Talk:Keith Olbermann

Controversy

Why is there no Controversy section in this article? 173.79.6.49 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because there isn't much in the way of noteworthy controversy to report on. Warren -talk- 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there's a fair amount of controversy about the man which I'm sure has been raised by "reliable sources" from time to time. I'm sure that between his practice of never interviewing "hostile" guests, regularly insulting his rivals on other networks, telling the President of the United States to "shut the hell up", and openly cheerleading for one side and jeerleading the other while covering their political events, he's done things that could reasonably be described as controversial. It merely requires a motivated editor to the work. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most of the controversy criticism is espoused from sources beyond what is traditionally considered reliable. Certainly there exist segments of the population that are critical of Olbermann, however I think most of the criticisms appear on the fringe. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're describing are his political views (which we cover in this article) and criticism of how Countdown is run (which is covered in the article about the show), not controversy. The latter is generally defined as a prolonged dispute or debate carried out between parties. Olbermann's built a reputation for yelling from the sidelines, but what controversies has he been involved with that run outside the context of his television show? Warren -talk- 03:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[Removed post which violates our policies for [[WP:BLP|articles about living people]

Could the person who removed the above take a look at this? Thanks. 13:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann arbor street (talk • contribs)

I removed that post. Next time, you might want to try Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to say before, it merely requires a motivated editor or two. Olbermann has certainly done plenty of things every bit as controversial as anything appearing in ... say, the extensive list of controversies for Bill O'Reilly. These would include using the Hitler salute while holding up a mask of O'Reilly to his face at a public function [1], seeming to refer (later denied) to U.S. troops in Iraq as "cold-blooded killers" [2], and naming the cancer-fighting, soon to be dead Tony Snow as one of his "worst persons in the world" [3]. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as I noted above, Badmintonhist linked no reliable secondary source to substantiate his claims of significant controversy. A single letter from the ADO is a primary source, not indicative of a notable controversy; the Countdown link is also a primary source (and thus, the criticism is Badmintonhist's original research -- also not indicative of a notable controversy); a single snippet in The Cleveland Leader's editorial section about a segment on a TV show doesn't qualify as a notable controversy in a biography. Nice try... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, I think you're using the word "controversy" in a way that extends beyond its true dictionary definition. A cable commentariat yelling at a TV camera isn't "controversial", no matter what they say. Other people have to engage the discussion, and it has to be a recognized two-way thing. Please look up the dictionary definition of the word -- and note its synonyms while you're at it: quarrel, altercation, dispute. What you're linking to here isn't establishing "controversy"; it is commentary and/or criticism. Warren -talk- 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah Blax, Surely you realize that the purpose of the talk page is to make suggestions that may improve the article. Its purpose is not necessrily to present definitive proof of the worthiness of those suggestions or overwhelming numbers of reliable secondary sources for any proposed factoid. You're a good researcher. I'm sure you could come up with sufficient reliable sources to show that your hero, Mr. Olbermann, that is, has been involved in some noteworthy controversies if you cared to do so. Incidentally, the Hitler salute controversy was in one of the Olbermann articles for many months. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't to be used as a holding tank for criticisms that are otherwise unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially given WP:BLP. You've made no suggestion on improving the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure I did. I suggested that an an enterprising young editor such as yourself, might profitably work on material for a controversies section in the Olbermann article, or perhaps for a separate Olbermann criticisms/controversies article such as the one that exists for O'Reilly and certain other commentators. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There were some sources of criticism beyond the scope of right wing bloggers and commentators last summer. One of them was added to the Countdown article from LA Times tv critic Rosenberg about his lack of guests with opposing views. There was also a New Yorker article critical but not scathing by any means. I thought about bringing them in but believed it would be better to truncate the CofBO article of extraneous stuff(which most agree but there is a standstill about how to do it). KO criticism is mainly handled in the Countdown article which seems the proper way to do it. I have suggested that BO criticism should be mainly put in the Factor article since the main controversies/criticisms are usually what both say or do on their respective shows. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Countdown article incorporates criticism of the show. Other criticism, as notable and appropriate should be worked into this article. Separate "controversy" sections are poor form and should be avoided - they should be discussed, in a balanced fashion, in the appropriate portion of the article. Guettarda (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And of it's host. The genesis of most of the criticisms/controversies come from their respective shows which is where most of this material should be worked into. MrMurph101 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what Guettarda meant to say is that separate controversy sections are poor form and should be avoided when editing articles on "progressives". They generally have not been avoided in articles about prominent conservative commentators. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is as mature and productive as it is unsurprising. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. I said nothing of the sort. Please assume good faith and avoid incivility in the future. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

None of this addresses the point that controversy/criticisms sections (or separate articles on controversy/criticism) are quite common for conservative commentators but quite uncommon for liberal commentators - even for "bomb throwing" liberals such as Olby and Randi Rhodes. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to this article, not general article policies. You might want to try the Wikipedia:Village pump. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because conservative political commentators generate more controversy than liberal ones? Certainly the conservative commentators are more popular in the ratings game; Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity are all widely known in radio & television, much more so than.... well, who? Michael Moore? Keith Olbermann? errm.... Arianna Huffington, I guess? Warren -talk- 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As a godless European socialist... I don't really watch or listen to that right wing crowd but I have watched a bit of Countdown through iTunes, now I don't know if it's true or not but I've gotten the impression through Olbermann that he's about equal in the ratings to O'Reilly and Limbaugh... Though that perhaps is only certain days? chandler · 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe your question is beyond the scope of this article. You can probably find some details at Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The O'Reilly Factor, though ratings info on Wikipedia is often woefully out of date. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Factor beats Countdown in total viewers, but in the critical 25-54 democraphic, they are very close (although the Factor still has more). See this from 3 days ago. Raul654 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My "question" was mearly as a respons to Warrens comments about ratings, not meant to be a new section. chandler · 16:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but no evidence has been presented that they have generated either more or less controversy. There seems to be a rather smug assumption at work here that if Wikipedia presently has far more articles and sections of articles devoted to controversies involving right-leaning commentators than to controversies involving left-leaning commentators then this must reflect reality. I have no doubt that liberals find many things said and done by conservatives to be controversial. I also have no doubt that conservatives find many things said and done by liberals to be controversial. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Badmintonhist, you may have a valid point there. I humbly request that you develop the controversy section yourself. I eagerly await the results of your efforts. =) Henrymrx (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It might reflect reality, it might not, but there really is no scientific way to measure it. I feel pretty confident in asserting that conservative commentators have the louder and more widely-heard voices in the spectrum; there's plenty of statistics to back that up. A fair case could also be mounted for an assertion that the most popular conservative talk radio hosts have been doing it longer than the most popular liberal talk radio hosts. Limbaugh has been on the air, doing what he does, for twenty-five years. O'Reilly, twelve years. Savage, fourteen years. They've all been doing this full-time, professionally, for long enough to have racked up significant criticism and controversy. Further, they all use combative, explicit language that is plainly divisive and derogatory towards large swaths of people (both within the United States and without), which is a sure-fire wire to attract controversy.

Mainstream liberal commentators don't use the same sort of tactics to get their views across. It's pretty hard to picture a Rachel Maddow or an Arianna Huffington or an Alan Colmes publishing a mean-spirited book titled "Conservatism Is A Mental Disorder". It's hard to picture a Keith Olbermann, an EJ Dionne or a Maureen Dowd claiming with all sincerity that (e.g.) female students who come to downtown San Francisco from a private school to feed and provide services to the homeless "can go in and get raped by them because they seem to like the excitement of it..."[4] .... nope, that's pretty much exclusively the purview of Michael Savage and other conservative commentators.

Now, before you say, "ah ah ah, but what about Al Franken?" Here's some food for thought: You know who do routinely make mean-spirited and controversial statements about conservatives? Liberal comedians, that's who! Lewis Black, Jeanene Garofalo, Bill Maher, George Carlin (though I suspect he'd rather dislike being called a liberal), Jon Stewart, Robin Williams in his own way, Al Franken, and so on and so forth. It's a weird phenomenon, and it wouldn't surprise me if someone's put together a study on this by now, but it does seem like many liberal commentators are actually comics. Because comics wrap their absurdities and observations with humour, and present themselves as entertainers first and foremost, they for the large part avoid any serious controversy because they don't ask to be taken seriously.

And that's why articles on conservative commentators have more criticism than liberal ones. It isn't some Great Imbalance caused by Liberal Bias On Wikipedia. It's just what these prominent conservative commentators do... they attract attention to themselves with their behaviour. Liberals commentators... well.... don't. Warren -talk- 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. But regarding "conservatism as a mental disorder", there's always John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience. Guettarda (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Er... Michael Savage is a "mainstream" conservative commentator? You mean like George Will and David Brooks who also have controversy sections in their Wikipedia articles. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither the Brooks article nor the Will article should have "controversy" sections. The issues should probably discussed, but not listed in a controversy section like that. But those issues should be discussed in those articles. If other articles have problems, the solution isn't to make these articles worse. There's nothing wrong with discussing notable controversies related to Olbermann here, although we'd need to consider what belongs here, and what belongs at the Countdown article. But we don't need a list of poorly sourced trivia. We need substantive discussion that's sourced to reliable third-party sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I consider Savage to be mainstream, yes. He's quite popular. In terms of ratings, he's up right there with Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh. He's also published a bunch of best-selling books. Warren -talk- 03:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point to continuing the pissy back-and-forth with Badmintonhist. He's made his agenda clear, but his comments are of no value towards improving this article. The best way to deal with trolling is to starve them. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't, bc you won't listen to any side but the voice in your head. Badmintonhist isn't arguing a political POV he is simply stating that admins, like yourself, have their OWN POV and will not change it. Ann Coulter is a beep, no question. But so is Keith Olbermann. For instance, Keith consistently ridicules and belittles AVERAGE conservative citizens (this was JUST SHOWN in his treatment of the tea parties). To say that he isn't mean spirited, just like Ann Coulter, is to betray your own agenda. 173.79.6.49 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean those average conservatives who were protesting that their taxes would be lowered? Most of the people there didn't even know what they were protesting. Most that came out of it seemed to be "Obama isn't american" "Obama is hitler", which looked ridiculous to outsiders. chandler ··· 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God...I'm melting. What a world! What a world! Badmintonhist (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos, I suspect Badmintonhist isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Actually, I'd rather he stick around in spite of our past disagreements because he's not going to let the article wander off in unduly endearing directions, as is often the case with Wikipedia articles on topics that amass a fanbase (try reading a few car articles... it's awful). That's a good thing, just as much as the article needs someone like you to stop it from becoming a morass of badly-written criticism written by people who dislike Olbermann. It'd be good if we focused more on fact-gathering, research and article-writing than being unkind to eachother. Warren -talk- 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me, Warren. I don't think Badmintonhist should go away (or is going anywhere). My point is simply that there is no constructive purpose of his making offhanded "yes way there are too Olbermann controversies" comments on this talk page. Everything he's listed is a criticism of a television show, not a controversy surrounding its host. Couple that with his oft-made caustic and sarcastic remarks and I just don't think there is any productive value in continuing this thread. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There isnt a criticism section because Olberman is a liberal. Check the profiles of any liberal journalists like Olberman, Helen Thomas, Eleanor Clift, etc. Compare these with George Will, John Stossel, Krauthammer, etc. Not only do conservative journalists have criticism sections, but they usually devote space to featuring other people who are critical of the article subject. It hurts the credibility of wikipedia that this is the case, but that is the reality. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Michael Moore? MrMurph101 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

i think you're arguing for a lost cause. Wikipedia is great for factual information but it is obviously not a pure encyclopedia which is without bias. This goes for its reporting on contemporary figures and on religious issues. I've learned to take it all with a grain of salt. Liberals, Atheists, and basically any progressive people who promote an ideology of changing the fundamental fabric of America and religious values--these people will be praised and held up as heros of our times, while the other side will be shown as fringe, bigoted and simply the worst bad word-conservative. Just let it go, the people decide for themselves as can be seen by the fact that O'Reily has been the top rated primetime news show for over 9 nears. Strange since he and his viewers are simply fringe people who don't represent the common American. In case some one thinks these comments are unhelpful to the discussion, perhaps you can at least remeber them as you do your future edits and you can prove me wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ic2705 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Novel idea

Rather than argue about why there's no controversy section, how about suggest what should be in a controversy section, why it should be in a controversy section rather than incorporated into the article, and why it should be in this articles and not in the Countdown article. And, of course, why it's relevant and doesn't create undue weight problems. And, obviously, since this is a biography of a living person, make sure that all claims come from credible, reliable sources. You know, instead of complaining about some vast conspiracy. We're all volunteers here, if you believe something should be in the article, please contribute to the article. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann attended Cornell College of Farm, not the Ivy leaugue school claimed by Keith Olbermann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johno7777 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see the numerous discussions above for consensus on that issue. Dayewalker (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Johno7777, as I said in the comment to which you replied, please provide reliable sources in support of your assertion. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you are quoting WP:RS. Suppose one of the US' leading newspapers reported that Ann Coulter made a stink about Olbermann's degree being "worth less" because of the college that awarded him his degree. If that were to happen, there would be no WP:RS concern, but this article still should not differentiate the particular college. It is nonstandard practice on Wikipedia: just take a look at articles of other Cornell alumni. That degree of detail would be undue weight, unless the reason for reporting the detail (i.e. it was Coulter's opinion) was explicitly given in the article's text. Switzpaw (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is a component of one of our core policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Johno7777's assertion fails WP:V. So there's no need to make the far weaker argument based on "convention". The first requirement is that you pass WP:V. Only after you've gotten past that burden do you bother to talk about other policies like WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, and then you move onto guidelines like the WP:MOS and then onto unwritten conventions. Don't start with your weakest argument. Start with your strongest. Guettarda (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no point in encouraging SPA's to return with reliable sources showing what college Olbermann attended when Wikipedia will continue to state the University conferring the degree, as it does in hundreds of thousands of other biographical articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a "criticisms" section for criticism of Olbermann?

I know there used to be, but now it's gone. There is one for Glenn Beck and no one seems to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.197.131 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's been much discussion above, as you can see. One reason might be, the (at least recent) criticism usually seems to come from unreliable sources on the subject perhaps chandler · 05:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That New Yorker article in which Cronkite excoriated KO was reliable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.100.157 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a link for this or what date is article, ect, otherwise I am inclined to delete your post. --Tom (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tom. I'll give this 24 hours, then it's gone if we don't get some confirmation that the article exists. Ward3001 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the IP means this New Yorker article: [5] Although, it's not Cronkite making the criticism, it's Cronkite's last executive producer. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If that's the article, the term "excoriate" is a long way from accurate. I don't think the article is even terribly critical. It presents some of the risks and problems that MSNBC has encountered with Olbermann's bold statements, but much of it is just a factual presentation of some things that have gone on behind the scenes with Olbermann and MSNBC. If this, indeed, is the article the anon refers to, I still plan to remove the statement about Cronkite excoriating Olbermann because it is grossly misleading. If anyone wants to use the New Yorker piece in the Olbermann article, be my guest as long as it's done with accuracy and balance. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

wikt:Excoriate seems to be a fairly good definition for what Sandy said about Olbermann in that article, IMHO. The guy said Olbermann wasn't a newsman or a reporter, that he doesn't do anything original, and that if he did on CBS what he does on MSNBC he'd be fired. Heh, them's fighting words where I come from.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If Olbermann claimed to be a news anchor or even a traditional news reporter, I would agree. But he doesn't. Olbermann fully acknowledges that his role on MSNBC isn't straight news reporting. In the context of what he does, I don't think the New Yorker piece "excoriates" him. At times it presents him in a negative light, but it does not (from Wiktionary) "strongly denounce or censure" him. This may be a moot point anyway, as we don't even know if this New Yorker article is what the anon is referring to. Ward3001 (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI this article states that he is a news anchor. Switzpaw (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. My personal opinion is that he is not a "news anchor" in the sense of those who have anchored nightly news programs on CBS, NBC, and ABC (e.g., Cronkite, Brokaw). He comments and editorializes, but he is not the primary "reporter" of news as would be found on the programs I mention. I suppose it's a matter of the meaning of the word "anchor". I see him as a program host, not a news anchor. In terms of whether the New Yorker article "excoriates" him, I think it's misleading to use that term based on a statement that he would be fired if he handled anchoring of CBS Evening News the same way he handles Countdown; they're two completely different types of programs. Most of the hosts of news commentary programs (e.g., O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) would be fired if they handled CBS Evening News the way they handle their current programs. Stating that he is being "excoriated" because that is pointed out is inaccurate. Ward3001 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to develop a new section called "Controversies of Keith Olbermann," must like Bill O'Reilly has as a link on his biography page on Wikipedia. Some bafoon keeps removing my listing of controversies. I want to post these controversies so that we can all do some research getting more sources. Will the Gods defending Keith Olbermann's Wikipedia approve of a "Controversies of Kieth Olbermann" page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal00Q1 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm your buffoon. I've explained to you twice when you posted it as an IP, then again when you posted it the first time, then again on your page. Just in case you haven't seen the edit summaries or the polite posting on your page, you can't just post a laundry list of unsourced complaints on a biography page.

As I told you, I'm certainly not opposed to discussing criticism of the subject, but simply making an unsourced laundry list of things Olbermann may or may not have done isn't the way to go about it. If you think something should be added to the page, bring it up on the talk page with proper sourcing to show it is a legitimate controversy. Dayewalker (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cornell redux

Listing the school or college at a University is used in other articles when that information is known. In most cases we don't know, but when we do we should add it. By deleting the information editors are acting as if there is a stigma associated with attending a science/agricultural school or college. As Olbermann pointed out, it is a great bargain. Tuition is subsidized by the state and the fed. At Rutgers, where I attended, the number of applicants to slots is very high, because tuition is a bargain. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only a 'great bargain' as Olbermann spun, but A HECK of a lot easier to get acceptance. Comparing it to the REAL Cornell is both dishonest and fraudulent, esp considering the way Keith incessantly touts his academic credentials while trashing others. 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You attend the school or college and graduate from the University.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See alumni:
Harvard

• Harvard School of Public Health
• Radcliffe College
• John F. Kennedy School of Government
• Harvard Graduate School of Education
• Harvard College
• Harvard Graduate School of Design

Princeton:

• Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Rutgers:

• Douglass Residential College (Rutgers University)
• Mason Gross School of the Arts
• Rutgers Business School

<
University of Pennsylvanis

• Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

They are listed on the college's page, yes, but not on the bio for the person listed there. If you'll notice List of Princeton University people, where all the Princeton alum are listed, you'll notice that the list also contains the people listed at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs#Notable alumni. Yet, if I go to the article for the first person listed on the Alumni for the school, Samuel Alito, you won't find any reference to Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but it seems to be a FAIL. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just looked. Olbermann is listed as a "Notable Alumni at Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences#Notable alumni. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Looking at one article makes for a good anecdote, but is not a substitute for research. Harvard School of Public Health the first person on that list has it in his article. If you started at the top, instead of selective research that would be your first hit. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• The school or college at a university usually isn't known. For Olbermann and others it is known. When known from a reliable source, it should be included. By excluding we are saying there is a stigma attached to attending this school, and there isn't. Cornell University is one of the best universities in the US, and each school or college there is as well. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You attend the school or college and graduate from the University: Precisely; follow your own logic. The infobox states where he received his degree (Cornell). It's fine to state in more detail later in the article the specifics of which particular school he attended, but it's not needed in the infobox.

By deleting the information editors are acting as if there is a stigma associated with attending a science/agricultural school or college: Practice your mindreading skills elsewhere, not here. You have no idea what editors are thinking. Ward3001 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have to read minds, I read what people write here and on their talk pages, it works just as well. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, then you need to learn some elementary logic (does Rutgers not teach that course?). Using "Cornell University" instead of "Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" in no way leads to the logical conclusion that editors are "acting as if there is a stigma associated with attending a science/agricultural school or college" when there are dozens of other possible explanations. Ward3001 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RAN, there is no consensus here yet for your change. You are now at 4RR, please do not make that change again. If you can show consensus in the next 24 hours, I'd advise you to let someone else make the change. Dayewalker (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am not reverting I an seeking a compromise in the language. There was no clear consensus to not name it, and the premise that colleges and schools at Universities are not named in biographies is incorrect. The list I have provided show amply that schools and colleges at Universities are named in biographies, when they are known. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another stretch in logic to fit your agenda. "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is consensus to include. Nearly all universities are composed of several colleges and it is quite common for an undergraduate to take classes from departments among several of the university's colleges (I know I did). In the United States, it's common to tell people the university that you graduated from and your major but not the particular college: I don't think most people even put that on their resume'. The college that housed Olbermann's major is of no particular interest, and I don't believe that it is common practice to include it in an encyclopedia biography unless the subject is notable for scholarship, achieved honors within a college, or attended a college specializing in medicine, law, business, art, engineering, etc. that has name recognition on its own. It's particularly disturbing that editors only chose to specify the college within Olbermann's university following a jab by Coulter. I believe that the integrity of the encyclopedia is jeopardized when an article is written to include details that framed as an attack by a critic and would otherwise not be of anyone's interest. Switzpaw (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• By not including it, you treat is as if it were a slur to enroll in an agricultural college, it isn't.

1. Infoboxes are highly standardised formats. Their value lies in the fact that they include standardised fields. For university graduates, the "education" field lists the university or universities from which they graduated. Changing that to a non-standard piece of information (college within a unversity) makes the infobox less useful.
2. You say that the information about college usually isn't known, but when it is, it should be used. Why is that? What benefit does it give to the reader? Without an explanation, people will end up making the same sort of mistakes that Ann Coulter made - that people didn't attend Cornell. We don't make changes that are likely to confuse our readers. Sure, we should educate our readers...which is what the Cornell article does.
3. If we expand the article to discuss his undergrad career in some depth, then by all means we should include information about which college he attended. But we start with the most general information. For example, the article calls him an "American news anchor", despite the fact that any reading of the founding documents of the US suggest that the founders meant for people to be citizens of a state, so by that token we should really call him a "New York State news anchor" rather than an "American news anchor".
4. If you want to change the way that Cornell graduates are presented, I suggest that you build consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornell University first. Then with the support of regular editors, you can build consensus in the articles. Guettarda (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As for "attended the [[Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences|College of Agriculture and Life Sciences]] at [[Cornell University]]", umm, no. He clearly said that he took half his classes in Arts & Sciences. So no, saying "attended" isn't accurate. He attended Cornell. He enrolled in a specific college. Not the same. Guettarda (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• That doesn't change the fact. You can attend Harvard Divinity School and takes as many classes as you want at Harvard College beyond your core divinity curriculum, yet you still attended HDS. My graduate degree only lists the University I graduated from, yet I attended a specific school at that University. If we stated that someone lived in New Jersey that would be accurate. But if we knew the town he or she lived in and added it to a biography it would be more accurate. And from the examples above, where it is known which school someone attended, it is included in their biography. For most people, we just don't know. It appears that we are not including it because the information was released as a slur against him by Ann Coulter. It isn't a slur to attend an agricultural college, but by hiding the information we are perpetuating that the information is negative. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You could also include his street address or height and weight down to the second decimal place. What's your point? Switzpaw (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• And what is yours? Absurdity isn't useful. See above for biographies containing the school or college at a University and not just the University. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

we are not including it because the information was released as a slur against him by Ann Coulter: More mindreading RAN (oh, excuse me, more incredibly strained logic). The article stated only Cornell before Coulter's statement. Really, try taking a logic course. Ward3001 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it's very fishy when a flurry of editors all of a sudden find this detail to be important, when it didn't previously appear in neutral secondary sources about Olbermann. Several editors have made efforts to improve this article over time by removing trivial details. Anyone remember the anti-smoking section? Regarding the examples you brought up -- you happened to name some of the more reputable colleges that secondary sources often choose to include as a detail because they are notable in their own right. I'm not sure if you realize how many biographies exist on Wikipedia and how rarely this detail is mentioned when the subject only has a Bachelor's degree and is not known for scholarship. Switzpaw (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just read the talk pages. And avoid the sarcasm, it doesn't suit you.

Unfortunately, it's not sarcasm. I really think you might learn something from a basic logic course, such as not jumping to wild conclusions based on almost no information. Ward3001 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I do use logic, and did take courses in it. How do you explain the other biographies that do include the school or college? Read User:Switzpaw above for one instance of playing the Coulter card. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go again. Use logic, RAN. An example does not define a concept. How do you explain biographies that only say "Cornell". Ward3001 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• No personal attacks please. You don't have a monopoly on logic. We add the school or college when we know, for most people we don't know because they don't tell us. He has told us. It isn't trivia either, anymore than a person's birth date is trivia. Think about the state vs. city argument. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks please.: Correcting a glaring error in logic (i.e., A is an example of B. Therefore, A is equivalent to B????) is not a personal attack. I may not have a monopoly on logic, but I'm not seeing much of it in some of your arguments. Let's turn the tables. You say we aren't including "College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" becaue we are assuming it's a "slur to enroll in an agricultural college". I can just as easily argue that you are pushing it's inclusion because you want to make a slur on Olbermann. And the harder you push, the more strongly it illustrates how much you want to make the slur. Not a lot of logic in that argument, but it's equivalent to the one you're using, just in reverse Ward3001 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• "My graduate degree only lists the University I graduated from, yet I attended a specific school at that University" - I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. But you do realise that we're talking about an undergrad degree here, right?
• "If we stated that someone lived in New Jersey that would be accurate" - Yes, but we don't replace "American" with "New Jerseyite". Even if it's true.
• "But if we knew the town he or she lived in and added it to a biography it would be more accurate" - you weren't adding, you were replacing. We wouldn't replace nationality with town of residence.
• "And from the examples above, where it is known which school someone attended, it is included in their biography." Interesting assertion. Since I know you wouldn't make a statement like that if you didn't know it was true, would you care to support this assertion with examples?
• "It appears that we are not including it because the information was released as a slur against him by Ann Coulter" - What's the basis for your assumption of bad faith? Would you care to look at the article history before flinging such accusations (and accusing your fellow editors of acting in bad faith)?
• "It isn't a slur to attend an agricultural college" - You don't need to tell that to someone with one degree from a place affectionately known as "moo U" and another from a place that was founded as the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture. But I try to put my own opinions aside when I'm editing, and try to work on the goal of writing a good encyclopaedia. I would hope that's your guiding philosophy as well.
• "How do you explain the other biographies that do include the school or college?" - I couldn't say. Which ones are you talking about? Guettarda (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In a 1998 speech, Olbermann was forthright in his alma mater’s assignation, when he recounted a harrowing incident in the registrar’s office, as he faced the very real possibility of not graduating: http://www.news.cornell.edu/campus/Olbermann_speech.html “The woman in the registrar's office first tried to get my name right. "Olberding? Arts?" I corrected her. "Oberman? John Oberman? E.E.?" I laughed at the thought of me in E.E., Then I corrected her. "Oh, Olbermann. Ag, With the unpronouncable name.” (sic)

Therefore, if Olbermann says he attended “Ag school” three days before his graduation date, it seems pretty clear to me that he attended “Ag school”.

Finally, the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Wiki page also lists him as an alumnus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_College_of_Agriculture_and_Life_Sciences#Notable_alumni Eagle in NYC (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Purpose

Again, I find myself asking why, on this particular article at this particular time, why it is all of the sudden so important to make the distinction here and now? Again, I find myself unable to find any compelling motivation other than to perpetuate the insinuation that it is somehow a "different" degree. We all know where that pile came from, and if not for those antics we would be without any of this discussion. That being said, I see no convincing argument that either trumps the consensus firmly established, or wasn't already answered while formulating said consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[Off-topic attacks on a Wikipedia editor and on the subject of the biography deleted per WP:NPA and WP:BLP]68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested this compromise for some time now. List the university in the bio box and the college in the text of the article. Both answers are equally correct. All available accurate reliably sourced material should be included in the article. This compromise gives all available accurate reliable information and does not leave the reader with a false impression. There has never been a WP policy cited to me justifying the exclusion of this information. Undue Weight is not applicable, because a mere six words accurately identifying the school attended does not give undue weight to anything -- what is it giving undue weight to? [If truth be told, the undue weight is that it gives a germ of truth to Coulter's smear and that is impermissible to certain editors -- she must be shown to be wrong, even when she is right -- but that is not undue weight and not a justification for the exclusion of the information]. Sure there have been a few editors wishing to smear Olbermann, but there has also been many who honestly and fairly wanted to improve the article with accurate and reliable information. I believe there are a bunch of hyper active wikipedia editors that have deputized themselves as the personal protector of Olbermann's reputation and they have lumped any editor that disagrees with them together with the vandals and have tried to bully them into abandoning their effort to improve this article. From following this talk page, I believe there have been a number of good faith editors that share my opinion (may have been buried or deleted) that contradict their assertions of consensus for excluding this information. Once again, I propose my compromise: Cornell University in the bio box and additional detail in the article identifying College of Agriculture and Life Sciences as the school he attended. Tommylotto (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you have once again completely ignored my text and my point entirely... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because your point was pointless. Assume the "why" is the interested created by Coulter's article. So what? It has no bearing on where Olbermann went to school and the level of detail of accurate facts warranted in this article. That determination rests on its own merits. If Coulter had never written her article, I seriously doubt you or any other editor would be objecting to the edits being proposed. A more appropriate question is what is motivating the hostility of certain editors to this rather benign addition of accurate reliable facts. The addition of this information, in and of itself, is benign, the only possible reason for the exclusion of this accurate information is because Coulter used the information in her article. WP should not be used in an information war against Coulter.Tommylotto (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How does it improve the article to have the infobox differ from the article content body? Guettarda (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but they don't contradict each other. One is simply more detailed than the other. One might also ask the purpose of having precisely the same information repeated in two different parts of the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It provides additional detail of accurate reliable information that can be properly sourced. Tommylotto (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, on this particular article at this particular time, why it is all of the sudden so important to make the distinction here and now, contrary to standard practice on thousands of other biographies? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[Off-topic attacks on a Wikipedia editor and on the subject of the biography deleted per WP:NPA and WP:BLP]68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we always include the more general information. If appropriate, we add the more specific information. We won't replace "American" with "New Yorker" in the lead of the article. We will add the more detailed "New Yorker" if we discuss that topic in more depth. We won't add the even more detailed street address, no matter how much detail we go into. When someone finds enough reliable information to go into detail about his undergraduate career (once, of course the article is expanded to the stage where a lengthy discussion about his time at Cornell doesn't create undue weight problems), then by all means the information should be mentioned. If the topic isn't discussed, then "more detailed information" while true, isn't salient. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The question you have to ask yourself is "how does it improve the article?" Without context, it's trivia. With context, there's an undue weight risk. Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It improves the article because it shows that Keith has FRAUDULENTLY presented himself as something OTHER than what he is. It goes right to his character. Asking how it 'improves' the article is like asking how including revelations that Clifford Irving made up the Hughes bio 'improves' that article.

The real takeway? User Blaxthos will do ANYTHING to help cover for liberals. And he is a prolific editor at Wikpiedia. Ultimately this inclusion will stay because it's both newsworthy and speaks to Olbermann's dishonesty.

[Off-topic attacks on a Wikipedia editor and on the subject of the biography deleted per WP:NPA and WP:BLP] 68.40.123.217 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Although the IP editor over sells his argument, I too am trouble by the Blaxthos history of edits protecting liberal commentators like Olbermann. Obviously, WP should not be used to spread Coulter like smears, but likewise, to withhold accurate reliable information in an effort to protect a liberal and prove a conservative wrong (when she was right) is not what WP is about either. He should step back and look at the political bias of all his edits and allow the inclusion of this intrinsically benign information.Tommylotto (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've missed something here, but where is this "accurate reliable information" you speak of? Is there a reliable source for this alleged fraud? Also, please do not confuse Blaxthos's "protective" editing for bias - from my point of view, Blaxthos's edits are just following WP:BLP rules. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are coming late to the game and have missed much. Just look into all the discussions buried by Blaxthos et al. for an extensive recitation of a mountain of reliable evidence that proves beyond question that Olbermann did indeed attend College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. However, for some never explained reason this true honest to goodness fact is just too controversial for the readers of WP to be exposed to. It might give undue weight to the truth or something. As to Blaxthos' demonstrated bias and wiki lawyering, just look at his edit history. Enough said.Tommylotto (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but could you just list one source to represent this "mountain of reliable evidence" so that I don't have to wade through past discussion? Any of them that you consider to be reliable will do. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann has admitted that the college within the overarching umbrella of Cornell University that the department for his major was part of was the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.[6] That being said, why is this extremely minor factoid important to the article? Olbermann's degree is from Cornell University and students whose major's department is part of CALS do receive an Ivy League education, despite what Coulter and various other conservatives claim. As noted above by Guettarda, without context, it's just trivia and a useless bit at that. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead is precisely correct. Olbermann went to Cornell. This is a simple piece of information. Cornell, like all universities, comprises a number of colleges. As an example, the University of Michigan has both a liberal arts school (the School of Literature, Science and Arts) and an Engineering school (among other schools). However, an engineer in a freshman chemistry class and a physics major at LSA in a freshman chemistry class can be found sitting in the same classroom, studying the same material, being taught by the same professor. I never imagined that there existed a personality dippy enough to claim that a U of M engineer does not have a "legitimate" Michigan degree, but I found out otherwise when I heard of Coulter's column.

It beggars the imagination to ask anyone here to believe that it is a mere coincidence that the attempt to include this bit of trivia is motivated by anything other than a desire to make Coulter's hysterical rant part of this article. But since it's at least theoretically possible that someone just happened to come along just after the Coulter column appeared wondering why this isn't mentioned, I'll patiently explain for the umpteenth time that information like which of Cornell's many fine colleges Olbermann was enrolled in, which dorm he lived in, whether he liked to eat in the dining hall or go out for pizza on Sunday nights, and his shoe size, are trivial pieces of information that do nothing to enhance or improve a biographical article and are very likely to be excluded by other editors of this page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said in all respects. There is an unspoken agenda going on here. Otherwise some editors would not be pushing so hard over such a trivial piece of information. Ward3001 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The pushing is going in both directions. Why are some fighting so hard to keep out any reference to a verifiable fact (composed of a mere six words) about his education (when we are blessed with information like how old he was when he graduated from HS and how many credits he took in his last semester!). There is an unspoken agenda here and it is coming from those who wish to over-zealously protect Olbermann from what they perceive as unfair criticism. I agree that is it absurd to say he graduated from any university but Cornell. In that regard the Coulter smear is baseless. However, she was technically accurate that he attended College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The resistance to including this simple fact is bias and the argument that this fact is too trivial for inclusion is specious considering all the other trivial information that has been included in this section. Tommylotto (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That argument is disingenuous at best. Verifiability is not the only standard of inclusion. One must also judge the suitability of information by whether or not it is notable, and whether or not its inclusion might constitute undue weight. In this case, the particular college Olbermann attended within Cornell is not notable (or even interesting, unless you are somehow hoping this fact might somehow diminish the value of his degree). I don't particularly think that there is any actual harm in including this additional information (the existing source does so) but I most certainly question your motivation for doing so. What really makes me laugh is that you suggest that since the article is "blessed with information like [ ] how many credits he took in his last semester" we should also include this additional information, yet it was you who put the info about the credits into the article in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- this is done (was done weeks ago). There is no obligation to repeatedly explaining things to agenda-driven editors who refuse to acknowledge consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee Blaxthos, that sounds like a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. How many editors have you shut down on this single issue by claiming consensus? If you have to repeatedly argue consensus to the many voices who disagree, do you really have consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith can be assumed up to a point, but as evidence builds up to the contrary it can become necessary to turn to WP:DUCK for advice. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why so many potential editors have a problem with Blaxthos. His bias is quacking.Tommylotto (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Tommy, I think you misunderstood scjessy's point. You've given enough demonstration of your agenda that we are saying we no longer believe your edits are good faith efforts to improve the article, and are rather motivated by a POV agenda. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivial info

Comment. Can we please remove all the "trivia", ie skipping 2nd grade, how many credits he took his last semester, not knowing about graduating until day before, ect, ect.(actually almost the same thing happened to me :) but I digress). I too agree that the specific college he attended isn't that big a deal except that it was made a big deal by a taking head in order to smear the man. I hate to keep factual info out of a bio for that reason, but in this case, just list his University and remove all the other "trivia" and move on to the next "talking" point. Hasn't this been discussed and beaten to death enough? There has to be better ways to improve this bio. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I tweeked it a bit. Do we need the Harvard rejection BU scholarship stuff? I would remove it as trivial, but left it in for now. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted one very minor edit, but the rest seems right to me. Also, I tend to agree with your point about Harvard/scholarship stuff too -- interesting, perhaps, but ultimately is probably trivia, except the second grade/graduate at 16 thing is probably somewhat significant (in that it's not very common). I'd leave that. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed that back to read Cornell rather than Ivy League. I left the 16 part. Just as we don't want to "stress" the ag school, no need to stress Ivy League. Can we just remove that sentence all together and be done? Anyways, Tom (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"News anchor" revisited

I notice that "news anchor" has once again assumed the lead in the listing of Olbermann's occupations. Listing it at all is questionable. Listing it first seems quite pretentious as well as inaccurate. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Could you please explain? Guettarda (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About six months ago there was a brouhaha over my proposal to make commentator or political commentator the first of Olby's listed occupations. Refer to this "discussion" [7]. The outcome was that neither commentator nor news anchor was listed first but rather sportscaster. Not my cup of tea but you can't always get what you want. Now I notice that "news anchor" is back in first place, from my perspective the most misleading of his possible job titles. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How are all the other "talking heads" treated? What do reliable, 3rd parties, not his web site, call him? I would leave "news anchor" for the nightly news folks and not commentators crowd. Anyways, at least we aren't talking about Cornell :). Tom (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (journalist) redirects to Bill O'Reilly -- political commentator, even though he has a masters degree in Broadcast Journalism from BU and work as a journalist for years. It seems the same standard should apply. Olbermann should be considered a political commentator.Tommylotto (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tommylotto & Badmintonhist, your logic seems based on making a point rather than improving the article. This is not an battleground, and trying to inject your obsession with a Bill O'Reilly / Olbermann "tit for tat" mentality is disruptive. Please see past discussions on the matter -- I think there might have bee an RFC at one point. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't pretend to have read any previous discussions on this topic, as I don't normally venture into this area of the wiki. But I used to live with someone who watched O'Reilly and I specifically remember him saying he did news analysis (i.e. commentary) rather than journalism. Compare to Olbermann, who indeed anchors MSNBC coverage of elections and similar events. I'm not saying this article would be at Keith Olbermann (anchor) rather than Keith Olbermann (commentator), but he does perform functions outside of Countdown. Recognizance (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, we should go with what the article of the subject does "primarily" it seems. I go agree that we shouldn't be doing any tit for tat type of comparisons, even though I did sort of suggest looking at how folks with similar type "shows" are treated. Again, please defer to what reliable sources say. My personal opinion is that he falls into the "talking head" category, but that counts for zippo around here as well it should :) Cheers, Tom (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about sourcing. That observation was primarily aimed at people such as the above posters who are inclined to believe Wikipedia is biased in some way. (Reality sometimes has a liberal bias, I've heard.) In any case Blaxthos did a far better job of addressing the root of the issue, so I defer to both of you. Recognizance (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hhmm. I don't remember previously saying anything about O'Reilly in this discussion. I suggested that the article could be improved by making something other than "news anchor" the first of Olbermann's listed occupations. Reality has a bias toward reality. Is Olbermann's chief claim to fame his "news anchoring"? Badmintonhist (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Olbermann and his employer both refer to him as a "news anchor", and MSNBC classifies Olbermann's show as a "news hour." The same standard is applied elsewhere -- we don't replace titles with editorial opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so if I were to say that I'm legal counsel for my boss, and my boss says I'm legal counsel for him, and in reality, what I do is answer phone calls and act as his secretary, I'm still primarily his legal counsel? Hannity and O'Reilly aren't listed as news anchors because they don't make no pretension towards being news anchors and openly admit that they are pundits. Olbermann also is quoted in the article as saying, "I'm not a liberal-I'm an American." Does that mean that he now holds no liberal views? (or perhaps it means that Olbermann thinks that liberal views are the only real American views-does that make it so?)Shrekums (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One, this talk page is about the article about Keith Olbermann; Hannity, O'Reilly, and what your boss calls you during hypothetical situations are all irrelevant. Likewise, Olbermann's views have nothing to do with his job title, either. Two, we don't replace titles with editorial opinion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article organization

I normally wouldn't hesitate to be bold and try to improve an article myself, but given the, uh, attention to detail on the talk page I decided to start a talk section instead. Most of the article is made up of subsections of "biography". It seems like it would be better to just remove the biography header, or restrict the biography to early life and early career, maybe merge personal life under that section. Any thoughts? Recognizance (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the whole article is a biography, it makes more sense to delete the "biography" section header and promote all its descendants. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...which I have just done. It looks better already. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Widely viewed as a liberal advocate ...

Badmintonhist (talk · contribs) inserted this text making a vague claim about sources and I reverted pointing out that if sources exist for the statement he should cite them. He replied thusly on my talk page.

Perhaps I didn't state the fact clearly enough. The sources describing Olbermann as an advocate for liberalism were already cited on the specific sentence I modified. Read those sources and see for yourself. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Badmintonhist, the place to discuss this article is this talk page, not mine. Secondly, these are the sources cited for that sentence. [8][9][10][11][12][13] In good faith, I followed each of these links in a search for material that supports Badmintonhist's claim. By searching for the word "liberal" in these sources, I was able to ascertain that none of them describes Olbermann in such terms and at least one of them doesn't contain the word at all. The closest any of them came is saying that a lot of liberals like the show.

Badmintonhist, this page has been the subject of enough drama and pointless conflict as it is. It really isn't helpful to make tendentious edits to it and misrepresent sources in the process. Please think twice before doing it again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has been a rather contentious article. However you have to realize that until about a year and a half ago it read as though it had been written by an ad hoc team of Olbermann publicists (which it pretty much had been) except for the frequent but brief intervals when it was vandalized. So you don't feel that the existing sources are specific enough to demonstrate that Olby is "widely viewed as a liberal advocate"? Fair enough. How about these: [14] [15] [16]? The first, National Public Radio, describes him as an "unabashed, unashamed, liberal". The second, a New York Magazine profile describes him as a "liberal hero". The Daily Telegraph article, which goes back a way, said that Olbermann was "promoting an increasingly strident liberal agenda". Badmintonhist (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

One, starting off your argument with accusations of a "team of Olbermann publicists" controlling the article shows that you don't really ever assume good faith and have little respect or tolerance for opinions other than your own. I think, historically, your efforts to change politically charged in the past have pretty much routinely rejected by the community as having a distinct agenda that rarely coincides with a neutral point of view. Accusations of a secret cabal certainly don't add any credibility to your statements. Secondly, going from "source x and y say Olbermann is liberal" to "Olbermann is widely considered liberal" is a huge leap, and becomes synthesis of thought. You've yet to provide any reliable source that says "Olbermann is widely considered liberal", and the sources you have provided have, in most cases, been misrepresented (as other editors have noted). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me assure you Blax, that I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that the Olbermann article used to read as if it were written by a poorly coordinated team of publicists (hardly an unusual phenomenon in Wikipedia articles). Your level of bias and bile is waaaaaay beyond that. It is at the level of the hero-worshiping true believer. That explains why you continually get into snits with slightly right-of-center editors (far more often than I do with left-of-center editors). You "win" some of these disputes mainly because you have the passion, tenacity, and stamina of a true believer (and perhaps, also, because you have a lot of time on your hands). I suppose there is something admirable in that, but how many of your fellow editors, even ones who sometimes take your side, view you as being even-handed and intellectually honest? Not many I suspect. Maybe some with similar personality quirks.

In the case at hand, the cases at hand, actually, since the Olbermann issue was precipitated by your insistence that O'Reilly effectively be labeled as a conservative, we have two political pundits who resist being labeled as "conservative" (O'Reilly) and and as "liberal" (Olbermann). Relatively harmless conceits on the part of both; after all, we know who they are from what they do and say. What could possibly be the purpose of getting Wikipedia to say that O'Reilly is really a conservative while fiercely resisting any attempt to have Olbermann called a liberal? In other words, why the hell are you doing this? I submit that in the case of O'Reilly you are trying to show him as being duplicitous: i.e. he pretends to be an innocuous "traditionalist" but he's really a right-wing hatchet-man. By parallel reasoning, your purpose in keeping Olbermann from being labeled a liberal is to defend him against a possible charge of duplicity. However, I would suggest that there is also a deeper purpose here. It is to present Olbermann's brand of liberalism as the norm, the standard, the orthodoxy by which to measure "deviants" such as O'Reilly. This helps to explain much of your behavior on the two sets of articles and elsewhwere in the political realm of Wikipedia where you spend most of your time. For example, when I merely suggested that the Olbermann article include a controversy section you acted as if this were some nutty idea, even though many other pundits far less controversial than Olbermann (to most of us) have them in their Wiki articles. How dare I suggest that Olbermann has said or done anything controversial??!!

In closing I'll leave you with four words. SELF AWARENESS. GET SOME. Badmintonhist (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for folks to back way the hell down. Badmintonhist's last comment contains an unpleasant personal attack, but it would not be unreasonable to note that there are veiled personal attacks coming from many directions. Basically, the rules for this are simple. Wikipedia does not label people. In order to include "liberal" or "conservative" as a descriptor, we would need a reliable source that shows the subject self-identifying as one or the other. If this is not available, the only other route left open is the attribution route: "Described as a liberal by...", properly cited by a high-quality reliable source that represents a mainstream view (a preponderance of reliable sources). Even then, it is not really suitable for the lede of the article. A good example is the way it has been dealt with at Rachel Maddow, where a source has been identified in which Maddow describes essentially describes herself as an atypical liberal. A bad example would be the current version of Ed Shultz, which tries to use quotes as a way to avoid having a citation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Badmintonhist, we get it, you and Blaxthos don't like eachother -- do you really have to resort to personal attacks every time you respond to one of his comments? We're going to disagree on issues, sure, but doing so in a disagreeable manner isn't sustainable. Warren -talk- 21:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

After watching a single episode of Countdown, amidst the the constant attacks on Fox, the obligatory attacks on Fox pundits, the naming of 3 conservatives as worst persons in the word (in the case of the last week, conservatives commentators as being the cause of shootings), guests that exclusively agree with Olbermann as well as signing off the show with a shot at Bush... is there any possible way someone would NOT get the impression that Olbermann is liberal? You you honestly believe, Blaxthos, that people do not consider Olbermann liberal? When people refer to the sky as blue, do they need to provide a citation from a reputable source or can something be so blatantly obvious that it isn't necessary? Or is this discussion only happening because Olbermann IS liberal, thus requiring your 100% dedication to defending him? This talk page is nothing but a joke. It's something for people like you to say, "Hey, here's your outlet. Go ahead, try to convince why we should add even the slightest form of negativity to the article. You have your opportunity." Of course, while saying that, you're busily deleting all forms criticism and using Wikipedia rules ONLY when they coincide with your agendas. The funniest part of all of it is - you've taken it upon yourself to criticize Badmintonhist for the exact thing you yourself routinely do. You can't even accept the labeling of Olbermann as a LIBERAL (the horror!), despite the fact you've been on crusades to label O'Reilly as conservative!--DystopiaSticker (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DystopiaSticker, if I had not had considerable experience with your fondness for wildly jumping to conclusions based on virtually no information, I would not even be asking this question. But I know better. Please give us an exact quote from Olbermann in which he identifies "conservative commentators as being the cause of shootings". I'm not asking for his general criticism of conservative commentators, or for simply his mentioning conservative commentators in the same sentence as comments about shootings, or for his comments about conservative commentators saying something in the same general time frame as shootings. I'm asking for Olbermann's specific words of cause and effect: conservative commentators caused shootings. And remember, we need verbatim words from Olbermann to that effect. If you can't do that, I think we can once again safely dismiss your hyperbole as unfounded. Ward3001 (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ward! Through my experiences with you, I plan on you interpreting this quote in the most insane way possible. When talking about the recent cop killings, Keith Olbermann: "You, Glenn Beck, you personally are encouraging Americans to shoot other Americans." [17]. I assume because Olbermann didn't stand up, write down the phrase "Beck caused this shooting, Ward, he did. I'm telling you he did", that you'll think, despite talking about the shooting and then saying Beck ENCOURAGES SHOOTINGS, that Olbermann was just mentioning the shooting and saying something irrelevant. Good luck living in your fantasy land if you honestly believe that.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DystopiaSticker, there's no need for personal attacks or insulting anyone here. What you've just shown us is Olbermann speaking metaphorically, I do believe. Dayewalker (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience with DystopiaSticker's brand of "logic", there's no difference between literal and metaphorical; no difference between the meanings of words such as "encourage" and "cause"; no difference between "interpret logically" and "interpret insanely". No difference if it fits his POV, that is. As I had never actually doubted, now we can, once again, safely dismiss DystopiaStickers rant as unfounded hyperbole. Ward3001 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The day Olbermann tattoos a statement to your forehead, THEN maybe you'll be willing to talk about it. Until that day, do me a big ol' favor and save your useless comments and forcing your interpretations. Something as simple as me pointing out that Dan Cooper defended himself from statments you said IN NO WAY attacked him are POV rants according to you. You're on a witch hunt and I'm really not interested in your opinions. Oh, and nice job taking the one debatable point in my comment that had no relation to the overall point, establishing it as wrong in your mind and thus dismissing my entire comment. If me saying Olbermann doesn't like Fox News is really an unfounded hyperbole... well, there's no pithy rejoinder to something so idiotic.--DystopiaSticker (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, DystopiaSticker, sorry to burst your bubble, but you'll get my opinions on talk pages any damn time I decide to express them. Keep ranting your strained logic on pages I watch, and I'll keep rebutting it. You make it very easy. And by the way, consider this your second warning (today anyway) about personal attacks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since when was everyone who doesn't like conservatism, liberals? (Liberal conservatism, Conservative liberalism <- just so you know, those does not redirect to paradox) Liberalism isn't even the opposite of conservatism... Much of what I hear from US American conservatives is stuff like "the government is too big" "I dont want the government to decide for me" "i dont want the government to take away my weapons", which is rather liberal when it comes to government/weapon control. And again, you don't really have to be a communist or a liberal to take shots at GWBush. chandler ··· 20:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a copy of comments I made on the Bill O'Reilly talk page. Here are sources for Keith Olbermann being viewed as a "liberal":

• CNN calls him a "liberal hero" in an interview with Olbermann which is probably the definitive on how he views himself, e.g. "I'm frequently accused of being a liberal or a flack for the Democratic Party. And it's true that the vast majority of my commentary over these past few years has targeted Republicans":[18].
• Salon denies it: "far more a Bush critic than he is a doctrinaire liberal"[19] and "it is actually far from clear that Keith Olbermann is a "liberal" at all; what "liberal" policies specifically does Olbermann advocate?"[20]
• That was in response to an AP story calling him a "liberal icon":[21]; same AP author called him a "liberal hero":[22]
• A Houston Chronicle interview has his reply to whether he is a conservative or a liberal as "A lot of my personal world view is unmistakably sympathetic to things in a liberal play book, but honest to God, I have been called a reactionary by some on the far left, a liberal by some on the far right and I'm insulted by both terms. My point of view is about delivering information and context. It has nothing to do with a political point of view":[23]
• Washington Post says he's a "fire-breathing liberal"[24], that "He positions his program as an increasingly liberal alternative to the "O'Reilly Factor":[25], and reports him saying ""I find myself currently aligned, not in the sense of having membership, but being in the same part of the ballpark as a lot of liberals"[26]
• St. Louis Post Dispatch calls him a "liberal commentator":[27]
• The Independent (London) assumes he's a liberal commentator, as it uses those words to explain who Obama meant in a quote:[28]
• USA Today calls him a "liberal commentator":[29], which US News reports in quote marks without comment:[30]
• NPR calls Countdown with Olbermann "liberal-leaning":[31]
• Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports him saying "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American" (are the two mutually exclusive?!), and says he's a "hero to liberals":[32]
• Media Matters allows, for the sake of argument, that he's "progressive":[33]
• Salon calls him a "liberal" voice, using scare quotes to indicate that's what others think: [34]
• Seattle Times calls him a liberal commentator: [35]
• Bill Moyer on PBS said to Olbermann in an interview that "They think you've taken sides with the progressive or liberal story":[36]
• The Pittsburgh Tribune says "The recovering sportscaster is openly liberal":[37]
• An excerpt from Olbermann's book accounts a drunk dismissing him because "he's a liberal":[38]
• Buffalo News thought he had a "liberal anti-McCain agenda"[39]
• The Philadelphia Inquirer says he's a "liberal provocateur":[40].

Fences and windows (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like almost everyone considers him liberal. No one considers him conservative. He certainly is not moderate. Only KO, himself, and his WP press agents dispute the proposition that he is liberal or at least widely viewed as liberal. Orwell's calling...Tommylotto (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Tommy, whyt must he be considered "conservative" just to dispute that he's not a liberal? It doesn't seem to add anything to the article to force a label on Olbermann that he denies, when in fact that label is vague and open to interpretation. It's the same way with Hannity's article and people trying to force a neocon label on him. Why should we be forced to put a disputed label on a subject? The article should serve as a record of their experieinces, and let readers make their own decisions. Dayewalker (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough, the article's facts certainly shows show Olbermann to be a man of the left but if he doesn't want to use the the term "liberal" to describe himself it's a harmless conceit, much like Bill O'Reilly not wanting to call himself a "conservative". However, as I write this there is an RfC taking place on the O'Reilly talk page in which at least one editor is trying to get O'Reilly labeled as a conservative. Perhaps the editor Dayewalker would care to comment there as well. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't drag your burning strawmen around to other articles. For the umpteenmillionth time, there is a difference between "foo is liberal/conservative" and "foo is known for being liberal/conservative". //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Blax,there is certainly at least a small difference between the two. However "foo is known for being liberal/conservative" is the formulation you object to when foo is Olbermann, but which you approve of when foo is O'Reilly. Only a foooool would not see the double standard. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. This talk page is for discussing how to improve Keith Olbermann. It is not to whine about how editing is conducted at other articles. Characterizations like "liberal" or "conservative" need cast-iron sourcing. That means it is either:

1. "Olbermann describes himself as a liberal.^[source]", or
2. "Olbermann has been described as a liberal.^{[source representative of a preponderance of reliable sources]}"

-- Scjessey (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Jess. But didn't you notice that "sources representative of a preponderance of reliable sources" have already been supplied in abundance by your fellow countryman, the formidable Fences and windows? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that using baiting smartassery like "the formidable" and "fellow countryman" makes you look cute, intelligent, or mature? As far as I know, you don't even know what country any of us are from. It would be most wise to limit your comments to the topic at hand. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not personally reviewed any of the sources. I am simply stating, per my comment above (and my comment of 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) in this same thread): as long as a preponderance of reliable sources say directly that Olbermann is described as a liberal, there is no reason at all why this cannot be included in the article. Simply choose a high-quality source that is most representative of the others and pop it in. There is no need for all this bickering, from either of you. In the United States, the term "liberal" has (bizarrely) become something of a pejorative. That is why the highest standards of sourcing are required. If, however, Olbermann has specifically stated that he is not a liberal, then perhaps this should be included too. For example:

"He has been described as a liberal,^[source] although himself Olbermann denies this.^[source]"

Obviously this is a pretty lame example, but I think you can see where I am going with this. Anyway, please collaborate on some wording and build a consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Scrapping "The show process" subsection

I suggest scrapping "the show process" subsection. It is based on a four and a half year old article and may no longer accurately reflect the process for putting together Countdown. Besides, such a section more properly belongs in the Countdown article. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems logical. It does seem out of place here, considering there's a separate article for the show. Dayewalker (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it has no place in this article; please transcode to Countdown with Keith Olbermann (if it's not there already) when removing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I think the subsection 'NFL on NBC' should be under the section "Other Sports Broadcasting" and I am moving it there. Also, I do not think 'Baseball Historian and Fan' belongs under "Personal Life". BillyJack193 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding more specific educational information

Added the "College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" to the bio in the school section, Wikipedia is not consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blappo (talk • contribs) 05:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Undid. BillyJack193 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

He's properly blocked indef, just for future reference. Dayewalker (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

God forbid that a WP reader might actually learn the true verifiable non-controversial fact that he went to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. That is certainly an offense worthy of blocking him indefinitely. Seriously folks, how many potential editors have to request the inclusion of this non-controversial information for you to admit that there is no consensus or justification for its exclusion? Tommylotto (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You say that as if the "potential editor" wasn't also taking j oy in edit warring and calling everyone who disagreed with him "vandals" and "assholes." Please take a look at his contribs and show any evidence he wasn't rightfully blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not defending the extent of his conduct, which I am blissfully unaware of. However, his suggested revision -- to add the true verifiable non-controversial fact that KO went to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a reasonable suggestion and demonstrates yet again that there is no consensus for its exclusion. He may have acted improperly in the face of the hyperactive editors undoing his edits, but the fact remains that his original suggested edit was reasonable and there is no justification for the information's exclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Consensus clearly exists. One more troublesome, quickly-blocked angry SPA coming to the page to start another edit holy war doesn't change that. Dayewalker (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tommylotto, your opinion on this is on record. The nature of a consensus is that the participants must agree to abide by the community's will, regardless of whether you agree or not. There comes a point when refusing to give up the ghost becomes obstinate spite. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am here. I do not believe there is consensus. There is a small cliche of editors dominating this article that are opposed to the inclusion of this information on specious grounds. They repeatedly claim consensus to shut down potential editors, but they have used that argument so many times with so many potential editors that the claim of consensus frankly seem absurd. In any event, I believe the opposition to this benign information is merely a knee jerk reaction by those opposed to Coulter's politics. Eventually, Coulter's meaningless smear will fade from memory, and we will be left with the fact that KO did in fact attend Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and there is no justification for this informations exclusion. Finally, consensus can change.Tommylotto (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can indeed change, but it isn't going to in this case. Olbermann went to Cornell, and that's that. It would be extremely unusual for a BLP to document which particular college of a university an individual went to unless it was notably significant in some way. In this case, it is not. Continually bringing this up is becoming disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Scjessey, you do not by yourself get to decide what is consensus and whether it can or will change in this case. Consensus is built on the discussion page, which is what I am attempting to do. And as you will note, I am not the one restarting this discussion over and over again. Other potential editors are repeatedly coming to this page seeking to add this information -- hardly an indication of the consensus that you claim.Tommylotto (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In all due respect, Tommylotto, being more specific about the college he graduated from in the Infobox, which is designed to be brief, is not really worth fighting over. You would have greater justification for placing it in the "Early life" section of the article which already goes so far as to state that Olbermann was rejected by Harvard but offered a full scholarship to Boston University. Surely being that specific about the colleges that a 50 year old man applied to 34 years ago would justify being more specific about the college from which he actually graduated. Of course, you could also expand the "Feud with O'Reilly" (or whatever it's called) section into a "Feuds with other pundits" (or some such thing) section, and include a properly sourced mention of the Coulter dig about Olbermann's alma mater. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Badmintonhist, but if you read my previous comments, you would see that that is the exact compromise that I suggested. The Info box should just say Cornell University, because that is accurate information, but the body of the article which is suppose to be more detailed should say Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences which is equally accurate and more detailed. It's fair. It's accurate. It's verifiable. Unfortunately, certain editors are on a jihad against Coulter, and object to the inclusion of this true verifiable information for the sole reason that she used this information in an unfair smear of KO. The smear may have been unfair, but the information is accurate. So these editors wish to conceal this true information from WP readers to protect KO from the smear and to "prove" Coulter wrong. This is an abuse of WP. Tommylotto (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This damned debate about Olby's college has gone on so long that you'll have to excuse me for not remembering who suggested that what go where. I don't think the information is particularly important, but then I don't think the information about Olby's pitch-card collection, or his rejection from Harvard, or his BU scholarship offer, are particularly important either. We're talking about a 50 year old man for goodness sake. However, by what Wikipedia standard would the latter set of facts be acceptable but not the specifics about his college within the Cornell University system? Arguing that this is "all Coulter's doing" is the "consider the source fallacy", a branch of ad hominem. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Until somebody can give a good reason why we should specify which college within Cornell Olbermann went to, I cannot see a reason to do so. The fact that it is "true" is not adequate. It would need to be notable and important information that was covered in a preponderance of reliable sources, and I'm not seeing that. It is apparently only of interest to Coulter and her followers. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jess, I'm disappointed in you. There doesn't really have to be a reason why, any more than there has to be a reason why his Harvard rejection or his BU scholarship offer are included. There does need to be a good Wikipedia rule to exclude it, however. There is any amount information about Olbermann that might be included or might not be depending on the whims of the set of editors involved. It doesn't need a "preponderance of reliable sources", it only needs a reliable source or two to demonstrate its verifiability. After all, the facts of the matter are not really contested here. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are "disappointed" in me, but the fact remains that unless there is a good reason (one that satisfies weight, notability and verifiability concerns), including this information is not necessary. Clearly there is no consensus for inclusion, so it's all rather moot anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, there doesn't have to be a good reason to include it. For what good reason are Olbermann's rejection by Harvard and his scholarship offer from BU included? Rather, there has to be a good reason to exclude it. Vague references to "weight", "notability", and "verifiability" are not good enough. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit; there is only one ultimate reason for ignoring common Wikipedia practice in this case, and it is to give voice to the Coulter "not really Ivy League" fiasco. The community resoundingly rejected that attempt, and the "other stuff exists" argument carries no weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No sir!. Your "argument" is pure WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. That Coulter's goading originally gave vitality to the fact is irrelevant. Olbermann's goading has helped to bring forth a fair amount amount of information about people profiled in Wikipedia. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Still no consensus for this, no matter how many times you frame and reframe your argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If the information is well sourced and accurate, WP has accepted additions to BLPs that fit that criteria. More likely than not, I agree with pol leanings of those who oppose its inclusion. But just as in the debate of 'Hussein' being included in the President's article, although it was being used as a smear of sorts, it was nonetheless accurate information and is included in the article.τßōиЄ2001 (ǂ ) 14:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that we have tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of articles that identify the university granting degrees, not the particular college individuals attended. No one has yet given a compelling argument as to why we should make an exception in this case -- doing so seems intended only to give weight to the false claims made by Coulter. Disguise it any way you like, but I've yet to see any plausible reason we should make an exception to the Wikipedia norm. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is LOTS of information in Wikipedia articles that I would prefer to see deleted. For example, in the Olbermann article I recently deleted the facts that he was rejected by Harvard (which, by the way, is something that the sainted Ann Coulter could have used as a smear against him) but was offered a full scholarship to Boston University. To me, including such information about a a 50 year old non-academic was downright silly and certainly not typical Wikipedia practice (Before graduating from the University of Rhode Island, Badmintonhist was accepted at Bates College and placed on the William and Mary waiting list). Apparently Blaxthos thought that this was vital information, however, and soon restored what I had deleted. I didn't press the issue because other than believing that the article was better without it, I saw no Wikipedia rule or guidline that would prohibit its inclusion. It seems to me that the same principle applies to the specifics about Olbermann's alma mater. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, bullshit -- don't make strawmen arguments.

1. My restoration has nothing to do with the "vitality" of the information, but rather with the false claim made in your edit summary -- Your stated deletion rationale was that it was unverifiable information. I restored it because the reliable source (which you deleted, along with the information) clearly identified the information you claimed wasn't there. If memory serves, my edit summary included the exact paragraph where you could find the information.
2. Information about his scholarship (or rejections, or whatever) has nothing to do with the appropriateness of making exceptions to standard practice when the intent is a transparent attempt to give voice to Coulter's false claims of "not really Ivy League"/"different Cornell"/etc..
3. You avoided acknowledging or responding to the substance of my response entirely. It's been explained at least a dozen times, by myself and others, and we're under no obligation to keep replying to two editors who refuse to play by the rules.
4. Regardless of all that, the consensus against making a one-off change here is pretty clear -- it's been rejected.

This is moot. Move along. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be in rather profane mood, Blax. No, I didn't delete the silly college application result information because of its sourcing, at least not primarily, I deleted it because it was gratuitous and I said so in the edit summary [41]. As a strictly secondary reason I suggested that it might not be "truly" verifiable because it was based on a long-after-the-fact interview that Olby did with a college newspaper, not exactly the most air-tight source for factual information about something that would have occurred almost 30 years earlier. This is a point of personal privilege here, I'll respond to the substance of your points shortly. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the longer this goes on the more transparent editors' motives become, and the more inclined i will be to call a spade a spade. No sense in discussing the red herring -- this is about the University / degree, despite your attempts to re-frame it around some other content or unrelated edit. Again, the community has been quite clear, implicitly and explicitly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, as to substance:

A. In point of fact, there is no "standard practice" as to how a subject's alma mater will be mentioned in his Wikipedia biography. There are typical, and usual, and even common practices, perhaps, but no "standard practice"; certainly no Wikipedia rule or guideline telling us that the mere mention of a subject's specific college within a University is verboten.

B. The continual references to Ann Coulter by some opposed to inclusion of this information are basically an admission of bias. The fact that Coulter promoted information (the veracity of which has been independently established) for the purpose of embarrassing Olbermann is absolutely irrelevant as to whether the information itself (without her spin on it) should or should not be included. Plenty of information promoted by Olbermann, both embarrassing and innocuous, has found its way into the biographies of Olbermann's enemies. Should the mere fact that Olbermann promoted it have been used as the basis for either inclusion or exclusion?

C. That being said, I would actually prefer that the "specific college" information not be placed in either the Infobox or "Early life" sections of the article, though I certainly wouldn't spend much time or effort keeping it out if it were. Minus the superfluous discourse about Ann Coulter, it basically falls into the same category as mentioning Olbermann's rejection by Harvard and his scholarship offer from B.U. They are all equally gratuitous but innocuous.

D. In my view, however, there is possibly a place for this information, along with Coulter's role in promoting it, in a restyled "Feuds and/or controversies" section in the bio. As it now stands the old "Feud with Bill O'Reilly" section is weak and outdated. While still targeting O'Reilly, Olbermann, in fact, continually picks fights with rival commentators, especially those who lean right on one or more issues. As it now stands the article really doesn't give the reader a proper sense of Olbermann's contentiousness with other commentators. The lead doesn't do too bad a job in this regard, but there isn't much follow-up. Since the responses from Olbermann's targets (such as Coulter) are arguably outside the scope of the Countdown article, the best place to present the give and take is either the Olbermann article or a separate article for that purpose. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A solid consensus exists for excluding this additional irrelevant information from the article. This new suggestion of yours appears to be just another new approach to getting it in there. I've no problem with O'Reilly section being revamped, but let's not use it as an excuse for a consensus-busting insertion by stealth. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested it here, it certainly wouldn't be done through stealth. As part of a "Feuds" section (or possibly a separate article) it would be included among reliably sourced, notable exchanges of insults between Olbermann and others. To dish it out one has to be willing to take it. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty poor justification, and it smacks of desperation. The consensus is no. Well past WP:TEND and into the realm of WP:DISRUPT now. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that Badmintonhist said "I would actually prefer that the "specific college" information not be placed in either the Infobox or "Early life" sections of the article", I think we're either being spun/trolled or he's just arguing to make a point. Time to move along.  ;) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If the other sources are not acceptable, here it is from his own mouth: From 2005 "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" "OLBERMANN: Now don‘t assume anything here. I got my degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. So I may be a city guy but I went to an aggie school, so I know my stuff here." I don't understand why this is not is not listed in the article it's not irrelevant and it's not BLP or defamatory, it's just a fact. It is always proper to err on the side of more specific information, I see no legitimate reason to exclude this and I agree with the above users who think it should be added. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Infoboxes don't include information about majors, colleges, or which building on campus someone had most of their classes in. If you believe they should, then build consensus for that change at the appropriate venue (presumably the biography WikiProject).
• The "early life" section is a single, bare-bones paragraph. If you want to flesh it out with an appropriately sourced description of his early life, feel free to do so. But make sure that things are given appropriate weight. Obviously, if you're going to add information about this undergrad career, you should add balancing information about high school and the rest of his experience growing up. He talks about high school teachers, he talks about his mother's influence in shaping him into a baseball fan - there's a lot of material to build up the "early life" section. The specific college he was enrolled in at Cornell is actually pretty far down that list...his major is important, because he ended up as a broadcaster. The events that shaped his interest in politics and sports are very important. Once they are covered properly, then there may be room for trivia. Assuming, of course, that it's put in the proper context. Guettarda (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "early life" section may be bare-bones but two of those bones are that he was rejected by Harvard and offered a full scholarship to Boston University. As I noted before, being that specific about the results of 34 year old college applications (included how frequently in Wikipedia biographies?) would certainly merit being rather specific about the college within the Cornell system that he actually attended. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that we should remove the Harvard + BU info? The fact that the section is already a little unbalanced isn't an argument for making it more unbalanced. What's needed is more salient information. Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe his intent here is to insinuate that if the BU+Harvard info goes in, so should the AgSchool information. The major problem here is that the Harvard+BU information has no underlying insinuation; listing the College instead of the University implies that the degree is somehow "different" (as attempted by Coulter). Given that Wikipedia doesn't make the distinction anywhere else, there is no other/valid reason for doing so here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course; apples and oranges. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One could argue that once the Harvard and B.U. information is included, adding the specific info about Cornell makes the paragraph more balanced not less. If you look back at this discussion you'll see that I did remove the Harvard and B.U. information but it was restored by one of this discussion's participants. As I said before, all of this information, as presently presented, falls into the category of gratuitous but innocuous. Olbermann is significant as a political commentator and, to a lesser extent, as a sportscaster. His academic record is of minimal importance unless, as a media personality, he chooses to make it important. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Ag school" issue is relevant in the context of a discussion of his undergrad career. It's irrelevant outside of it. But it's not "innocent" - it's being used as part of a smear. So including it without context obviously fails WP:BLP. Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The standard for excluding information from a Wikipedia bio should not be that Ann Coulter once referenced it in a disparaging manner about someone. The "smear" is strictly the construction that you are placing on it. She could just as easily have brought up Olbermann's Harvard rejection, indeed, maybe she has. By the way, is their any marginally significant information about O'Reilly, Coulter, Beck, Dobbs. et.al in their Wikipedia bios that Olbermann has ever referenced in a disparaging way? Badmintonhist (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. The fact is that the material was used to disparage the subject. Adding it without context furthers the smear. And that violates policy. If you believe that these other articles violate our BLP|BLP policy, then you really need to bring up the specific policy violations at those articles. And if you can't get consensus there, you need to raise the issues at WP:BLP/N. This, however, isn't the place to discuss those problems. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly understand how this is a fact that requires balancing. It is adequately sourced and what college he attended certainly is worth specifically mentioning. As for the infobox, I think it's fine the way it is, but I wouldn't object to leaving it to say Cornell and linking the ag college. I do however think it is an oversight to omit all mention of the ag school. In the linked interview he seems justifiably proud that he is connected to an "aggie school" saying "I got my degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. So I may be a city guy but I went to an aggie school, so I know my stuff here." I don't see a balance issue and it certainly does not violate BLP to list a self admitted item like this. I don't think it any additional context or balance is needed except to dryly state the facts as we know them: that he "got [his] degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York." No BLP issue since that's a quote with only the one word changed. As for other articles and treatment of college and early life, Limbaugh has been criticized by others for his lack of a degree and for failing even ballroom dancing. That information is included in detail in his wikipedia article, probably because it was used to criticize him. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For the 24th time, there is no reason to break with Wikipedia common practice by indicating the granular college within the university he attended in this particular case. The only motivation of making this the exception to the rule, on this particular article, is to give voice to the mistruths and misunderstandings epitomized by the Coulter misstatements that the individual college is somehow significant. If we listed the individual colleges on every BLP then that would be a different discussion, but the motivation for making this the exception is transparent. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The information was at the heart of a smear by Coulter. Read the archives of this page if you're unfamiliar with that smear. Adding the information without context puts us at risk of furthering that smear. Actions like that are incompatible with our policy on biographies of living people, commonly referred to as "BLP". The community (and the Wikimedia Foundation) take violations of this policy very seriously. Guettarda (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience with me, but I'm having trouble locating where this consensus, common practice or rule has been established for biographies. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and skimming them I see no mention of education, college or universities. Generally, when I edit a biography I get as specific as I can reliably cite and many times all that is known is the university. I suspect that "common practice" is really only because more specific information is not available or has not been published. In cases where the granular college is known, I see no guideline, policy or common practice that prohibits inclusion of this type of non-defamatory information. Lack of specificity in other articles is not an excuse to omit relevant biographical information. In this case the standard of verifiability is met and there is no BLP issue. As an example, if Coulter had spoken disparagingly about his baseball card articles in the 70s would we need to remove those two sentences for BLP reasons? If she said something bad about his voice over work on "Cartoon Express" would we exclude that as well? I'm not particularly concerned with what Coulter said or didn't say about his schooling, Olbermann himself said "I got my degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. So I may be a city guy but I went to an aggie school, so I know my stuff here." I don't understand how stating this fact is defamatory, where I come from there is no shame in agriculture or in going to an "aggie school". In fact, I'm a bit offended that an editor would say it's a BLP issue to put in an article that someone attended an "aggie school" when in fact they did attend one. I'm familiar with WP:BLP and this isn't doesn't go against BLP guidelines. --Dual Freq (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I think you're missing the point. The information isn't prima facie a BLP violation, but the selective distinction here serves no other purpose than to perpetuate Coulter's assertion that it's somehow "less" or has a different meaning. No one had any concerns about making this exception before the Coulter incident, and no one is making a mass campaign to start making the changes on other articles. Quack. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

More thoughtful editors disputing the claim of consensus... I think we can put that tired argument to rest. The inclusion or exclusion of this information should be determined on the merits, not by hyperactive editors shutting down discussion. It seems to me the only real reason this information is being excluded is because Coulter used this information as part of a smear. Coulter's smear was based on a grain of truth -- that KO went to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, but that truthful information was not part of the smear. The smear was that a degree from Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences was somehow less worthy of respect than a degree from other colleges at that University. BLP guidelines would call for exclusion of the smear, but the smear only extends to the argument that his degree has less cache or is not Ivy League. It does not extend to the verifiable fact that KO attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and if that school is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article at WP, it is certainly sufficiently noteworthy to warrant identifying one of its famous alumni. For those concerned that providing this truthful information will just feed the smear, my first response would be that it is an abuse of WP to conceal the verifiable truth, even if that truth had been used in an unfair attempt to malign. My second response would be to repeat my oft repeated compromise -- put Cornell University in the info box and Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the early life section. That compromise is true, verifiable, consistent with WP policies and balanced vis a vis Coulter's smear.Tommylotto (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy does not permit us to further smears. Including the info without would further Coulter's smear. This clearly falls under the purview of the BLP policy. End of story. Guettarda (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comments on this talk page, I'm suspecting you don't have a clear understanding of the concept of Colleges that are an integral part of a University. In New York, these are called statutory colleges. They carry their own name to a certain degree, but are still owned and operated by the parent university. Degrees are awarded by the parent university. That's why Olbermann's degree says "Cornell" on it, not "College of Agricultural and Life Sciences". The University of Toronto in Ontario is another example of this; it's comprised of several colleges, and when you attend the school, you are a member of one of those colleges. But, your education and degree are identified as Univerity of Toronto, not, say, "New College, University of Toronto". You can find other examples of this as well.

That's what's weird about Coulter's assertions. She knows all this, because it's just a fact of life at Cornell. We have a whole category for all the schools at Cornell: Category:Colleges and schools of Cornell University. She tried to hold it against Olbermann, in much the same way people from certain fraternities and sororities discriminate against people from another such groups... not for any particular reason other than gang mentality. "I'm part of this group, therefore people in other groups aren't as good as me". It's the same kind of philosphical neanderthalism that drives racism, bigotry, and other forms of discrimination. Coulter has wilfully and repeatedly demonstrated her discriminatory nature, so it's no surprise that she'd extend such behaviour into judging people negatively based on what department or statutory college they attended at school.

But to be honest, I don't think it's big deal if we mention as a biographical detail which statutory college he was a part of at Cornell... it's a minor, harmless detail. It's certainly not Infobox material, nor is the spat with Coulter even worth mentioning. Warren -talk- 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I'm looking at my wife's degree. It says University of California, but she has never been to Berkley. She graduated from UCLA. Should we stop recognizing Bruins too. All levity aside, I'm starting to see consensus for inclusion.Tommylotto (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, As it would likely appear in the "Early life" section of the article, a minor, harmless detail. Probably a smidgen less gratuitous than mentioning that the 16 year Olbermann was rejected by Harvard but offered a full scholarship to B.U. However, I don't fully agree with Warren that the spat with Coulter isn't worth mentioning. It would be fine to mention, but only in the proper context. That context would be a yet non-existent (but likely to eventually exist) section on "Feuds and/or controversies" (beyond simply the feud with O'Reilly). The article presently really doesn't do a proper job of conveying Olbermann's "in your face" style. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, but I'm seeing the complete opposite. The clear consensus for exclusion remains. The degree was awarded by Cornell, so we need not say more than that. Let's not act as enablers for Coulter and her fringe followers. And there is no way this "spat" is worth any mention, given that it is of no biographical significance whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If it were a minor harmless detail, then it would be subject to consensus (not that I see consensus for changing the article to include this info). It so happens though that the BLP policy happens to trump local consensus. So unless the policy issue is addressed, this discussion is pointless. Guettarda (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its not something that needs to be specified in the infobox and I see no need to reference Coulter or even mention her in the early life section. I think it is a biographical detail worth mentioning to say, just as Olbermann himself said, that he got a "degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University". I'm not picky about wording on that, but I think it's fair to specify the college, type of degree and link it if that information is cited. His own statement in 2005 is sufficiently reliable to include and reference this item. There is no repeat of some smear to list a fact and it does not imply some lesser education to specify this information. There is no BLP issue to specify the college in the early life section. As for the "other articles don't specify it" argument, if someone finds a list of wikipedia biographies that have citable reliable sources that say a person attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, I will gladly spend an hour or so to add that information to those articles. The only reason the specific college is not listed in other articles is that the information is not known by whatever editor wrote the wikipedia biography. I know of no guideline or deliberate actions in other biographies to exclude more specific details like this when they are known. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In a word, "no"; numerous single purpose accounts and quacking won't make it any more appropriate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So over 26,000 edits is a single purpose account now? Where's the bar at now, 50,000? All anyone has here is a bunch of weak excuses for not specifying this. Keep up the good work on this article, we wouldn't want to offend Olbermann by stating a fact cited by his own words. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, and we were starting to get along so well, Blax. First, who, exactly, are the SPA's here? Warren? Dual Freq? Moi? You aren't referring to yourself, I presume. Second, can the presumptious, Little Napoleon verbiage. We haven't agreed to make you our dictator. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This kind of bickering must stop immediately. Let's all agree to discuss inclusions/exclusions on merit, not on the personalities of editors. I recommend we draw a line under this discussion and move on. If more reliable sources write about the specifics of Olbermann's time at Cornell (and it thus becomes biographically-significant to specify the particular college he attended), then we can revisit this matter again. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the objection de jure is that it violates WP:BLP. I have reviewed that policy and I see no reason for exclusion. The closest I found is WP:GRAPEVINE, which states, "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Let us assume that this material is contentious as a result of it being used as the basis of a smear by Coulter. There is still no justification in WP:BLP for its exclusion as there are numerous citations to this verifiable fact that have been discussed ad nauseum before. I do not think any serious editor still disputes that the fact that he attendance at Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a verifiable true fact. So, unless someone can point to authority that true verifiable facts should be excluded from a biography simply because they might be used to smear the subject, I think we can dispense with the BLP objections.Tommylotto (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of objections, but chief among them is undue weight. As has been discussed several times (notably in the "Cornell redux" section above), this is a non-notable factoid. Until this receives significant attention from reliable sources, there is no reason to include this biographically-insignificant tidbit. Like I said before, it is time to draw a line under this matter because we are getting well into the realm of tendentiousness now. You must respect the established, and now confirmed consensus for exclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that redux section earlier, and I think User:-Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) made some good points up there. How can this be undue weight? Is there supposed to be something wrong with going to an "aggie school" as Olbermann described it? If you want to talk about biographically insignificant details, being a "lifelong New York Yankees fan" is certainly something I consider a non-notable factoid and insignificant. Did it affect his sportscasting? Does that bias his reporting somehow? Seems like just a random factoid there. Also the "The first card of the pack was Johnny Damon of the New York Yankees," seems rather pointless, insignificant and trivial as well in the baseball section. And being "two years below" some other sportscaster seems non-notable, as though Hackley School is some sort of sportscaster prep school. Were they friends or something in school? Did they even know each other at school? That tidbit seems insignificant as well. What college he attended doesn't seem insignificant to me, certainly not as insignificant as those other details, one of which is not even cited. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are falling into the classic trap of "because X is in the article, Y should be as well." These things should be treated separately. I am reminded of a similar argument that took place on Talk:Barack Obama. The discussion was about whether or not information about Obama's "association" with Bill Ayers should be included (it was not). The argument went something along the lines of "we say Obama is left-handed and likes pizza, but we don't say that he palled around with a terrorist!" The Ayers-related stuff was just crap trying to smear Obama, but the left-handed stuff was interesting, but harmless, personal information. To determine whether or not something is notable enough to break through the WP:WEIGHT barrier, you have to ask yourself if (a) there is enough coverage in mainstream reliable sources, and (b) is it something that will be interesting to the majority of readers. I can imagine people coming to this article and specifically looking for information about Olbermann's passion for the Yankees, much like Obama's passion for the White Sox. I can't imagine anyone giving a frog's fat ass whether or not he went to a the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're the one calling the school he attended a factoid. I listed other items in the article that I view to be far less significant and which I can't imagine anyone giving a "frog's fat ass" about, as you so eloquently said above. That's an odd statement since there seem be be a fairly large number of editors that are interested in the college info, and its presence or removal from the article, based on the history of this page and the talk archives. Oh and I assume I can remove the trivia about some random person at his prep-school and which baseball card was first in his baseball card pack? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There are not a fairly large number of editors interested in the college info. Your statement is simply not supported by the discussions above. Consensus for exclusion remains. And you've made my argument for me, but claiming that other "trivia" should be removed because we don't include this. This tendentiousness is now becoming disruptive. This discussion should be closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Another interesting factoid is that Coulter's wikipedia biography has Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences linked since at least mid-2006. Sometime later in 2006 it was switched to just Cornell and then Cornell University, but as of right now, it remains linked to Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences. That would seem to to counter others who say that this kind of linking does not occur. There is clearly interest in this information, otherwise all of the above comments would not have occurred. You wish to end all discussion, but ultimately the only resolution will be to simply add the appropriate college link to the early life section. Otherwise it's going to just keep coming up. It won't keep coming up because of me, but other editors will come along and they will have the same questions and they will also wonder why this is being excluded. There is no harm in increasing the level of specificity, there is no BLP issue, there is no stigma to attending the school and there is no undue weight issue. There is no legitimate reason it shouldn't be added, and once it is, everyone will move on and there won't be a half dozen different talk page sections trying to have it added. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. What goes on at other articles does not have any impact on what happens here. We simply follow the rules and guidelines to the best of our ability. If you think that the Coulter article is wrong, go there and fix it. Time to move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I never "fixed" it back in 2006 or since, because there's no guideline or rule that says not to do it that way, just like in this case. Time for you to move on. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Education information - section break

(OD)Considering this whole thread was started by an editor who was quickly indef blocked, this has gone on way too long. There doesn't seem to be evidence that specifying the college is standard procedure for wikipedia. The only reason this has come up, as shown by the sourcing of the SPAs and IPs who've come here to insert the trivial detail, is because someone attempted to disparage the subject and cast doubt on the validity of their degree. It hasn't been shown notable in any way, shape, or form before the disparaging column or after the event faded away.

On the other hand, I do agree there's too much random trivia in the article about the subject, and it should be pared down. I agree as above that if another article is randomly listing a specific college from a university and no good reason is given for the specificity, it should also be removed. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we all have differing views on what constitutes "biographical detail" and what constitutes "random trivia". We have plenty of articles that contain details that could be construed as needlessly trivial, or quite important. Consider the biography of Oscar Wilde, for example. It gives the street address where he was born, what address he lived at growing up, what he hung on his walls at college, and that his rooms at college were vandalised. More to the point, the article also states that he attended Magdalen College, which is one of the many contituent schools of Oxford University. We mention constituent colleges for many other Oxford attendees as well... even the likes of President Bill Clinton, and his daughter Chelsea, and Senator Richard Lugar, and many other people whose names you'd recognise.

If you truly believe that detail about what college-within-a-University a person attends doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, you should demonstrate a commitment to this belief and start removing that information from these articles, and the hundreds -- perhaps thousands -- of others, which include this detail. But you won't do that, will you?

Like I said before, I don't see any particular problem with mentioning it; it does provide a reasonably accurate description of where Olbermann was for four (?) years of his life, and reliable sources are available to show that he attended. This has nothing to do with Ann Coulter -- it's been shown that Olbermann has discussed this long before the Coulter faux-controversy came up earlier this year. Warren -talk- 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The "If you believe that way, go fix the rest of wikipedia" argument is always a lame one. Simply having an opinion does not indicate a desire to undertake a crusade. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford is also a very bad example. Oxford is not structured like your typical university here in the US. It is more a federation of colleges with a central governing body. A student that attends Magdalen College, Oxford is more likely to say they attend Magdalen College than they are to say they attended Oxford. As far as the Bill Clinton article.. There is an entire section just on his education, I wouldn't be surprised that it mentioned what specific college he attended. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oxford isn't structured like a typical U.S. University, correct.... but, hello, neither is Cornell! We have a whole article on the topic: statutory college. Read it! You too, Dayewalker. Warren -talk- 14:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

From a biographical standpoint, I'm much more interested in additional material in the early life section including specifying the college information. It would be much more biographical than the entire "Criticism of the Bush Administration" section. Maybe the article also needs a "Criticism of the Bud Selig Administration" section since he's such a baseball fanatic and since there seems to be ample material for it.[42] I'm sure someone can find a number of items to block quote and put in a 450+ word section, looks like it might fit better on wikiquote than here. Is there a need for a similar Criticism of or Support for the Carter, Reagan, Clinton or Obama Administration section in this article or any other biography? Either way, I do think it is worth mentioning what specific school he attended from 1975 to 1979 and any more details that can be reliably sourced during that time period. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that criticism of the Bush administration has been the defining characteristic of Olbermann's cable show - that and his feud with Bill O'Reilly. It is ridiculous to compare that with trivial information about what college he attended. I can't believe this is still being discussed, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And we needed 3 blockquotes in there? Two from the same show? I don't remember seeing a "Criticism of the Clinton Administration" in Limbaugh's article, but if you feel it's necessary to breakout a separate viewpoints section of this article to explain and cite this defining characteristic, I wouldn't object. It just looks like some random, disconnected items dumped into a Bush criticism section to me. At this point, I still see no legitimate reason remaining to omit the name of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences as cited by Olbermann's statement in 2005 and the Cornell Daily Sun's 2004 article which is already being used in that section. The only real remaining excuse to omit this is some negative commentary by Coulter, which will not be linked, referenced or mentioned. Leaving it out of the article makes it incomplete in this regard and all the objections here seem act like there is some stigma to the school, which there is not. Others have mentioned this above in the Cornell redux section, specifically User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said, "It isn't a slur to attend an agricultural college, but by hiding the information we are perpetuating that the information is negative." I agree with that statement, there is nothing wrong with that college and no reason to omit it. We should not let some misrepresentation and smear by Coulter or the past bunch of rude IP anon or indef blocked single use accounts prevent wikipedia from including a sufficiently notable, cited fact. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The reasons have been given not less than eleventy-billion times. A consensus for exclusion of this trivial information has been reached on more than one occasion, and tendentiously arguing for it will not change that fact anytime soon. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CCC. "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." --Dual Freq (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, this is a consensus that has just been reached in the section above. All you are doing is tendentiously perpetuating the discussion because you refuse to accept the finding. WP:CCC does not mean keep arguing until fellow editors can't take it anymore and give up. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Olbermann's statement in 2005 and the Cornell Daily Sun's 2004 article, the following is the case: "Olbermann was a communications arts major (as it was called at the time) in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences" and "got [his] degree in communications at the agriculture college at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York". You have disputed its addition. How do you think we should state this fact? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, "we shouldn't" has been the consistent answer. See above for why. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this whole "more information is always better" argument. If we were able to determine the name of Olbermann's third grade teacher, should we include that? How about the number of students in his kindergarten class? I mean, more information is always better, right? No matter how trivial? What if we determine Olbermann's favorite fast food sandwich? How does he feel about the whole Whopper vs. Big Mac debate? Let's find out! More information is always better, right? Right? Henrymrx (t·c) 01:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The college he attended is not trivial, but if you find reliably sourced information about his early life, go ahead and add it. More information there would be better, your silly extremes are not comparable. This particular fact is being excluded only because of Coulter. All the other reasons are, "because I said so" or "because I don't want to" or "because a bunch of rude IP anons and indef blocked SPA's wanted it" type arguments. Nothing legitimate. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Which college he attended within the university *IS* trivial. The Connie Chung article doesn't reference the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, just the University of Maryland, College Park. Why? Because it's trivial. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and so do several others that have posted here and tried to make the change. I see no reason that Connie Chung's article couldn't reference the college, John A. Jenkins bio references the Philip Merrill College of Journalism and there is nothing that says that is inappropriate or prohibited. One example of trivia might be the line "He is also referenced in Sports Collectors Bible, a 1979 book by Bert Sugar" or "Olbermann has six lumbar vertebrae instead of the normal five" and some of that baseball stuff is dangerously close to that as well. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Now just a minute!! How could anyone consider the "extensive list of first and third base coaches" that he compiled (while not actually playing baseball) in high school, to be trivial? Why Wikipedia even says that it's considered to be the "definitive compendium" on the subject, and that it sits in the Hall of Fame, though these claims aren't actually documented in the article. And don't forget his definitive defense of Fred "Bonehead" Merkle, also undoubtedly destined for Cooperstown, where it will almost certainly reside with yet to be completed authoritative expiations of Mickey Owen, Ralph Branca, and Bill Buckner. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As to Henrymrx's point about the Philip Merrill College of Journalism not being referenced in the Connie Chung article, the article doesn't even source the assertion that she graduated from the University of Maryland. Technically, it's original research. If the responsible editor was only relying on common knowledge, it is quite likely that he or she would not have known the specific college. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try this another way. How exactly does the knowledge of what specific college his undergraduate program was in at Cornell add to our understanding of Olbermann? I mean, what does it give us? If it's just to add more info to the article, then let's go ahead and find out the name of his third grade teacher. I suppose we need to know the name(s) of the street(s) he grew up on and what neighborhood he grew up in as well. How does that help us? Sure, it's more information, but how is it notable? If we can verify what he had for breakfast on a particular date, should we add it to the article? Unless there is some *reason* that it's really notable, more information isn't always better. If his third grade teacher was someone well-known or if she impacted his life in some specific way, it should go in. If not, no.

The only reason to note the specific college within Cornell that Olbermann was enrolled in is if it is notable. And the only reason that I can see that it might be notable is if we buy into Coulter's smear that somehow the degree is of less value than other degrees from Cornell. As far as I can tell, including the info is just a roundabout way to do an end-run around the BLP rules. It needs to stay out. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, listen to yourself. You are saying that a true verifiable fact should be excluded as not notable for the sole reason that someone might use that true verifiable fact in an unfair criticism of the subject. That is nonsensical and would warrant the removal of any information about anyone if that information could be viewed by any other person as potentially critical!?! Also, notability WP:N is a standard for determining whether a topic warrants its own article, not whether a fact warrants inclusion in a giving article. Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is sufficiently notable to have warranted its own WP article separate from Cornell University since April of 2004. That fact alone, demonstrates with unassailable logic that the true verifiable fact that KO attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences can and should be included in the description of his educational background. We are only talking about the inclusion of an extra six words of accurate true verifiable information. If you think those six words are a waste of precious article space, I can assure you there are plenty of other factoids (wasting far more than 6 words) in the article much less deserving than accurately identifying the school that he attended and from which he received his degree, particularly when that school was deemed sufficiently notable to warrant its own WP article.Tommylotto (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try at the straw man, but I'm not going to defend an argument I did not make.

You still didn't answer my question. How does the specific college add anything to the article? You seem to be arguing that it should be included because it is verifiable. That should not be the only standard for inclusion of a fact. You mention that there's other trivial stuff in the article. If you think that there are other trivial facts in the article, please bring them up here in their own threads or remove them yourself. Henrymrx (t·c) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, your false analogy about trivia doesn't apply to this item. The college he attended is a biographical detail and is not comparable to a single grade school teacher, a ham sandwich or if he opened the first pack of 2007 Topps baseball cards on Countdown the week before they hit stores. What does it add to the article? It adds the same thing that saying his mother is a preschool teacher and that he attended Hackley School, biographical details. You false claims of some BLP violation have also been refuted a number of times as well. For it to be a BLP issue, this article would have to assert that there is something somehow wrong with that school, but no one here is making that claim. The previous claims about reliable sourcing and verifiability have also been shown to be false, ie Olbermann's statement in 2005 and the Cornell Daily Sun's 2004 article. The prep school he attended is appropriate for inclusion, as are the details about his family. In the same way, the college he enrolled in and attended is also an appropriate biographical detail that should be included. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I was not making a straw man argument, I was demonstrating that your argument was wrong. You argued that the college should be excluded, because it was not notable, then I explained that notability was the standard for a new article -- not the mere inclusion of a fact in an article. You have not responded to that... You argue that the inclusion of the fact was a circumvention of the BLP rules, but I have already cited the language of that rule which only requires deletion of contentious facts if they are not verified. So, even if the college that KO attended was somehow a smear, that would still not be grounds for exclusion of the information, because the fact is true and verifiable. Speaking of straws, the self anointed protectors of KO are grasping for them, but no one has provided a justification for the exclusion of this information by citation to a WP policy that supports its exclusion. Blax, Jess, Henry, stop beating around the bush. List every single justification why this information should be excluded and please cite official WP policy to support your arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs)

Can you please stop assuming bad faith and hurling uncivil accusations toward other editors, such as referring to people as "self anointed protectors of KO" and the like? You continue to tendentiously argue about this in the face of a several-times-confirmed consensus, with all the reasons for exclusion patiently and repeatedly explained to the few of you who feel this trivial tidbit simply must be in the article. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia and accept the community consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This was done three weeks ago. Time to move to WP:RBI for those editors who refuse to accept consensus. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, although these few editors who want this stuff in are disruptively ignoring consensus, they are not vandals. WP:RBI is very much an approach for dealing with vandalism. If this bloody-mindedness continues, perhaps we should consider requesting informal mediation as the next logical step of dispute resolution. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree -- the reasoning behind WP:RBI applies to all disruptive editing (it doesn't ONLY work on vandals), though note it is not applicable to new, good faith editors who ask about the topic. We have no obligation to continue explaining clear consensus ad infinitum to the same editors over and over, nor are we required to continue to assume good faith when it's clear this is simply a sour grapes refusal to abide by the community consensus. With regards to mediation, there is nothing to mediate here -- the overwhelming response has been "no", and we don't open mediation when there are a handful of editors who just won't settle for any other outcome. Obviously, the block part of WP:RBI (in this case) is only applicable to editors who make repeated disruptive edits to the article, but revert/ignore is spot on in this circumstance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point; however, I have learned that following the normal processes of dispute resolution are more likely to be productive than simply reverting and ignoring (since that approach can lead to edit warring in a big hurry). Perhaps with the help of informal mediation, we can move forward and beyond this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I am hopelessly incompetent regarding Wikipedia procedures, and since this debate has continued through brief interruptions for quite some time (beginning before I became even mildly interested in it), just what events constituted what Blaxthos describes as "clear consensus" in the first place? Badmintonhist (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem right here. A consensus was reached for excluding this information from the article. This was then confirmed with another consensus-building discussion per WP:CCC. The discussions remain available for you to review at your leisure, but asking the community to repeatedly explain itself is needlessly prolonging the argument. Non-notable trivia that violates the neutral point of view by undue weight, et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I still see no wikipedia policy or consensus here that says to omit biographical details. I see a discussion from March that focused on BLP and verifiability, but there is no BLP issue when omitting Coulter's assertions and fairly recently in the discussion, the verifiability problem has been resolved with Olbermann's statement in 2005 and the Cornell Daily Sun's 2004 article. Additionally, we are already using the Cornell Daily Sun's 2004 article as a source for that very sentence. Those that wish to continue to exclude verifiable and cited material have also tried to say this is an item of trivia. However, stating the college he was enrolled in is a biographical detail, just like stating the prep-school he went to and what his mother and father's occupation and religion were. I would never advocate for removal of that type of detail and I still have difficulty understanding what wikipedia and the wikipedia reader are gaining by continuing to leave the Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences out of this article. Clearly there are a number of editors that think it is important enough to add it to the article. The trivia argument is false, since this is a biographical detail as mentioned above, the NPOV undue weight item is a non-issue because there is nothing non-neutral about stating this particular fact. There is nothing POV about a biography listing the college he was enrolled in. For my future reference, what section is this past consensus in? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to explain WHY exactly I think this is trivial. A college within a university is nothing more than an administrative unit performing a bureaucratic function. Where he "went to college" is Cornell University. His major is relevant, but what college that it was in really isn't. I bet if you polled most University students, they wouldn't be able to tell you what college their major program is part of. It's just not very important. Yes, there are some individual colleges that have their own articles. Still, the question is why is this administrative unit of Cornell University so important that it needs to be talked about?

Let me make an analogy about high school. Where he went to high school is, of course, relevant. If he was involved in the glee club, that wouldn't be. Why? He's not a singer. If he was involved in sports or the school paper, that would be relevant. If this was Justin Timberlake's article, and he was involved in a high school glee club, that should be included in his article. If HE was involved in his school paper, that would be trivial. It isn't really relevant to who he is. If Olbermann was famous for something in agriculture or the life sciences, I'd be all in favor for including the college info, but he's not. It's an insignificant, though verifiable, fact. If someone is a famous journalist and graduated from the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, it's fine with me if that's part of that person's article. But if they graduate with a journalism degree and go on to be famous for something else, the article should just reference the University of Maryland, College Park. Henrymrx (t·c) 01:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I have that right: Your belief is that if a fact isn't relevant to establishing a person's notability, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia? A simple yes or no answer will do. Warren -talk- 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, to Scjessey specifically: Would you please quit being a fucking prat and insisting that there is a consensus, when there is quite clearly no such thing? User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), User:Dual Freq, User:Badmintonhist, User:Tommylotto and myself have all made various statements in favour of including the information somewhere. That's five people. With the exception of Tommylotto, we're all established, multi-year editors with a demonstrated commitment to the encyclopedia that goes well beyond POV-pushing on a biography article. Sure, there have been more people who've said that the inclusion of a wikilink to the name of a college is an unnecessary detail, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of "consensus". Consensus isn't established through a majority vote. Warren -talk- 02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if there is still some question of consensus. Obviously, we don't tally votes, however two points of order:

1. If we did tally votes, consensus falls towards exclusion.
2. Even though we don't go by the tally, no one has really provided a rationale that (IMHO) addresses the primary point that was made by the majority referenced in #1... namely, it's trivial information that, the inclusion of which, violates the undue weight provision. Given that Wikipedia on the whole only lists the University granting degrees in biographies, there is no plausible reason to deviate in this particular case. If consensus is formed by rational arguments, I'd say there hasn't been an answer to those points presented.

Given that all this started after the Coulter myth of "not the real Cornell", singling out this article to include such granular detail as an exception to the norm is inappropriate. While I recognise that the established editors here are making a good faith arguments not related to that particular claim (by Coulter), the exceptional inclusion here is wholly inappropriate and only serves to give implied credibility to that explicitly refuted misinformation. Of the established editors Warren cited, most have given only lukewarm interest in inclusion (Badmintionhist actually said he "would actually prefer that the "specific college" information not be placed in either the Infobox or "Early life" sections""). If you look back into the history of this issue, things settled down several times with the prevailing wisdom that inclusion is not appropriate. In almost every case, a likely good-faith editor unfamiliar with previous discussions attempted to add the information, and Tommylotto pounced on every attempt to re-open the wound and promulgate more discord. Given his very limited range of contributions and the aggressive manner in which he's pursued this singular issue, I think that motivation is transparent. Otherwise, this would have been done 10 megs of text ago. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Also, to Scjessey specifically: Would you please quit being a fucking prat."

I have two problems with the comment above by Warren. It shows a complete lack of civility and focuses on the personality of an editor, rather than offering a way of improving the article. Let me restate the problem with this proposed inclusion. It violates the neutral point of view by attempting to insert an irrelevant piece of non-notable trivia into the article in an attempt to support a minority point of view expressed by a person known to dislike the subject by unfairly denigrating the value of the subject's degree. This seems to violate Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons in several ways, and so the burden falls firmly on the editors seeking inclusion to demonstrate why this trivial detail is necessary to improve the article. I believe that has not been demonstrated, so if the "inclusionists" persist on disruptively arguing about this we must seek informal mediation as the next logical step toward resolving this dispute, rather than referring to each other as "fucking prats" and such like. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no BLP or undo weight issue. We're taking about a half dozen extra words here and there would be no endorsement of or reference to some smear about the school. There is no fringe view that is being supported. If Coulter had tried to smear Olbermann by saying he was a baseball geek, that his political commentary is invalid because he's just a sportscaster and then launched into a tirade linking the various factual baseball items in this article to her criticism, would we need to remove all references to his baseball hobbies and activities? No, as long as we are not structuring the article to support the idea that baseball card collecting is somehow wrong or that former ESPN hosts can not have a valid political argument, we would not need to remove it for BLP or undo weight issues. If you think my comparison is crazy and would never happen, well now you know how I feel because its happening right now for an unbiased, biographical fact. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Another question, I think I remember that some BLP issues came up in the Michelle Malkin article relating to her position on immigration and her parents nationality. The Malkin is an anchor baby smears were kept out of the article but the facts they referenced, her maiden name, her parents names and their national origin were not censored. They remain in the article, because the facts themselves are not wrong, they were cited and alone they represent no weight or NPOV issues. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Consensus has broken down because the proponents of exclusion have failed to even attempt to convince the proponents of inclusion with REASON. They have used wikilawyering, attempted to shut down discussions with false claims of consensus, and improperly cited WP policies to support their position. First, these same editors fought verifiability to the point of defying common sense. When it became clear that the fact was verifiable due to an overwhelming number of reliable sources, including statements by the subject himself, then the material violated the policies on biographies of living persons. However, when one reads the actual policy, one sees that it only calls for the deletion of contentious facts if not verifiable. So, even if the college he attended was contentions (which it is not), it would still be included under WP:BLP, because it is conceded by every rational editor to be verifiable. Then this biographical fact was deemed not notable. The only problem with that argument is that notability is the standard for starting a new article, not including a fact in an existing article. Finally, the current refuge of the proponents of exclusion is the argument that the material gives undue weight to some unspecified something. But when you look at that actual policy you see that it governs the relative amount of attention given to competing viewpoints on a subject. So, that policy does not apply, because there are no competing viewpoints on this subject -- it is agreed by all that KO attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences -- there are no competing viewpoints on this basic biographical fact. Now that it has been established that this fact is verifiable, I think it is incumbent on the proponents of exclusion to show by reference to an actual WP policy (that actually applies) that it should be excluded. With that said, I am very disappointed with the conduct of some of the editors on this board. I have been bullied, threatened, wrongfully reported, and even had statements on this talk page summarily deleted for no good reason. Even the fact that I am relatively new to the community has repeatedly been used as an excuse to dismiss my point of view, which itself is a policy violation. Frankly, I think this article is in desperate need of a breath of fresh air as oppose to the biased editors who have demonstrated ownership over it. I would welcome any effort at mediation or third party dispute resolution. Tommylotto (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tommylotto, you're not being extended good faith any longer because the majority of the edits you've made to the entire project are focused on this one particular issue, and because you misrepresent and/or ignore the actual points made by those with whom you disagree. If you want to be given some good faith, take you foot off the gas here and demonstrate that you're interested in improving the project in non-contentious ways. A brand new editor who spends months insisting on trying to insert one contentious point without making any other significant contributions to the project is, by definition, a (very obvious) agenda warrior. It's always pretty amusing when a new, obvious POV warrior tells ranks of established editors that they don't understand most Wikipolicies -- ironically, you've claimed that we haven't provided a "good reason for exclusion"; however, when insisting on deviating from the Wikipedia standard practice (of listing the University, not the individual college) the burden is on those insisting upon the deviation to demonstrate how including that information improves the article. Regarding the rest, I've never presented any other rationale. Since it's been missed the first "eleventy-billion"-th time, allow me to re-re-enunciate: it's trivial information that, the inclusion of which, violates the undue weight provision -- given that Wikipedia on the whole only lists the University granting degrees in biographies, there is no plausible reason to deviate in this particular case; doing so doesn't add useful detail to the subject and seems to give implied credibility to that explicitly refuted misinformation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you incorrectly cite WP policies. You claim the information should be excluded because its trivial. However, when you actually read that policy, it says, "This style guideline deals with the way in which these facts are represented in an article, not with whether the information contained within them is actually trivia, or whether trivia belongs in Wikipedia." So once again, a policy that you claim calls for the exclusion of the information is once again completely inapplicable to the current dispute. And again, you cite undue weight, but that only governs the amount of attention given to differing viewpoints. There is not a majority view and a minority view about where KO attended school -- there is only the verifiable fact. Your only legitimate (i.e., logical) sounding argument is that it is WP policy to only cite to the university granting a degree in biographies and that it is forbidden to provide additional detail even if the detail is verifiable. However, I have not seem any evidence that such a policy exists. You have never linked to any official WP policy on this, you have just stated this is the policy and we are expected to accept that. Forgive me if I question whether such a policy actually exists. In any event, other editors have cited numerous examples of other biographies that violate this phantom policy. Finally, you allege that the information gives implied credibility to refuted misinformation. What WP policy is that? Once again, you are making up a policy to keep out information you want excluded. The only information that we seek to add is that KO attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. That is a verified fact. It implies nothing other than that KO attended Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Under no reasonable interpretation of the information provided could anyone reach the conclusion that Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is not part of Cornell University, particularly since I have not advocated changing the info box from identifying Cornell University. I'll lay off the gas when I see a legitimate WP policy calling for the information's exclusion.Tommylotto (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you just proved my point for me. Nice strawman, by the way; I especially like how you italicised him -- makes it easier to identify for those following along. Since you're assuming the role of educating a 5 year / 10,000+ edit veteran, I would suggest you take the time to educate yourself on the difference between Wikipedia policies, guidelines, mores, norms, and best practices. Your reply clearly demonstrates your knowledge of community SOP is severely lacking. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to mention his specific college at Cornell; it doesn't add to the biography. I noticed some discussion above about the fact that the article mentions the rejection from Harvard and scholarship to BU; if we want to remove that information too, I'd have no objection. It's arguably trivial as well and does little to illuminate who Olbermann is. Croctotheface (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Full credit: Badmintonhist suggested same earlier. I can't argue with the logic there; it was only restored because the removal also indicated it was unverified in the source (which it was). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so we finally learn that the material's exclusion is not justified by any WP policy, but is justified by some other lower order of regulation at WP? Then cite to the "Wikipedia guidelines, mores, norms, and best practices" that justify exclusion. You still have not provided a justification for exclusion. Link me to an official statement of a WP guideline, more, norm or best practice that justifies exclusion. Every policy or justification that you have cited so far has proven to be inapplicable on its face, so pardon me if I think you are just making this stuff up as you go along. BTW if you are going to start cutting "trivia" from this article, there will be plenty more that belongs on the chopping block.Tommylotto (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tommy, but the onus is on you to educate yourself about how the Wikipedia community governs itself. The short answer is "yes -- there is a hierarchy of rules that extends beyond policy". Pardon the lack of faith, but I think your intent is painfully clear and your edit history and aggressive pursuit of this one issue in the face of dozens of veteran editors is enough for any reasonable editor to conclude that you're not interested in following our rules, you're interested in pushing an agenda and/or winning a battle. I'm sure you believe that you're neutral and completely experienced, but empirical evidence leads the rest of us to a different conclusion. Best of luck... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Tommy, I've seen others cite various guidelines and policies earlier in this discussion, so I don't see a reason to do so again here. I will say, though, that your basic position seems to be that you won't be satisfied unless there's a policy called WP:OLBERCOLLEGE that says the college Keith Olbermann attended at Cornell doesn't merit inclusion in his biography. The bottom line is that we can and should exercise editorial discretion about what information is relevant to include. I'm not sure if there's a policy or guideline that says that in so many words, but it's implicit in everything. We begin with the presumption that we will include or exclude information to give the best possible presentation to the reader; we don't begin with the presumption that everything that's true or verifiable needs to go into the article unless a specific policy says it should not. Croctotheface (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Croc, I too have seen repeated citations to policies such as WP:BLP, WP:NOTE, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:UNDUE. The problem is that none of those policies are applicable. They have been cited with apparent authority by editors on this board to shut down discussion, but when you read those policies none of them are even applicable. I understand that there can be guidelines that are not fully fleshed out WP policies, but I have never seen anyone cite to such a guideline on this issue. If there is a guideline for biographies that states we only provide information on the university when verifiable information on the college is available, then someone, please cite to it. I can live with that, but Blax and Co. have tried to ride roughshod over anyone to question their authority on this issue, and since they have repeatedly misrepresented policies on this issue, I question their veracity on the existence of these phantom guidelines. The problem is that we have a benign simple verifiable biographical fact that is being excluded for an undefined reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 01:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you won't be satisfied unless there's a guideline called WP:OLBERCOLLEGE that governs this specific instance, then you're not going to be satisfied here. Conversely, there is certainly no guideline that says all verifiable information must be included, and in fact, guidelines you just mentioned (trivia, undue weight) specifically say the opposite, that there are good reasons to exclude certain kinds of verifiable information. Regarding the idea that this piece of information is benign: if it were indeed benign, I have trouble seeing how it could spark such a contentious debate. Beyond that, the basic question for me is "how does this help the biography," and I just don't see how it helps the reader understand Olbermann better. The only way that particular fact would be familiar to the average reader is if he or she had heard Ann Coulter use it as some kind of insult. Croctotheface (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Croc, I know you mean well, but go read those policies on undue weight and trivia. They really have absolutely nothing to do with this dispute. Undue weight concerns the amount of coverage afforded to majority and minority view points. There are no view points on this issue. Its just a fact he attended that school. No one disputes that point. The trivia policy is just a style policy and on its face does not govern whether a fact should be included or not. I am just looking for a citation to any WP policy or guideline or whatever that justifies excluding a known verifiable biographical fact. The closest I have seen is the claim that there is a practice of only identifying the university and not the college in biographies. However, I have not seen where that alleged guideline has ever been stated. Others have cited numerous exceptions to this alleged guideline where the college has been listed in very prominent biographies. So, the mere fact that most biographies only list universities, does not create a guideline to exclude verifiable information about a college when it is available. The major problem that I have is that same editors who claim this guideline exists (but will not cite to where it was decided), are the same editors who fought vigorously to exclude the information as unverifiable, and are the same editors who asserted one bogus policy argument after another for the exclusion of this information. It is clear that they don't want this information in the biography, because they want to protect KO from Coulter's smear and they want to prove Coulter wrong -- even to the limited extent that she was right. What does this add to the biography? That is simple. It is a biographical fact. It more accurately defines where he went to school. It indicates that he was a student in the New York statutory college system. None of this is gives any more credence to Coulter's smear than the truth with permit. Those who admire the history and purpose of the statutory colleges with find some thing to admire in the man. Those with unfair prejudice against the statutory colleges will get the information to feed their prejudice, but that is no reason to conceal a verifiable fact. We would not conceal Obama's African heritage just because of other's unfair prejudice against Africans, would we?Tommylotto (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

information from a New York Post artical that needs to be intagrated into the article

There should be someting in the artical about Mark Lavin taking to task Olbermann about his lack of ratings. Also a very tasteful NY Post article offers great insight in to Olbermann's personal life. audio here Artical Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.151 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons demand high-quality sourcing for information, and these sources do not qualify. The information you seek to include in this article could also be rejected on the grounds of a lack of weight and neutrality. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Compare with Oreilly Page!

Why can you edit Oreilly's page but not Olbermann's and why is there no Criticism or Claims of Bias section like on Oreilly's? Dont claim there are no reliable sources either because if Media Matters can work against Oreilly than Newsbusters, Media Research Center, and Olbermann Watch are equally as reliable. Come on this guy is an obvious cheerleader for the FAR LEFT. And he makes up lies about the most minuscule things, such as the Twitter account with his name on it that was supposedly being run by a "Fox News Operative" but it turned out it was MSNBC actually running it, hell even the NYT called him out on that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvintorres45 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Countdown with Keith Olbermann#Criticism and response Croctotheface (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)