Talk:Lester Holt

Carer section
Not sure if the Career section of this is really accurate?

Holt spent 19 years with CBS beginning in 1981..... In 1982, he became a reporter and weekend anchor on KNXT in Los Angeles (that broke the continuum, unless that was still CBS) and the next year he returned to WCBS-TV as a reporter and weekend anchor. In 1986, Holt moved to WBBM-TV (also CBS?) in Chicago where he spent 14 years anchoring the evening news. (If he spen 14 there in 1986, what happened from '81 to 2000?)

fiscal cliff legislation
After hearing your report last night concerning the fiscal cliff legislation that Congress hastily past, we need to know specifically who the idiots are who wrote those items into the bill. It seems they always go unidentified and are allowed to hide in the shadows. It is clear that whoever it is has rubber stamped some lobbyists wish list once again instead of addressing the needs of this nation as a whole. Perhaps an expose of this question and a clear picture that identifies that person in Congress who writes this stuff will stop this crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.84.100 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Reports
Until NBC OFFICIALLY announces it, I don't think that it should be included that Holt is permanent and Williams is returning in a different role. It is just the media reporting and we don't actually know if it is true or not. Corkythe  hornetfan  01:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it's multiple media sources, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc. In any case, the multiple media reports say there will be an announcement tomorrow, so it doesn't matter that much either way. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal life section
How can he be "African-American" when it is cited His maternal grandparents were Jamaican.[11] His maternal grandfather was of half English and half Indian descent.[12]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.252.206 (talk) 18:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

"and is now the morning news anchor at WMAQ-TV NBC5 Chicago" should be "and became the morning news anchor at WMAQ-TV NBC5 Chicago" if that even belongs in "Personal life" at all. 2001:558:1418:31:41B5:3C63:FF6:5B2F (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember Lester your comments when you were first starting is Sacramento about playing string bass in a local jazz trio. A lot of water under the bridge Bobnmrty (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lester Holt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080603042619/http://allday.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/10/26/429447.aspx to http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/26/429447.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Lester Holt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314110955/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/29583078/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29583078/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090210170155/http://allday.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2007/05/11/189148.aspx to http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/05/11/189148.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120913233331/http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com:80/today/48959400 to http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/48959400#48959400
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091130165640/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com:80/sports/mediumwell/blog/2008/07/your_nbc_olympics_lineup.html to http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/mediumwell/blog/2008/07/your_nbc_olympics_lineup.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lester Holt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222064933/http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=angs-c&gsfn=Lester+D&gsln=Holt&uidh=fk7&pcat=34&h=7279993&recoff=6+7+8&db=cabirth1905&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2 to http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?rank=1&new=1&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=angs-c&gsfn=Lester+D&gsln=Holt&uidh=fk7&pcat=34&h=7279993&recoff=6+7+8&db=cabirth1905&indiv=1&ml_rpos=2

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which side is he on? Who cares.
I honestly don't think that Holt's political affiliation is relevant to this article. Trump made an offhand comment and suddenly it's encyclopedic knowledge? I think that unless something major comes out of him being Republican, then it's irrelevant trivia. I'm willing, however, to be persuaded. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason this is relevant for the entry is that many, many WP:RSs have written articles about it, including every major news source, for example the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940 To put it another way, it's relevant for the reasons given in the WP:RSs. Multiple coverage by major sources is the main criteria Wikipedia uses to determine whether something goes in the article. One statement of that policy is WP:WEIGHT. I would revert it except that this is WP:BLP and I want to make sure you agree.
 * Convinced? --Nbauman (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. Your link is about Trump, not Holt, and second, everything I've seen (particularly in the two references previously on the article ) is about Trump saying things that aren't true (and the media correcting him on it). Besides, in the midst of a ridiculous (in every sense of the word) presidential election, everything that every candidate says is going to be masticated, regurgitated, and rehashed a million times over. Unless him being a Republican (or not) is more than a talking point for "Trump says something false" I just don't see how it's relevant. Once the debate is over, of course, that may very well change (since Holt is the moderator). Maybe this discussion should be tabled until Tuesday? Primefac (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you.
 * You say, "Your link is about Trump, not Holt"
 * Actually, it's about both of them. And even if it was "about" Trump, so what? It's a WP:RS. Why is that reason not to use it?
 * Then you say, "and second, everything I've seen (particularly in the two references previously on the article[1][2]) is about Trump saying things that aren't true (and the media correcting him on it)."
 * That's the judgment of the news media, in WP:RSs. That's a reason to use it. That's what Wikipedia uses to establish WP:WEIGHT. Once again, why is that reason not to use it?
 * It's important to realize that we don't edit Wikipedia based on our personal feelings or judgments. We edit Wikipedia based on repeated references in WP:RSs.
 * And no, it should NOT be tabled until Tuesday. People are coming to this page now because they're interested in the upcoming debate. We shouldn't delete true facts from Wikipedia entries at the very time when readers are most interested in them.
 * (And I don't think you should have deleted it without discussing it first in Talk.)
 * Perhaps user:Gråbergs Gråa Sång will want to weigh in on this.--Nbauman (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a courtesy, I am telling you that I asked User talk:Cyphoidbomb, who was involved with this edit, to give us his opinion. --Nbauman (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, your BBC link has nothing to do with Holt; he's not even mentioned. But that's not the point. I'm not debating the reliability of the sources (even if there weren't six links now to WP:RS). I'm saying that Holt's political affiliations (at this time) are about as relevant to this article as Serena Williams' favourite pizza topping is to hers. The only reason it has been mentioned is because Trump said one offhand comment. My point regarding its lasting impact can be viewed in similar light to David Duke; Trump's comments regarding Duke spawned an entire paragraph's worth of media, from the initial comment to Duke's reaction and others weighing in on it, over the course of a few weeks. We can't go adding in every fact (or lie) from every sound bite that comes out of Trump's (or Clinton's, for that matter) mouth onto Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the BBC link. You're right about that.
 * You're making an argument that in your personal opinion, Holt's political affiliations are not relevant to the article.
 * But you can't edit Wikipedia based on your personal opinion. You can only edit Wikipedia based on the opinions in WP:RS. You can only add or delete material according to WP:WEIGHT. The controversy over Trump's claim that Holt is a Democrat has been reported in multiple WP:RS, for example, , , . Because it's been reported by so many WP:RSs, it has WP:WEIGHT, and belongs in the entry.
 * Are you saying that you don't accept WP:WEIGHT?
 * Do you have any other reason to support your deletoin besides your personal opinon and interpretation of the facts? --Nbauman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like classic Recentism, and while it´s widely covered now (but not in any great detail), it will likely be unimportant in the longer run. I could argue per WP:Weight that Holt being democrat is a tiny minority veiw (Trumps) and thus deserve no attention in the subject of Lester Holt. Maybe in an article about the debate(s). That said, I thought the sentence I (re)added here (NOT in the lead) was a reasonable compromise for now, possibly to be quietly removed in a month or two. It may be a little interesting if he´s moderating a presidential debate.  Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Another possibility. We have this sentence in the article: "On September 2, 2016, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that Lester Holt would moderate the first presidential debate on Monday, Sept. 26, 2016, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY." We add something like "Presidential candidate Donald Trump commented that this was "a very unfair system" because "Lester is a Democrat." Holt is a registered Republican." It gives some context, but could be considered undue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Recentism is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it is just an essay. It reflects the opinions of some editors, but other editors have given good reasons against Recentism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_positive That's why it's not a policy or guideline. We have to consider the merits of the individual edit, so Recentism drops out of the equation anyway.


 * The Recentism "ten-year test" is, "Will someone ten years from now be confused about how this article is written?" The answer for this edit is "no." It may be less important in ten years, and it may be eliminated after it becomes unimportant, but today, it's very important. So even according to WP:Recentism, it should go in.


 * 2. The test of importance or WP:WEIGHT for Wikipedia is whether it gets extensive coverage by WP:RSs. The answer is yes. That alone should justify including it.


 * 3. Editors are not supposed to debate the merits of the issues themselves in Wikipedia. We're supposed to follow WP:RSs. But suppose we put that Wikipedia rule aside, and consider the merits. This issue is important because (a) Trump's credibility and lying have become an issue in this campaign. The New York Times ran editorials explaining why they would use the word "lie" to describe Trump's claims. This is further evidence in that issue. (b) Trump impugned Holt's credibility with a claim that is demonstrably false. Many people have heard it, they may believe it, they may be wondering whether it's true, and they come to Wikipedia for information about Holt. The internet is full of inaccurate information. Correcting harmful inaccuracies is particularly useful information.


 * I think now that we've discussed it, the compromise is to include a statement like yours in the article. I'm going to insert it today -- when people are still looking up this entry to find out about Holt. --Nbauman (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lester Holt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310175525/http://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-news/discovery-times-channel-becomes-investigation-disc/ to http://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-news/discovery-times-channel-becomes-investigation-disc/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Paternal grandparent?
After stating that his maternal grandparents are of Jamaican descent, the subsequent sentence says:

"His maternal grandfather was of half English and half Indian descent."

Is this possibly a typo, and should be paternal rather than maternal? I tried checking the reference but it wouldn't load for me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad wording in "Personal life" section
In the "Personal life" section, the article says "...Holt became a grandfather to a boy when his son Stefan and his wife had their first child". This implies that Stefan and Lester's wife had a child and perhaps an incestual relationship. I suggest that the wording be changed to precisely state that Stefan and Stefan's wife had the child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.182.131 (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)