coming here in response to the RfC, I'm a little disappointed to see that. I think that attributing notoriety to criticisms of prominent people in general is not nearly as much a synthesis as is attributing it to criticisms of specific people, and I said above that, regardless of sources, the slightly longer version in no way negates the conclusions that might be drawn from those sources. I don't want to get in the middle of personal arguments among other editors, but an RfC should not be used by editors already in the dispute to keep re-arguing their same arguments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (A quick clarification, in case I was unclear. I meant my comment immediately above to be a response to the comment directly before it, not to the RfC as a whole. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Badmintonhist, I'm going to pass on the obvious baiting and the snarky comments -- I went out of my way to present the case neutrally and avoided calling out other editors by name at all. Snark doesn't move us forward, and certainly doesn't advance your viewpoint.  It's well to note that other editors have disagreed with the proposal as well, both in this RFC and above.  I also note some contributions that could be characterized as votestacking.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Both versions of the lead would be "original research", "synthesis of thought", and even "non-neutral point of view" if they were merely the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. However, they are not the unsourced prose of a Wikipedia editor. They are based on reliable sources which clearly say that Olbermann has gained notoreity (beyond what he had before) because of his attacks on folks such as Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush and his administration, John McCain, and others to his political right. Though pretty much any fair-minded Wiki editor would concur with this, one could claim that the sources themselves were making non-objective assumptions. I therefore propose a construction something like this:


 * According to the Washington Post and Salon.com among other sources, Olbermann has carved out a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoreity for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and for his criticisms of the George W. Bush presidency and John McCain in particular, and of rightward leaning politics in general. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Badmintonhist, do you have specific links to citations that back up your verbage above? Sorry if I missed them. This might help with reliably sourced portion vs original research aurgument --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Elevating any sources for outright mention in the lead section gives them undue weight, and you still fail to recognize your synthesis of thought created by saying "gaining notoreity [sic]  for his feud with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly" (the whole point of this RFC). You may believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so, and stating it as concrete fact is contrary to Wikipedia's core policies.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the careless misspelling of notoriety. As for more substantive matters, there is nothing in WP:LEADCITE or WP:UNDUE that says that specific sources should not be cited by name in the lead. On the contrary, LEADCITE suggests that this should be done when appropriate. One might consult Warren for an opinion on this point. As for the objection about the assumed causal relationship between Olbermann's "pointed criticisms" of Bill O'Reilly, George W. Bush, John McCain, etc. (why dwell just on O'Reilly?) and his rising fame, the same objection would also obtain in assuming a causal relationship between his "pointed criticisms" of politicians and public figures in general and his rising fame (as I have previously pointed out). My proposed modification above, however, does not present this causal relationship as an absolute fact. Rather, it presents as a fact that highly respectable sources (The New York Times could also be added) have assumed it to be true. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The content of the lead needs to reflect the content of the article. That's the main thing a lead section sets out to do.  (Well, that, and making the rest of the article sound like it could be an interesting read!) Statements surely need to be sourced, no matter where they appear, but there should never be things in the lead that aren't properly described elsewhere.


 * A good rule of thumb, I think, is to be extremely specific when stating where critical and potentially controversial assertions come from. For example, instead of saying, "(Subject) has become notorious for engaging in (Activity)", we would write something like, "(SubjectExpert) has described the show as being notorious for engaging in (Activity)".  In this fashion, we identify the source of the idea that the show has gained notoriety.  When I was dealing with this on Top Gear (2002 TV series) for example, I found a TV critic and an environmental activist group (both of which have Wikipedia articles of their own) to provide a balance of positive and negative commentary about that show.  I think it reads very nicely, if I may say so.  Maybe that's the sort of formulation we need to follow here as well...  Warren -talk- 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One, that assumes that "(Subject)" did become famous for "(Activity)" -- a tenuous assertion at best, in this case. Two, I stand by my assertion that cherry picking sources to use in the lead absolutely gives them undue weight.  Statements in the lead must be supported by the article content & references, but don't have to be sourced in the lead itself; selecting particular viewpoints to include in the lead (especially on matters of opinion) elevates them beyond due weight.  I fail to see how any of the proposals thus far are more compliant with policies and guidelines than the one originally in place.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But see, this is why my proposed approach tends to work -- instead of trying to decide whether what some random person's opinion is, you have to find high-quality, credible, reliable sources. With this article, we want to find professional television critics, especially those that cover the field of American news and commentary shows.  This is precisely the same as looking to Roger Ebert when in need of an expert film critic; someone like Sydney Pokorny for GLBT media criticism; William Grimes (of the NY Times) for book reviews; and so forth.  The Countdown with Keith Olbermann article has a paragraph with criticism of the show from Howard Rosenberg, who is a veteran TV critic.  That's the sort of thing that builds a good encyclopedia.  You don't have to (nor would you be expected to) agree with what the critics say; the fact that they're reputable career critics is good enough to meet all of Wikipedia's content policies.


 * As for sourcing in the lead, it absolutely is required if any of the statements made are contentious.  Warren -talk- 20:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why the push to make contentious statements in the lead at all? There is no requirement to speculate on why he's famous, and the original wording avoids these problems entirely.  Not to mention the (forgotten?) problem with due weight.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Blax, at this point I think you're trying to be difficult. The proposed construction is about as contentious as saying that some historians believe that Charles Lindbergh became more famous as a result of crossing the Atlantic in a plane. There isn't a question of undue weight because all the sources (except the Wikipedia editor Blaxthos) say the same thing. The "original wording" (if its the one I think you mean) also makes an assumption about the cause of Olbermann's rising notoriety. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Warren's suggestion is fine with me so long as the increase in fame (notoriety and notorious were once often used pejoratively) is linked to what the reliable sources say it is linked to: biting criticisms of targets to Olbermann's political right. If one editor thinks that the sources are being cherry picked the I gotta tell him that the cherry picking has never been easier because all of the sources, left, right, and center, reliable and dubious, basically say the same thing: Olbermann became better known and his show more widely viewed as he attacked the targets mentioned in my edit. Just where are this editor's non-cherry picked sources? This editor also seems oblivious to a reality that I have pointed out on multiple occasions now, that his objection to the subjectivity of the assumptions made by those sources also applies to his own preferred construction. Strike that, actually. His objection now applies more strongly to his own construction. That's because Warren's construction and my construction openly state that our sources are making the assumption, not some Wikipedia editor on his (her) own. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me step back in here, very cautiously, with two points. First, my understanding of Warren's suggestion is that it would attribute the statement to credible authorities (a la Roger Ebert). Therefore, rather than referring to the Post and Salon (particularly as links to their pages here), might it be better to leave them out of the sentence, and instead, put inline, numbered references to specific articles from such sources at the end of the sentence, citing them as sources of the statement about the cause of notoriety/fame? My second point is to suggest another way of constructing it, that might, perhaps, be a useful way to reconcile the views here: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety (fame?) for his pointed criticisms of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right.ref/ref He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, and offered criticisms of the George W. Bush administration and John McCain." That treats O'Reilly et al. as important examples, while attributing notoriety in a way that acknowledges Badmintonhist's views about the specific role of criticisms of the right, while also acknowledging Blaxthos' view that it might not entirely be due to that. Just some suggestions, just trying to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty reasonable to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer that we identify the reliable sources by name, right in the main article text. That way the article doesn'r read like we're trying to present "our" point of view -- this is still a concern even if we provide sources that back up the assertions.  The main downside to this approach is that it weighs down the point being made with a bunch of extra words.  Some people disagree with this approach, too -- the Embrace weasel words essay explains the counter-argument pretty nicely, IMO.   Warren -talk- 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals
Per Typtofish's proposed wording, and Warren's reference concerns, I propose the following: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining notoriety for his pointed criticism of prominent politicians and public figures, particularly on the political right. [REFERENCE 1] . He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly, [REFERENCE 2]  and criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain. [REFERENCE 3] '" There are no weasel words, no synthesis of thought or conclusions, and still references specific examples. Of course, the  [REFERENCE] s will need to be supplied where noted. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Blaxthos' version here is an improvement over mine. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds good. NcSchu ( Talk ) 21:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This construction isn't exactly my cup of cocoa (rather timid and stilted sounding) but in the interest of compromise and comity I'll accept it. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent -- progress is a wonderful thing. :) On to citations... does anyone have suggestions of secondary sources to be used for the <tt> [REFERENCE] </tt>s above?  I added numbers to make discussion easier.  We could add another reference after the word <tt>administration</tt> if <tt> [REFERENCE 3] </tt> doesn't cover both Bush and McCain criticisms. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The new proposal doesn't address a single thing I said. Whatever... <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

True, it certainly doesn't address Warren's main point which is that the reliable source(es) should be directly credited for whatever assumptions are being made. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a proposed construction:


 * Observers such as [SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO TWO] have credited Olbermannn with carving a niche in cable news commentary by directing his fire principally on rightward leaning politicians and public figures. He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly and pointedly criticized the George W. Bush Presidency, and the 2008 Presidential Candidacy of Senator John McCain.

One could stick in "gained notoriety" somewhere but I don't think it's necessary. Establishing a "niche in cable news commentary" suggests that one's fame is probably growing. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take another tentative stab at trying to reconcile the ideas raised here. First, I want to say -- to all! -- that it looks to me like the various possible versions are getting closer and closer together, and that the remaining differences really, truly, are, to an outside visitor, quite small, and all involved editors ought to feel pleased with how this discussion is progressing. As to the most recent points brought up by Warren and Badmintonhist, it strikes me that it may be putting the mention of observers in the wrong place, to attribute the carving of a niche to them. In other words, it is really self-evident that Olbermann has a niche, and no one would argue that he does not have any niche, and therefore it may make better sense to locate the observers closer to where the political right is mentioned. Also, I do appreciate Warren's concern that his suggestions may have been given too little weight, but I also note that he said that there are what he considers to be valid arguments for using the other construction. It seems to me that, while it is strictly true that the use of numbered references does not say, literally, that it is observers rather than WP that have made this interpretation, it is also true that readers generally understand a cited reference at the end of the sentence to mean that the interpretations in that sentence arise from the cited reference, and therefore are not OR or synthesis by editors. (In my opinion, and this is incredibly subjective, it's better to name the observers mainly when they are actually being quoted verbatim.) That said, let me suggest this hybrid version, and let's see where we can go from there: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary, gaining prominence for his pointed criticism of major politicians and public figures, directed particularly at the political right.<tt> [REFERENCE 1, maybe more] </tt> He has feuded with rival commentator Bill O'Reilly,<tt> [REFERENCE 2] </tt> and strongly criticized the George W. Bush administration and John McCain's 2008 Presidential candidacy.<tt> [REFERENCE 3; refs 2 and 3 might not be needed if 2 or more are cited at position 1] </tt>"
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with either of the versions Tryptofish has now proposed, as they avoid problems with undue weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this doesn't address what I said. While it may be convenient to brush off the idea of explicit attribution, I remind everyone that this is exactly what WP:NPOV prescribes, in both the WP:ASF and WP:SUBSTANTIATE sections.  <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 19:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand why it's necessary to explicitly write out the name of sources when that's the reason we have footnoted references that name the author, title, work, etc. It seems redundant and completely unnecessary to write. Usually you use things such as "According to [blank], blah blah blah" to replace the use of citations at the end, not to duplicate them. Then I'd feel like you need a different source to say that [blank] actually stated that. I understand your logic but I don't think it should be done. NcSchu ( Talk ) 21:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. My reading of WP:SUBSTANTIATE, where it uses the example of the baseball player and advocates a version that states facts, such as the years when the baseball player had certain statistics, is that it actually is in agreement with what we have here: it says that Olbermann has criticized certain kinds of people, then gives specific factual examples that substantiate that statement. I also continue to believe that the presence of citations at the end of the sentence is understood by readers to mean that the sentence is derived from information in those references, not simply created by editors, and therefore is not an assertion of fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OR, how about changing the first sentence to something in the format of: "Olbermann has established a niche in cable news commentary; according to (name of commentator) at (name of source, such as the Washington Post), "quotation."(ref)"? The quotation would have to be interesting enough to be in the lead, not be so idiosyncratic as to go against undue weight concerns, and capture all of what was in the previous version of the sentence: his criticisms, his particular criticism of the right, and the causal relationship between these criticisms and his niche. But, really, absent a good quote like that, I think that numbered references would be just fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In all due respect, I don't think that NcSchu and Tryptofish grasp the reasoning behind Warren's point. On a straightforward matter of fact [Keith Olbermann graduated from Cornell in 1979] it is fine to merely footnote a reliable source. Opinions, including technically unprovable assumptions (such as assuming that Olbermann's fame has increased and assuming that this increase in fame is due to a particular cause), are different. Explicitly stating that those assumptions are are being made by particular sources clearly tells the reader that the assumptions are the sources', not the editor's. After all, the editor is not supposed to be expressing his or her opinion. Merely footnoting a (technically) presumptuous statement implies that it is the editor's opinion and that the purpose of the footnote is merely to endorse the editor's viewpoint. If the assumption involved here were a more contentious one [ex: The Republican party is clearly morally superior to the Democratic party] the wisdom of Warren's position would be quite clear. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing on Wikipedia is supposed to be 'the opinion of an editor'. Wikipedia is edited by millions of people and there is no one author (no encyclopedias have stated authors; as far as a reader is concerned there is no author), so I can't see where you're coming from. With all due respect, again, you don't understand the way referencing works. The use of 'according to..." and similar phrases is just another way of referencing and would replace end-of-statement footnotes. I'm not trying to argue but trying to say that this shouldn't be a reason to delay a solution. Not everyone gets the way they want in an agreement and since I've seen very little usage of the method you and Warren are wanting, and don't prefer the wording myself, I'd prefer we use more or less what's been proposed. NcSchu ( Talk ) 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In all due respect, Badmintonhist, the fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we have difficulty grasping the ideas. But, in fact, I again want to remind everyone that these disagreements are really not that insoluble, and I continue to be confident that we can work this out. I suggest that the editors who might not be comfortable with anything less than direct attribution take a stab at the second of the two ideas I suggested yesterday. I think that if you find a quotation of the kind I described, that could work in a way that might satisfy all involved, and that might not be too hard to do. On the other hand, when Badmintonhist points out the example of a highly contentious statement such as one party being morally superior, the underlying assumption is that the need to establish independent authority explicitly within the sentence is the same in all circumstances, whether very contentious or slightly contentious. I think it's too easy to get rigid about that, but objectively, the need for attribution is not one size fits all. The "contentious" issues for which we are discussing the need for attribution are: that Olbermann has a niche in cable commentary, that he has gained prominence, that he criticizes people, that most of those people are on the right, and that there is a causal relationship between his criticisms and his prominence. Oh, come on! All but the last of those are objective statements of fact, and the last, although an inference, is hardly contentious. As I understand the discussion before the RfC, Badmintonhist originally wanted the inference to be more of a reach (going directly to O'Reilly, Bush and McCain), and Blaxthos wanted to soften that inference to something more like what we have been looking at more recently. Has the inference in its present form suddenly become so much more contentious than it was a couple of days ago that it now cannot be supported by citing references? So, I think it can be made to work with in line references, and it can alternatively work with a quote. I agree with NcSchu, and I am sure we can make this work, if we want to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:CONSENSUS doesn't require everyone to agree with everything -- the proposal I made initially has been deemed "acceptable" (or better) by myself, Tryptofish, Badmintonhist, and NcSchu. Let's get the citations in place and call this one done.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been quiet here for a few days, which I hope is a good sign. As an editor who was not originally a party to the debates preceding the RfC, I'm going to be bold and make edits to the lead in accordance with what I understand of this talk. I'm going to leave it to others to provide the references. Please understand that I'm attempting to reflect the talk here and there is nothing etched-in-stone about my edit, so please no one feel unhappy if you would prefer to do it differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary
NYTimes say's its 4 mil. a year

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/business/media/08msnbc.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.118.155 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After the 2008 Election, NBC Uni and Keith Olbermann has been agreed to have a new-contract which his salary is 30,000,000 US$ in over 4 years (that makes 7.5 million per year). Thus, the info which mentioned at the box is correct. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
Saving the trivia section as historical. Though it was (properly) removed at least some of it should be integrated into the article (prose please).

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's why I, the very-first creator of Mr.Olbermann's Korean language wikipage, cited these figures under the name of 'Other major broadcasting appearances'(그 외 주요 방송출연 경력, in Korean), not as 'trivia'. You may find the solution from it(I hope, personally). Cheers. Thanks. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bachelor of Arts?
The article erroneously states that he received a Bachelor of Arts at Cornell in Communications. Cornell offers only a Bachelor of Science in Communications through the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, known as the Ag School. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is the second largest undergraduate college at Cornell University and the third largest college of its kind in the United States. This is where Mr. Olbermann recieved his degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilly77c (talk • contribs) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The |"About the Department" page from the Department of Communications website specifically states that it is proud to be part of Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This is not the same as graduating from the ivy league College of Arts and Science which most people think of when one states they are a Cornell graduate.  Mr. Olbermann's bio is misleading.  Fizix137 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The college is a statutory college meaning it is given money by the state to operate as a public school. It is not the same as the private University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk • contribs) 15:56, March 5, 2009

I have already changed this according to the refs. Thank you. --Ali'i 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't change it enough. It is still misleading and someone might think he received his degree from the Ivy League Cornell which, while he openly boasts of this, he did not. Traumatic (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornell
Since it's widely accepted that Olbermann went to Cornell, we'll need a reliable source saying he went somewhere else. It seems like there must have been a column or meme somewhere spurring IPs and SPAs into action, so this should serve as a reminder wikipedia is based on verifiability. Dayewalker (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Olberman himself admitted he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences not Cornell University on Thursday, March 5, 2009 why hasn't this been changed yet? Should I assume that means his defenders don't consider Olberman a reliable source?  While that may be true when he is talking about others, I'd say we can trust Olberman's confessions about himself. --DaleEastman (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What we need is a reliable source that says he went to Cornell University. The Cornell school paper says that he went to the ag school. I've added dubious tags. THF (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct... there is a recent Ann Coulter column deriding Olbermann's use of "Cornell" where she says he went to a different college within the overall Cornell system. I think. Until we can find a different source, it should remain as is. Thanks. --Ali'i 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It must be a full moon :) Whereever he graduated from, can we please have a citation and list the institution by its proper name either way and then move on. Thank you, --Tom 18:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cornell seems to think he's an alumni of Cornell. They don't specify which college within the Cornell umbrella he got his degree from though. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to reference number 20 (http://cornellsun.com/node/13424), he went to New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article for Statutory college. This school's web address ends in "cornell.edu" and in order to apply, you apply to Cornell. It looks like this is a component college of Cornell, just as any other University is composed of colleges. Does this statutory college issue degrees on its own or do the degrees come from Cornell? Henrymrx (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So, now that that question has been resolved (apparently). Cornell runs and operates CALS. Is there a functional difference between saying he got is degree from Cornell University and he got his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? Or is it more inline with a person saying they got a degree from Harvard University when the degree they got actually says Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences? --Bobblehead (rants) 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In just doing rummaging around the two websites (cornell.edu and cals.cornell.edu) it appears the current relationship is more inline with a Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and Harvard University relationship than say a University of California, Santa Barbara and University of California, Los Angeles relationship. Cornell lists CALS as being the second largest college at Cornell University and the list of departments at Cornell University and programs at CALS seem to point at the same locations. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of this being said, I don't see a problem with refining his degree as being from CALS versus Cornell, but then, I also don't see a problem with saying his degree is from Cornell. It is common within Ivy League universities to have their degrees not actually come from the university, but rather from the "college" that a person's degree program falls under. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A university consists of one or more colleges. It's more like the difference between [] and [] -- they're both part of the same [] (the diploma looks the same)/ WindyCityRider (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CALS website say that it was in fact the New York State College of Agriculture before 1971 when the name changed to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Olbermann graduated in 1979, so it would have had the CU name for his entire tenure there. The Communications Department is also listed as the Cornell University Department of Communications. DG7812 (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More information is better than less, so long as it is verifiable and from a reliable source. From what I have seen, I agree that he attended the Cornell University that has Ivy League sports teams, but it is equally true that he received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the school.  Both versions are accurate and both should be included.Tommylotto (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think less information is better. The last thing we want to do is confuse folks, cheers! --Tom 00:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More information is better, unless it clutters up the article needlessly and is indicative of somebody pushing an agenda. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which are all true in relation to this. The information is cluttering up the article, its needless, and its all about agenda pushing by the anti-american fringe.  The additionial information only gives fodder to the Ann Coulter fringe of America, this whole dustup is over an Ann Coulter column from today, and we all know how she loves to throw bricks. MehTsag (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We have 2 reliable sources pertaining to Olbermann's education. 1) http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/98/6.4.98/convocation.html wherein Cornell University newspaper regards him as "Cornell alumnus". And 2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080446/ which is a bio listed on the website of a major news network. We don't really have any more specific information from reliabe WP:RS and verifiable WP:V sources (blogosphere is not widely regarded as reliable). We should probably just list it as "Cornell University" and not attempt to be any more specific than that unless we find a valid, reliable source. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just read Ann's story. It would appear she's set herself up for a hefty lawsuit if what she has written is not true. I think it is misleading to not state the actual college he received his degree from. CALS' acceptance criteria is less stringent than the Cornell University that everyone thinks about when you say, "Cornell University." To allow the two to be confused is, well, misleading.Traumatic (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not misleading in the slightest. Cornell University consists of 7 colleges, Olbermann graduated from the 2nd largest. The acceptance rate for CAL and LAS is virtually the same (about 1 in 5). http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000003.pdf Do the math. WindyCityRider (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The correct name of the college he attended is New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University.http://www.cornell.edu/trustees/cornell_charter.pdf It may be run by Cornell University, but it is part of SUNY not Cornell. At least someone from the school of hotel administration could claim that it is owned by the same organization, but the Ag school is owned by the state. Yes, it is a very good Ag school, but so is Iowa State and neither is Cornell University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeanOnSunday (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency
In the bio box it says that Olbermann has a B.S. degree, but in the body it says he has a Bachelor of Arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.40.149 (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I removed the redundancy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education: B.S. Communication Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Education section is incorrect.
Keith Olbermann received a B.S. in Communications from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The article mentions the Ivy League Cornell University. Mr. Olbermann did not attend that university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbulu (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the above section. As with many things, Coulter is wrong. ;) --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily "wrong"... just has a "different viewpoint". :-) --Ali'i 22:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is similar to O'Reilly's Levitown/Westbury issue. That's all I'm saying. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Except in this case the entirety of CALS is encompassed by Cornell, so Coulter's declaration that she attended the "Ivy League" Cornell while Olbermann attended the "Old MacDonald Cornell" is wrong.;) The O'Reilly kerfuffle seems to be more due to some fuzzy lines between Levittown, New York and Westbury, New York. Coulter's claim is more like someone claiming O'Reilly wasn't born in New York because he was born in the "uncool" part of New York, so it shouldn't count. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not that the education information is incorrect. It is incomplete or at least can be made to be more complete.  The wiki bio should not descend into the Olby / Coulter Ivy League war, but should honestly lay out the facts so that the reader can decide.  He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, which is a state sponsored portion of the university.Tommylotto (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And is still part of the "school" so what is the point exactly? Its like some schmuck who went to Penn, but wasn't an engineer or business "tool" as we called em and ONLY graduated from the lowly "college"/CAS with a Folklore and Folklife degree, he still is a Penn grad and alumni.--Tom 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just provide accurate information and let the reader decide the controversy, if there is one. More information is better.  Both facts are true Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  If there is a distinction, or even a perceived distinction, more information is better as it lets the reader decide.  By not disclosing accurate information that could be the basis of a distinction, the wiki editors are trying the determine the controversy or distinction for the reader, which is not the purpose of a wiki article.Tommylotto (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * huh?--Tom 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not your job as a wiki editor to determine which controversial view point the reader should learn about. Both facts are true.  He did attend Cornell University, but it is equally true that he attended and received his degree from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  We are only talking about adding 6 words that are unarguably accurate, and the controversy raised by the recent edits and associated discussion make the distinction sufficiently notable to warrant the addition of six words that are unquestionably accurate.Tommylotto (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The College Olbermann attended is, in fact, part of Cornell University. Universities are comprised of colleges, and colleges are comprised of departments. To be most specific, Olbermann attended the Department of Communications at Cornell University. WindyCityRider (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No you are attempting to conceal accurate information. The Department of Communication is part of the Ag School.  See here http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..."  We are not here to decide the perceived distinction asserted by Coulter.  We are here to accurately report the facts and let the reader decide.Tommylotto (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual.  If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters.  If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it.  Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here:  http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm   As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  This information is accurate and uncontroversial.  The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide.  The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information.  He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication.  Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Windy City, you are in violation of the three revert rule. Please hash this out on the discussion page and avoid an edit war. Are you disputing that the Communication Department is in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences? If not, this accurate distinction is certainly notable given today's dust up. What justification do you have for withholding accurate information from the reader?Tommylotto (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I'm not. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. We do not give undue weight to opinions that aren't factual.  If his diploma says Cornell University on it, that's all that really matters.  If you can provide a source that it says something else, I'd love to see it.  Henrymrx (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I cited here, http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here:  http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm   As you can see, the only College at Cornell University to have a Communications Department is Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  This information is accurate and uncontroversial.  The controversy is Coulter assertion that students at the Ag School have less cache than other Cornell students, but that is for the reader to decide.  The wiki article is just to provide complete accurate information.  He attended and received his degree from Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication.  Provide the reader with unbiased complete accurate information and allow them to make up there own mind. Tommylotto (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny that a person with 4 reverts would be warning someone else about having 3RR. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Two edits were on an other issue, one was the original edit on this issue. Only two were reverts.  Plus, I have been willing to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than just making drive by reverts.Tommylotto (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I count three edits clearly identified as rvs in the edit summary and one that resets the article to the state established by the previous drivebys changing Cornell University to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. That would be 4, one more than WindCityRider's two clear reverts and one edit. If a 3RR report were filed, you'd be the one getting a block, not WindCityRiver. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the number of reverts that I made concerning the identification of the school that he attended. I made an initial edit and two reverts.  Then I left the version that I disagreed with intact until the issue could be resolved on the talk page.  But why are you wasting effort counting reverts.  Please address the substance.  Why do you feel it is necessary to withhold six words of perfectly accurate properly sourced information from the reader? Tommylotto (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address the substance??!!!?!?! You're the one who brought it up! WindyCityRider (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead and WindyCity, please try to build consensus on the discussion page and stop reflexively reverting accurate properly sourced material provided by numerous editors. Thank you. If you believe that the fact that the subject of the article attended and received his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Communication should not be included, please explain on the discussion page why the asserted fact is inaccurate, not properly source or otherwise should not be included in the article. Thank you.Tommylotto (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This coming from the guy who reverted my edit 3 times in 20 minutes. Rich. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See Olbermann address the issue here. Note the degree being conferred by "Cornell University".    //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you're in the minority here, Tommylotto. The burden to build consensus to include CALS in the article is upon you. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We normally list degrees by university, not by department, college, school or campus. Any reason to deviate from the norm should be based on some reasonable rationale.  While it may be normal for Oxford, I've never heard of anyone doing it for American universities.  Is there some reason to deviate from the norm?  Is there some compelling reason to mention the college?  Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the point: It is indisputable that Olbermann attended CALS. There are seven colleges at Cornell of which CALS is one. Why do we specify birthplaces by city, state and country instead of just country? Because while all three independently would be technically correct, each level of specificity is inarguably more accurate. More importantly, because it seems that one can only earn a degree in Communications from CALS to the exclusion of any other Cornell college, http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/about/departments.cfm, then the only way not to be misleading is to either, 1) remove any mention of the Communications degree or, 2) include from which college he received that degree. Because the first solution is just silly, there is no other way to be truthful, accurate and objective than to include the College from which he earned his Communications degree. I don't know if that's "compelling", but it's certainly objectively correct. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to be objective, truthful and accurate. Forgive me if I am mistaken. --Russcote (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Find and illustrate significant precedent in wikipedia where a public figure's degree is listed by the specific college within the university he or she attended. It's simply not the case, and the only reason Olbermann is being singled out is to advance some agenda stirred up by a blogger (hardly worthy of wikipedia). Further, we don't even have decent reliable sourcing WP:RS for the level of detail you're trying to include. Find precedent, and find sourcing, and maybe you can convince us. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann's Cornell Degree
Degree picture Keith Olbermann held up his framed degree on tonight's Countdown and it clearly says Cornell University at the top and that is clearly his name. Now unless someone is going to seriously dispute that the degree is fake I think we can consider discussion of whether or not Olbermann really went to Cornell University over. You can see the full video here. Looks like User:Blaxthos beat me to the punch -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful; a Bachelor of Science in Communications from the College of Agriculture and Life Science at Cornell University. Problem solved.  I agree.  Discussion over. --Russcote (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or a Bachelor of Science from Cornell University as the degree says. Problem solved! --Bobblehead (rants) 03:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not fundamentally opposed to this, I simply think it is unnecessarily verbose and doesn't really add any useful information. -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cornell University" "Keith Olbermann". Can we agree to put the "Olbermann didn't really go to Cornell" to rest already? WindyCityRider (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we could always just add a new section called "Keith Olbermann degree controversy" and have it all out in the open. --Russcote (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy that I see about the facts. He has a degree from Cornell University.  However, it is in Communications, which is inarguably in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Science.  See my cites above http://comm.cornell.edu/about/, "We are proud of our home in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..." Also,see here: http://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm.  Note the only college to contain a Communication Department.    The only controversy that I see is between editors who want to include all of the accurate complete information about the school that he attended, and those editors who want (for some unexplained reason) to only include a portion of the information identifying the school he attended.  What am I missing?  Please explain why the complete information should not be included.Tommylotto (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing that bothers me about including the extra information about which specific college he attended at Cornell is that it was originally used in an attempt by Ann Coulter to try and tarnish Keith Olbermann's education. -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the extra information that is being discussed is accurate, makes no reference whatsoever to Coulter's effort to tarnish his image, and in and of itself does not tarnish him at all. What it does do is accurately identify where he went to school so that someone attempting to research the "controversy" stirred up by Coulter and others  will get complete and accurate information to evaluate the claim, whether made by Coulter or someone else.  To intentional exclude this information now would be taking sides in the dispute between him and Coulter and in effect would be trying to protect him from Coulter's allegation with an intentional omission of accurate information. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said before I'm not fundamentally opposed to including the information I think it is unnecessary. Just because something bothers me doesn't mean I am opposed to any sort of compromise that includes the information. It also doesn't fit the convention that other articles follow. For example the article on George W. Bush only includes the fact that he received a bachelor's degree in history, not which particular school at Yale he attended. I would ask that you please assume WP:GOODFAITH and I will be happy to extend you the same courtesy -- Gudeldar (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So wait, because you, Gudeldar, find some subjective fault with or ascribe a personally contrived motive, (one many people, myself included, would vehemently dispute) to one commentator's reasons for making a wholly accurate and truthful statement regarding another commentator's education, somehow that makes it bothersome to the point that the information should be excluded from an online encyclopedia? Wow.--Russcote (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to assume good faith but I don't believe you are acting as such, however I do believe you have an ideological motivation given your comments where you deny that Olbermann's degree is even from Cornell University in the face of reliable evidence and the fact you have baselessy accused other editors of lying. -- Gudeldar (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there reliable third-party coverage of this "controversy"? Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the only person it is controversial to is Ann Coulter her column was what precipitated the whole "controversy" -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Russcoot, you wrote: "saying that Mr. Olbermann received a Bachelor of Science from Cornell is simply untrue. At best, it's misleading. At worst, it's false". We have multiple, reliable sources WP:RS (and a photograph!) which suggest it's absolutely true that Keith Olbermann earned his degree from Cornell University. Are you, or are you not, still disputing this? If you can't at least acknowledge that at this point, I am utterly convince you are incapable of objective judgment in this case. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read Ms. Coulter's article, the whole point was to show the demonstrable hypocrisy and insecurity exhibited by a commentator who has made disparaging remarks about other people's educations while simultaneously falsely aggrandizing his own. On the 'missing the point' note, I apologize for not being more direct in explaining that my suggestion above was made tongue-in-cheek to illustrate the point that there is simply no justifiable reason for excluding truthful and accurate information from this or any other page. This discussion shouldn't be a "controversy", any more than Olbermann's education and Ann Coulter's accurate description thereof is a "controversy". These types of blatant political attempts to withhold accurate and truthful information from the site are precisely what gives Wikipedia a bad name. --Russcote (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coulter's neither a reliable source, nor is she "third party". At this point I can't imagine how this would be notable.  And even if it becomes notable, I'd think this would belong in AC's article, not here.  Guettarda (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to Coulter is unnecessary. She is not being used as a source to identify where he went to school.  The only source that is necessary is the Cornell website that identifies the College that he attended.  But I agree that no separate section on a controversy concerning his school is warranted.  There is no controversy about where he went to school.  There is only a dispute as to how much information should be included to identify his school. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Russcote suggested a "Keith Olbermann degree controversy" section. I asked wheterh there were other sources for the "controversy" other than AC, who is neither third-party, not reliable.  As for how we present the info - we should present it the same way we present other American university graduates.  That's especially important given the interest sparked by AC's nonsense...after all, we can't propagate an implied slur, any more than we can propagate an outright one.  Guettarda (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's simply no precedent of characterizing any public figure's alma matter by the college name, rather than simply the university. There's nothing really notable about doing as much. Unless you're trying to push an agenda of sorts? Hmmm? We don't actually even have a reliable source about the specifics of his degree. We have 2 reliable sources which simply list him as "Cornell University", thus I think in the interest of objectivity, we leave it thusly. WindyCityRider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC).
 * To the contrary, what gives wikipedia "a bad name" is poorly sourced material from web logs like Ann Coulter. Find quality sources for this info, or leave it out. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or, some anonymous editor can protect the page because he feels Keith Olbermann is worthy of full protection from legitimate disputes regarding his education. Stay objective Wikipedia! --Russcote (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who protected the page was Rjd0060 if you have a problem with his actions I suggest you take it up with him on his talk page -- Gudeldar (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd think that was far more palatable to Russcote than the alternative solution available to Rjd. Guettarda (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly interest in the specific college at Cornell that he attended, as is evidenced by Coulter's story and all the activity on this article and discussion page. Given this interest, I simply do not see any justification for excluding a mere six words of accurate properly sourced material. This does not mean that someone need buy into Coulter's attempt to malign the students of that college. Others will read the same information and admire the democratic nature of a Land Grant school education. It is all in the eye of the beholder. This accurate information is unbiased and neutral and allows the reader to reach his own conclusions. Tommylotto (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "cleary interest" amongst editors is NOT encyclopedia-worthy by ANY policy or guideline on this site. Further, "interest amongst" a single blogger is also not encyclopedia-worthy. Do you really think 10 years from now anyone is going to care? Does wikipedia contain that level of biographically specific information from any of say, Sean Hannity, Bill O'reilly, Rush Limba--- (oh wait, did he go to college?)? I think the "clear interest" is held amongst biased editors trying to push an agenda and that has no place in an objective tertiary resource based on solid sourced material. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment has betrayed your bias and the POV that you seek to push. How is Rush's education relevant to a discussion concerning the proper identification of a school in this article?  The mere proper identification of the school is completely unbiased and neutral.  The reader can make whatever conclusion he desires based upon the accurate information.  The reader can only make one biased conclusion from the truncated version that you have proposed.  I will point out that wiki had a separate article for Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences long before this dispute arose.  If this identifiable school was worthy of its own wiki article, it is worth of being properly identified in this article too. Tommylotto (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Your comment has betrayed your bias and the POV " incredibly rich coming from you. Please try to stick to the substance of the article, and leave the POV accusations out of the discussion. Thanks. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to be reasonable, I would propose that the short version Cornell University be used in the Bio Box and the full designation Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences be used in the actual text of the article. Both references are accurate and together provide a fair and balanced treatment of the subject. What say you? Tommylotto (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have at least 2 independent, reliable sources WP:RS that list all that information? Can you find significant precedent in wiki entries where the specific college of a public official's alma matter is listed in addition to the greater university? If not, we should keep it simple: Cornell University. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what more you could ask for. This separate wiki entry  Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences dates back to April of 2004 and contains numerous citations attesting to its existence.  It simply cannot be disputed that this was where he attended college and where he obtained his degree.  As Cornell's own website makes clear this is where its Communications Department is located.  I repeat, if WP has considered this school deserving of its own article for the last 5 years, it deserves to be properly identified in this article.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Find valid sources that say _exactly_ that, and you may at least be factually accurate. As it stands, your case is pretty flimsy. Even still, this level of detail seems like un-needed minutia and doesn't really belong in such a broad article. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And to add, I don't think at this point that there's any doubt that Olbermann earned his degree from Cornell University (Coulter's column is clearly debunked). And though it doesn't really matter which college he attended (to anyone aside from Ann Coulter), we don't really have reliable information on this one way or the other. WindyCityRider (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is improper to keep bringing up Coulter, whether she is right or not is irrelevant. The question is the proper identification of the school attended and in this case both answers can be considered correct.  It does not matter that she was correct in that he was a student in the Communication Department which was part of the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and it does not matter that she was incorrect about her assumptions that flow from that fact.  It still remains a fact that it is perfectly accurate, neutral and unbiased to state that Olbermann attended Cornell University and more specifically  Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  That is why I proposed to include both correct answers.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response below about sourcing: you lack it.
 * Also, you continue to fail to identify any convention on wikipedia wherein a public official's alma matter is identified by university AND college. This is simply, unprecedented and aimed at POV pushing. That much is clear. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To begin with, Olbermann is a graduate of Cornell, not of one particular college at Yale. Quite obviously, we couldn't claim otherwise - unlike some columnists and bloggers, we can't just make stuff up.  If we had a section discussing his undergraduate career, it would make sense to discuss the college that granted his degree.  Beyond that, it's irrelevant trivia.  Given AC's nonsense, it's irrelevant trivia that might mislead readers - after all, it would appear that a lot of people arrived here misled by Coulter.  Not only is it our job to restrict our articles to relevant, salient content, it's also our responsibility to avoid propagating smears and misinformation.  Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response above to your repeated references to Coulter's nonsense. We need to cut through her nonsense and report the facts accurately.  He received a degree in communications for Cornell.  That necessarily means he received it from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences as that is where the Communications Department is located.  Both answers are equally correct.  Both should be included in the article.Tommylotto (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't know that for sure. At the time he graduated, which department was located in which school? You're simply guessing, which amounts to original research (WP:NOR), which is not acceptable. Come up with definitives source for your claim and I'll back it. Otherwise, the article is simply perpetrating Ann Coulter's smear. WindyCityRider (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue is done; don't feed the trolls (or SPA's who come to Wikipedia to further a single-item agenda). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please leave out the personal attacks and concentrate on the merits. It is not the purpose of WP to protect individuals or smear individuals.  There seems to be certain editors of this article that do not like Coulter and want to undermine her by proving her wrong by withholding accurate properly sourced material from the reader of this article.  That is not proper editing.  She accurately identified the specific college he attended.  That cannot be reasonably denied as the Communications Department is located in that particular College by reference to the university and college's own websites.  The controversial presumptions that Coulter made about the quality of that particular College or whether it is part of the same university may be dead wrong, but that is besides the point, as that issue is not even addressed in the article nor in the proposed edit.  The compromise that I have proposed (of providing both right answers in this article) is the most reasonable way to go.  It is also the only way WP can stay neutral in the dispute between Coulter and Olbermann.Tommylotto (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have proposed NO compromise, rather you have insisted in inclusion of an unsubstantiated and trivial detail that you're attempting perpetuate a smear with. It seems like the consensus here amongst reasonable editors is to leave is simply, and accurately, "Cornell University". You have presented no compelling reasons or basis to identify it otherwise. 75.17.59.85 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is from the Cornell Website. http://www.cornell.edu/academics/colleges.cfm "Cornell University is both a private endowed university and the federal land-grant institution of New York State. Each of the fourteen colleges and schools listed below defines its own academic programs; admits its own students; provides a faculty, and advising and support for its students; and confers degrees on its own students, although all degrees are attributed to Cornell University. Special transcollege faculty units (see "The Faculty of Computing and Information Science" below) draw on faculty members from throughout the university to serve designated needs and accomplish specific missions." Olbermann's degree is from the federal land-grant institution of New York State but is "attributed to Cornell University". Perhaps a solution to this is to just say that somewhere later in the article? Or say Cornell University and the reference links to federal land-grant institution of New York? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.71.224.55 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. An article about Keith Olbermann is not the place to discuss the structure and organization of a particular university. A Cornell graduate is a Cornell graduate is a Cornell graduate. It's that simple. WindyCityRider (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Nobody cares about this but Coulter fans.  It's a non-issue.
 * 2) Any discussion of the university governance structure of Cornell belongs at Cornell University.
 * 3) At present, the article says this about his education: His parents enrolled him at the Hackley School.[7][9] After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts.[3] Adding mention of which college he was enrolled in at Cornell would probably seem odd to the average reader; adding a discussion of how Cornell grants its degrees would seriously unbalance the section.  If someone wants to write a section about his undergraduate career, and can find reliable third-party sources that address that, then by all means give it a shot.  Beyond that, there's nothing to see here.  Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we stick a fork in these discussions and close it now? It appears that the article accurately reflects his academic history and which University he got his degree from. The only remaining difference seems to be whether or not the specific college within Cornell should be mentioned and it appears the "majority" favor leaving it out as an unnecessary detail that is almost never used in bios. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right to me. Guettarda (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

College Degree
As Ann Coulter recently pointed out, isn't it worth mentioning that Keith Olbermann received a BS in Communications from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, not the School of Art and Sciences that he would lead everybody to believe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.221.234 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say Cornell when it should say CORNELL AG SCHOOL
Can we get this fixed? He has been caught. Lets get this changed to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnram6662 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the existing discussions above. The degree came from Cornell.  The specific college is trivial.  Henrymrx (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not trivial. Point to the correct wiki page, Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Olbermann has admitted it, the Cornell Daily Sun documents it (as a reliable source).  Point to the correct page. Ann arbor street (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to say that his degree did not come from Cornell University, that is a false statement. Lots of component colleges have their own articles.  If your program was in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, your degree still came from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Your degree would say "University of Maryland" on it.  You would still be a Terrapin.  Henrymrx (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Info about College
Olberman did not attend Cornell University, he attended the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences a separate contract/salutatory school with far different admission and graduation requirements. He readily admitted this in yet another of his infamous feuds. This time with Ann Coulter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleEastman (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see the part where he held up his diploma which says "Cornell University" (and nothing else) in big fancy letters at the top? Who cares which college he attended within the University?  It's trivial. Henrymrx (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If it were "trivial" Wikipedia would not have a separate article for the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Why haven't you petitioned to have the "trivial" second article merged?  The fact is it admission and graduation standards at Cornell are set by the individual colleges, not the University.  But even if that were not the case, censoring the additional precision provided in specifying the college at Cornell is a disgrace.  Not leading the reader to the article on the AG College, but to the Arts & Sciences University is misleading at best, and depending on the motivation, dishonest in the extreme. --72.146.231.191 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Because lots of component colleges of Universities have their own articles. If you attend the Philip Merrill College of Journalism or the University of Maryland School of Architecture, your degree comes from the University of Maryland, College Park.  Who really cares about which college your program was in?  His degree came from Cornell.  If you want to put it somewhere in the education section, I doubt anyone would object.  But saying he didn't get his degree from Cornell is blatantly false.  Besides, he's a Cornell alumnus according to Cornell.  Henrymrx (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WIKI IN OLBERMANN TANK-CORNELL AG
wikipedia proves itself to be no better than any other rag of propaganda when it refuses to correct inaccurate "facts" on the pages of people it favors like keith olbermann... kim jung il needs one of the worlds largest standing armies to get such favorable "press", but if you are liberal, stupid and still hate george w. bush, the wiki-ganda is free and easy...

olbermann did not attend and graduate from Cornell University...he attended and graduated from The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University

NO NEED TO WONDER ABOUT SOURCES... furher olbermann admits it on air... see official msnbc transcript of march 5, 2009 episode here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29549123/ ...he says: "... Yes, close Ann. Our alma mater supplied these interesting statistics this afternoon.  The arts college acceptance rate is now one in five applicants.  The Ag college acceptance rate is now one in five applicants.  Anne also missed the fact that Ag students could, as I did, and as my successors can still, take just as many classes as she did in that arts college.  I took nearly half of mine there.  Except, in our time, I paid about 800 bucks a semester for that privilege, while she would have paid closer to 10,000. "

so he did attend and graduate from The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (abbreviated to CALS or Ag School) NOT the private Ivy League Cornell University... he went to a Public school AT Cornell University and took some classes AT cornell University...apparently to SAVE MONEY...

STATUS: VERIFIED BY ADMISSION...olbermann went to The New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University (abbreviated to CALS or Ag School) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOOBOBTOO (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, no one disputes that he went to CALS. That's a verifiable fact. However, it is Wikipedia protocol to list the University, and not the specific college within the university system, which the subject attended. And I am not an Olbermanniac, so you can hopefully take my opinion seriously. Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest at this point we should adopt a policy aimed at reducing circular discussion:
 * Remove talk page comments with the singular goal of furthering Coulter's statement.
 * Reply to the poster directly on his talk page, referencing:
 * the Cornell University system;
 * Wikipedia practice of referencing the University ( not the individual college);
 * the extensive previous discussion and consensus on this topic (contained above).
 * //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support treating further attempts to reopen this absurdity as talk page disruption deletable on sight. In my view WP:NOTE is the controlling policy in this attempt to include trivia in this article.

We don't need to go down that road at all. The basic policy here is Verifiability. The question here is "where did Olbermann get his degree?" The only answer which can be supported by reliable sources is "Cornell". Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to provide reliable sources to support their claim. Guettarda (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point -- Wikipedia cites the University bestowing the degree, not the individual college. Reliable sourcing has nothing to do with it.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yeah, it does. We don't cite the university as granting the degree out of some convention, we cite the university as granting the degree because it's the truth...or, if you prefer to use our way of saying things, "because that's what reliable sources say".  AC's assertion that his degree didn't come from Cornell isn't supported by any reliable sources.  (Mostly because it's false, but that's beside the point).  Since it's an extraordinary claim that isn't supported by reliable sources, we can't discuss it in the article.  Especially not in an article about a living person.
 * My point is that we don't need to make arguments based on convention when we can make arguments based on core policies. The latter are far stronger than the former.  Guettarda (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me we're going to violate standard Wikipedia practice if someone can find a source (or two) that (incorrectly) makes such a claim... Why bother asking for a source when it would be incorrect (and against practice) anyway? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously they'd have to correctly make the claim. After all, in a BLP extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.  So if there's a source that correctly makes that claim, then we need discuss how we'd format it.  Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they make the claim, they're necessarily incorrect (per the issuing authority Cornell Univeristy). We need not give credibility to obvious factual errors.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to rain on your echo chamber, but you are all POV pushing. Coulter made a controversial assertion that those attending the Ag school are lesser than those attending the Art school. Who cares. It is an uncontroversial fact that he attended Cornell University. That is an accurate statement. It is equally correct to state that he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Both answers are correct. I have repeatedly proposed that we identify the University only in his bio box and the full college in the text of the article. Then the article will be unbiased. Someone attempting to fact check Coulter's article will find that she is wrong and right (it's nuanced) rather than she is totally wrong, which you POV pushers are incorrectly trying to prove. Tommylotto (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your proposed "compromise" is disingenuous if not completely intellectually dishonest. You're not really conceding anything at all. Further, it is NOT, as you put it, "equally correct" to include unsubstantiated details along with more verifiable information. Even still, were you to find significant base for your claim, you would still need to convince the community that it even merits inclusion. This sort of detail isn't merited in other articles, why would we include it here? Would Ann Coulter's attempted smear piece have anything to do with it?


 * You might want to read WP:NPOV/FAQ and WP:UNDUE.
 * We have about 1600 articles about Cornell alumni. All the ones I checked simply provide a link to Cornell University.  The article does not discuss Olbermann's undergraduate career, it simply states his major and the degree he received.  Again, this seems standard for articles about Cornell alumni, and biographies in general.  If we had discussed his undergrad in any depth I might expect to see mention of the specific college.  But as it stands, mention of the specific college would be unnecessary.  So no, there's no POV problem here.  As it stands the section is balanced.  Guettarda (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are editors that want the article to say Cornell University and there are editors that want it to say Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences -- both answers of which are correct. I propose that the article provide both answers, Cornell University in the bio box and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the text of the article.  How is that not a compromise?  Anything short of "I win" and "Coulter is totally wrong" (when she is not) is unacceptable to you guys.  He went to the state supported  Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences that can easily be established by reliable sources and common sense.  He went to Cornell.  He when to the Communication school.  The Communication school is in a Ag College (as can be seen on the university's own web sitehttp://www.cornell.edu/academics/departments.cfm).  Common sense is enough to establish that he went to the Ag College.  However, if that was not enough for some of you editors, KO admitted as much in his rebuttal to Coulter.  He chided her for paying $10,000 in tuition for what he paid a few hundred dollars.  That is a clear statement from a reliable source that he was one of the in-state residents whose admission was mandated in to Cornell in exchange for Cornell's state funding of the Ag School.  Thus, contrary to what you claim, the sources are overwhelming that KO actually attended the Ag School.  So, why do you insist on omitting six accurate words that numerous editors want included?  Could it be that you dislike Coulter and that you want people fact checking her to find that she is totally wrong, when in fact she was partially right?  That is POV pushing.  This article can accurately state all the facts while avoiding the controversy stirred up by Coulter by providing both right answers as I suggest, but ignoring her snobby and probably wrong smear hat the students of one particular college are less prestigious.  Then those wanting to know will find out the truth that yes he went to Cornell University and he went to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and if they want that distinction to mean something, then they can.  However, your winner take all version denies the reader the truth (that may be relevant to some) to save six extra accurate properly sourced words.  A non-Coulter example:  A student at  Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences wants to disprove Coulter's thesis that the arts student have achieved more than the Ag students, and that student wanted to research prominent ex-students of the Ag school, WP will not help him, because POV pushing editors wanted to prove Coulter wrong and decided to exclude accurate information form an article. Tommylotto (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tommy, you've given no reason explaining why we should ignore common practice and make an exception in this particular case. Following Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and standard practice isn't POV pushing... Ignoring them selectively at the behest of Ann Coulter and her disingenuous claims certainly is.  Please move along.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blaxthos, please cite to the official WP policy that you refer to. It does not exist.Tommylotto (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Tommy, I said common practice. You may start with Category:Cornell University alumni for around 1,500 examples.  If you need expansion from there, let me know.  Now, given that you've made only 56 edits to Wikipedia and more than a quarter of those have been in furtherance of this agenda, I'm going to drop good faith and point out that you're now urging us to ignore standards in favor of pushing a fringe viewpoint, against Wikipedia consensus generally, and a slew of experienced editors here specifically.  I suggest you take some time to contribute content to the project for a while before you start taking up policy arguments.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that I have met yet another wiki bully. Unless you think Olbermann shares an agenda with Constitutional Law, Medieval Sicily and Yamashita's Treasure (other topics that I have contributed to), I think you are being grossly unfair and are trying to intimidate me into allowing you to have your way.  You cannot cite to any WP policy that prevents the citation to a public figure's college and you just allude to "common practice" without providing any examples or underlying justification for the practice.  There is obvious interest in the distinction between the university as a whole and the college -- just look at all the discussions you guys have tried to shut down.  I agree that there is no need to feed into Coulter's alleged smear, but to omit accurate information to falsely debunk her smear is POV pushing of its own sort.  That is why I proposed the compromise.  I suggest you take a step back and look at your own biases.  Do you dislike Coulter?  Do you agree with Olbermann's POV on Bush and Iraq?  Could your own bias be effecting your judgment on this issue?  I am pretty sure that it is.   In my version, neither Coulter nor Olbermann "win", the truth wins and the wiki reader wins, because they get accurate information from which they can draw their own conclusions, not the conclusions you seek to spoon feed the reader. Tommylotto (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding your accusation of bias, I've given you a veritable encyclopedia of examples of proper practice, and most all of the veteran editors have spent days explaining it to you. You, on the other hand, have given no reason why you think the distinction is so important in this one singular instance.  The burden is on you to justify why we should ignore what is common practice, as demonstrated by thousands (and easily expanded to tens of thousands) of articles already in place.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Cornell University wikilink
Several sources, some reliable, indicate that Keith Olbermann earned his degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Should the wiki link be to Cornell University (Cornell University) or directly to Cornell University (Cornell University). The reliable sources are Cornell Daily Sun, and in the case of the topic at hand, Keith Olbermann himself, who admits that the college's name appears on his Cornell University Diploma. 17:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Several sources? Such as...?  Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me search. Oh, there it is.  I'll quote:  "The reliable sources are Cornell Daily Sun, and in the case of the topic at hand, Keith Olbermann himself, who admits that the college's name appears on his Cornell University Diploma."  Hope that helps.  Cheers.  Ann arbor street (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, seriously. You need a source that supports your assertion.  Guettarda (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave one link to a reliable source, I am not sure I actually "need" to provide a link for the other source, Olbermann himself. But, I'll proceed as though you're treating me civilly and making a friendly request (as opposed to making allegations of misrepresenting sources, as you have done on my talk page), and I'll google that for you.  Here is a result:  MSNBC, where Olbermann points out that the corner of his diploma has the college's name on it.  Google is a beautiful thing.  Ann arbor street (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The link you provides does not anything about where he earned his degree. It mentions the college in which he was enrolled.  It doesn't support your assertion
 * "[P]oints out that the corner of his diploma has the college's name on it". The diploma clearly says "Cornell University".  Assuming Using that to support the assertion that he earned his degree from somewhere other than Cornell violates both WP:NOR and, well, you know, all logic.  Guettarda (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your confusion. You believe that I asserted that Olbermann did not earn a degree from Cornell University.  Indeed, the college in question is part of Cornell.  The RFC is to see if we should wikilink to Cornell University in general, or to the college in particular.  If Olbermann were a faculty member there, I think we'd clearly link to the college.  The RFC is to seek comment on the wikilink.  Note, too, that both versions of the proposed wikilink are displayed with the text "Cornell University."  This is rather obvious, but perhaps you missed that, so I am pointing it out.  Ann arbor street (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should re-read what you said. Several sources...indicate that Keith Olbermann earned his degree from...  If that's the case, then you need to provide a source which says that he earned his degree from...  You provided a source that says that he was enrolled in a specific college.  So your source does not agree with your assertion.  If you claim that there are "several sources" for this, then you need to provide sources for your assertion.  That's the 0th step.  Provide sources that support your assertion.  Is that really too much to ask?  Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Olbermann was a communications arts major (as it was called at the time) in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and worked at WVBR (and at The Sun for one day). ... Olbermann said that in order for him to graduate, he had to take 28 credits during the spring semester of his senior year.Counting Down With Keith Olbermann '79"

"...Ag. students could, as I did, and as my successors can still, take just as many classes as she did in that arts college--Kieth Olbermann."

The original research protest is interesting. But the above quotes make it clear that he went to Cornell University's ag. college, and graduated. Again, the RFC is about which wikilink to use for the text "Cornell University." Ann arbor street (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And this supports your assertion in what way?
 * The original research protest is interesting
 * Thank your for acknowledging the existence of that policy. But you need to do more than acknowledge it as interesting.  You need to bide by it, and not make arguments based on your own novel interpretation of what Olbermann's diploma means with regards to who it was that issued his degree.
 * But the above quotes make it clear that he went to Cornell University's ag. college
 * Yes, and...? You are saying that several sources say that he earned his degree from.  The source you cite says that he was enrolled in that college, not that he earned his degree from.  If you want to claim that he earned his degree from an administrative unit, rather than from the institution itself, then you need to provide a reliable source to support your assertion.
 * Again, the RFC is about which wikilink to use for the text "Cornell University."
 * No, the RFC is about "given X, should be link to A or B?" The problem is that you have not demonstrated X.  You have claimed that there are "several sources" that support X, but you have provided one source that says nothing of the sort, and another that basically involved drawing conclusions from an image in a video clip - while simultaneously ignoring (a) the remainder of the image, and (b) the statements made in the clip.  Now, once again, if there are sources, "some reliable", that supply your assertion, please share them with us.  Sources means more than one.  "Some reliable" implies "more than one".  But lets start small.  Do you even have one reliable source for your claims?  Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if there were one reliable source, I'm not convinced that that level of excessive detail is needed in the article. WindyCityRider (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a separate matter. First we need to determine whether Ann is simply very bad at presenting sources, or whether s/he is intentionally misrepresenting sources.  If there's one reliable source, then s/he can rephrase her/his question appropriately.  If there are no reliable sources, then there'd be no basis for this discussion at all.  I don't know if Ann is being terribly obtuse, or whether s/he has a hard time understanding the idea of sourcing, or whether s/he has problems with some of the subtleties of English.
 * It wouldn't be fair for me to dismiss Ann's claims out of hand without first seeing the supporting evidence. I'm hoping s/he will be kind enough to provide some soon.  Guettarda (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is clear and undisputed is that he earned his degree from Cornell University. In every biography wiki of a public persona who went to university, the degree is simply listed as being bestowed by the university. It does not, for example, list the academic department within, nor which classes they took, or any other irrelevant detail. WindyCityRider (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the wikilink issue... if the link is to read "Cornell University" and we have a page Cornell University, then that's where is should link to. To have it link to some other wiki page would be misleading (bordering on linkspam). WindyCityRider (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - This has been discussed ad infinitum above, consensus from established editors seems clear. To whit:
 * Cornell University confers degrees upon graduates of its as part of their university system.
 * Olbermann's diploma (referenced above) clearly states Cornell University.
 * Wikipedia, just like standard business and collegiate practice, designates the University conferring the degree.
 * Cornell clearly lists Olbermann as an alumnus (referenced above).
 * At the risk of not assuming good faith, this red herring was started by a misrepresentation from an individual (Coulter) who has a long reputation for disregarding facts in favor if incendiary comments. The implication of specifying the individual college, whether it be from Ann Coulter or editors here, is that the degree is somehow "different", worth less, or otherwise inferior.  It's not Wikipedia or real-world practice, and it can serve no other purpose.
 * //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[ Removed post which violated policies on personal attacks and articles about living people ]
 * I think the emotions of previous discussions are spilling over to here. I don't view the ag. college as inferior.  The question is should we have (quoted directly from the current article, with the second pointing to what the sources say is the correct college within the university):


 * "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts" (current)
 * -or-
 * "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts" (proposed)


 * Support change
 * Clearly, he did matriculate at Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. This isn't disputed.  The question is which wiki article should we link to.  I don't think it is link spam or disparaging to be accurate. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said above, please provide some supporting evidence for your claims. Guettarda (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Already provided, as noted. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. You haven't.  I have asked you to repeatedly.  I have done my best to explain Wikipedia policy to you.  You claim that there are "several" sources, but you have provided none.  Guettarda (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here they are again:
 * Cornell Daily Sun
 * "Olbermann was a communications arts major (as it was called at the time) in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and worked at WVBR (and at The Sun for one day). ... Olbermann said that in order for him to graduate, he had to take 28 credits during the spring semester of his senior year."
 * Keith Olbermann at MSNBC
 * "...Ag. students could, as I did, and as my successors can still, take just as many classes as she did in that arts college..."--Keith Olbermann.

Hope you don't loose them in the chatter. Ann arbor street (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) And, as I explained to you before, neither of these sources say "Olbermann's degree was granted by X". They can be used to conclude that (a) he attended Cornell, (b) he was registered in a major that was located within a particular college, and (c) he graduated from Cornell. They do not address degree granting. So please, provide a link that supports your assertion. Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the rationale for a piped link? How does changing Cornell University to Cornell University improve the article in any way? Guettarda (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It links to the college within Cornell where he matriculated. It is more precise.  "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts"  Ann arbor street (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I think it's necessary for you to justify why we should ignore standard practice for this particular article, given it's not done on any other biographies of which I'm aware, especially when it appears the only reason is to give credibility to the debunked misstatements of Ann Coulter.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per Blaxthos. Can we please have an end to this idiocy? Ann, you might try taking a look at WP:UNDUE (not that I really think that asking you to listen to reason is going to do any good). Then you might try finding any other bio article on Wikipedia where the individual school within the university attended is made any kind of an issue. Obviously, if the text of the article reads "Cornell University" it should link to the article on Cornell University, not somewhere else. To do otherwise is called a "surprise link" which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Of course, if you have any more perfectly innocent questions, that are certainly not meant to support a tendentious agenda, fire away. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This tactic of burying an RFC in the hat/hab hole is interesting device. Is there a reason why we don't want outside views on the issue of a "piped link" to the Cornell University college Olbermann attended? Back to the point behind the prematurely closed Rfc. The article says "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts." On the one hand, one might argue that a piped link to the pertinent Cornell college is an "Easter egg" link. On the other hand, it is an issue of preciseness without bogging the article down in minutia, ruining readability. I am not sure this got flushed out, as many of my esteemed wikipedians seemed to get sidetracked with wikilawyering, as opposed to discussing how to make the article potentially better, and the big gun showed up to stifle the Rfc, preventing outside and new (to this subject) contributors from helping form a consensus. Too bad, really. Ann arbor street (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody be so kind as to point out under what rubric other users are burying my follow up comments in an already closed hat/hab template delimiters? The comments were directly aimed at improving the article, and pointing out that much of the preceding "debate" was off topic. The article says "After graduating from Hackley in 1975, Olbermann attended Cornell University and graduated in 1979 with a B.S. in communications arts." The discussion to precisely wikilink to the college he attended, or, alternatively, specify in prose, should not be buried for ideological reasons. The hat/hab template delimiters should not be used abusively to stifle discussion. Ann arbor street (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cry foul though you may, but several editors deemed the RFC worthy of speedy closure -- your assertions have all been answered ad infinitum above. You've produced no policy, rationalization, precedent, or example to justify your position.  Conversely, those in favor of closure have cited thousands of examples of what is preferred Wikipedia practice.  RFC isn't a blunt instrument...  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was about truth,he never went to Cornell. He also went to school at the university of South Carolina. The Ag school at Cornell is not hard to get into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.153.62 (talk • contribs)


 * No, Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not Truth. Articles are based on reliable sources, not Revealed Truth.  Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe that's true in the Rightwingoverse. In the reality in which the rest of us live, he did go to Cornell, his degree (which he showed on-air) says Cornell University, and he never went to any school in South Carolina. And your statement about CALS being easy to get into is just as wrong as the rest of your comment. Raul654 (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You guys are so ridiculously in the tank. It's one thing for you to assert that Olbermann went to Cornell, it is entirely another to consign to the memory hole the fact that a public debate exists about the assertion.  This matter has origins, a context and is relevant in terms of understanding Olbermann and the very snarky nature of his journalism.  Cover it up like a good little kitty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.142.198 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way . . . I would just settle for a mention of the fact that Olbermann attempted to prove he went to Cornell by whipping out his diploma on air. Does mention of that remarkable event not have a place somewhere at wikipedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.142.198 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Troll elsewhere, this issue is done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It all depends on how the issue is treated by reliable third-party sources. What do reliable third-party sources say about the issue?  Point us to them, summarise what they have to say, and let's discuss whether we think the coverage is notable enough for inclusion in this or another article.  OK?  Guettarda (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute that there is a "protocol" or "practice" or whatever else you wish to call it that warrants exclusion of information concerning his college. It certainly is not official WP policy.  I know of no WP policy that would warrant the exclusion of reference to the verifiable fact that he attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.  Such a "protocol" if such a protocol exists might be appropriate for other universities where the colleges are mere departments at the same university.  However, in the case of Cornell, the differences are significant.  Some colleges at Cornell are private institutions, while other are state-supported land grant colleges.  The distinctions between colleges at Cornell are more significant than at other institutions.  Thus, since Cornell and CALS is a unique situation, the protocol or practice that you allege would have to be supported by reference to other wiki articles concerning other Cornell CALS graduates.  It is my stated position that both answers Cornell University and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences are equally correct in stating where he went to school.  I would propose that the university be identified in his bio box and the full college be identified in the text of the article.  Please do not delete or bury this post as it is not fair to prevent other editors from seeing this reasoned compromise.Tommylotto (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's time to move on Tommylotto. This dead horse has been kicked to a pulp and you aren't going to get your way on this. Olbermann attended and received his degree from Cornell University and that is accurately explained in the article. Going with your approach would only increase confusion among readers of the article and perpetuate the inaccurate portrayal that Olbermann did not go to Cornell University. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RBI / WP:DENY time. The essays are mostly for vandalism, but the concepts work just as well for agenda warriors and single purpose accounts.  Obviously, the block reference is only intended for cases of disruptive editing to the article... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, WP:DNFTT --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that Tommylotto is not trolling. Trolling is a specific activity designed to provoke a reaction, whereas Tommy is sincerely trying to help an article. He's being calm, rational, and civil. He's not being disruptive, he may have a certain Point Of View (who doesn't?), but he's certainly not a troll (at least insofar what I've seen). Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, he's not by strict definition a "troll". Regardless of the nomenclature used, he is ignoring consensus and the points made by veteran editors in favor of simply repeating his viewpoint ad infinitum.  At this point we're not obligated to continue to explain it to him (or other agenda warriors and SPA's) -- best course is to deny recognition here, and refer said editors to the extensive consensus above via their individual talk pages.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by consensus. I do not support what you call consensus.  Linking to the college within the university he attended is consistent with the current wording.  It appears that there is a number of editors who are trying to fight against what they perceive as acknowledging Ann Coulter, but WP should not be a tool in an information war against Ann Coulter. Link to the college, or change the wording.  Ann arbor street (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)