Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:08, 12 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Olbermann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keith Olbermann article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Keith Olbermann received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Keith Olbermann. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Keith Olbermann at the Reference desk.

Template:Pbneutral

Height

This could be mildly relevant if... no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.39.150 (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Liberal

Here is a list of sources either saying that Olbermann is liberal, or using stronger language than that. Sources include the WaPo, NPR, PBS, USA Today, and CNN. Anybody want to argue that's not enough that it should go into the opening sentence? William Jockusch (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly argued, for years, that such labels are unnecessary. The term is used appropriately (instead of pejoratively) later in the lede, and that is sufficient. Please go back into the talk page archives and review the exhaustive discussions rather than relitigating it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know editors are suppose to operate in good faith and assume the best of other editors. However, I can't help but notice that after having my addition of 'liberal' deleted twice for 'unsourced', once it becomes clearly sourced then it is removed for other reasons.

Beck and others are identified as conservatives. To delete it, would be stupid, because that is what he is. This is an enclyclopedia giving explainations. Olberman is liberal. To not identify him as such, is to not fulfill our obligation as an encyclopedia. However I also know others may have an agenda other than giving factual information. Rodchen (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Scjessey: how ironic you criticize William for basing his editing on otherstuff--while you have the audacity to try to hold this article hostage to an old consensus--you know better than that.

Agree with William and Rodchen. "Liberal" is an important adjective to describe his obvious political ideology. It is sourced. And there is now consensus for this change. I'm going to be bold and implement the new consensus. – Lionel 02:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. Don't be ridiculous. Does this argument have to be repeated on every single biography of anyone even slightly political? Generally it's best to avoid spoon-feeding labels to the reader, or if necessary, rely on self-identity. This case is particularly egregious as he specifically says that he's not liberal (and he certainly doesn't fall in the traditional definition of American Liberalism). To state as fact what he specifically denies would be a violation of WP:BLP. It doesn't matter if some notable journalist has stated the opinion that Olbermann is liberal, we can't state it as fact.

This was an extensive argument on Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) because he identifies as "traditionalist" rather than conservative but many editors repeatedly sought to label him conservative anyway. (I argued strongly against it). In the end, it was decided it's best to just leave the label out and let the reader decide. It shouldn't be an issue at all, but it pops up on many pages. I've found that generally, it's the editors who hold opposing viewpoints who try to label people or things as liberal or conservative (and defend their attempts tooth and nail) because they're trying to "warn" readers about a subject they disagree with. That's no way to craft an encyclopedia. We discuss his political leanings and his own take on it in the article, that's enough. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to provide a link?William Jockusch (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, ironically Olbermann uses the "I am an American" because of BOR. I think, however, it is pretty clear that Olbermann is far more to the left than BOR is to the right. Arzel (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Look, this is pretty fucking straightforward. Calling someone a "liberal" is not the same as calling someone a "conservative". The former term has become a pejorative, but the latter means what it always has meant. This article already discusses Olbermann's relationship to the label in the lede in a responsible way. Attempts to shove the label in at the beginning betray an obvious desire to label Olbermann pejoratively. And arguments about sourcing are irrelevant because it is already exhaustively sourced when it appears later in the lede in its proper context. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of language -- is there a policy about what is appropriate on talk pages?William Jockusch (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The policy concerning language is Misplaced Pages:Civility. Bad language like I used above is not prohibited because it isn't directed at a person or group. It would be entirely different, however, if I swore at someone. Do you have anything to say about the substance of my comment, rather than its profanity? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So Liberal = Moderate? And we cannot call liberal's liberal because it is a pejorative? Does that mean if I call you extrememly liberal that I am saying your are an extrememly ? What utterly inane arguments to make.

No. I'm not saying that because conservatives have moved to the right, so have liberals. They still occupy the same position they always have, it's just that there is a wider gap between the two groups. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is extremely liberal and 10 is extremely conservative, most liberals occupy the 3-5 range whereas most conservatives have shifted from the 5-8 range to the 8-10 range. But 5 is still the center, not 7. Do you get what I'm saying? There are very few moderate conservatives left. Check out this interesting commentary on the phenomenon of liberal as a pejorative from 2006. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I get what you are saying. However, what you are saying has no basis in reality. You are claiming that Liberals have moved towards the middle, therefore they are now moderate, at least relatively speaking. A simply view of the current Blue-dog collection of Dems shows that this is clearly not true. There are hardly any moderate Dems, and the few that exist are getting kicked out of their own party (like Lieberman). In reality the left has moved so far to the left that anyone that is not on the far left is viewed as right, and anyone to the right of them is viewed as an extremist. The far left has taken over the Democratic party. That is why they are going to lose the Wisconsin recall. That is why Artur Davis switched parties. That is why Lieberman is not longer a Dem (even though he was the VP pick!) Arzel (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you don't get what I'm saying. I never said liberals have moved to the right. Looking at the first sentence of my previous comment, I can see it is possible to misread it as the opposite. Just to be clear, I do not think liberals have moved anywhere on the political spectrum. Lieberman left the party of his own accord after being dissatisfied with losing a primary. Artur Davis switched parties because he lost his primary and is a poor loser. I would prefer to see Scott Walker retain his position in Wisconsin because the people of Wisconsin elected him and so now they should suffer his full term. I hate recall elections. I also have no time for unions. You have me all wrong, but I'm not the least bit surprised. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems the objection some have is with the 'label', so I am trying a bit of a compromise, something similar used in O'Reiley article which hopefully will be acceptable. Rodchen (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your solution employs original research in that there are no sources to corroborate "widely described", even though it is pretty obvious. Simply saying he has been described as a liberal eliminates this problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That works. We're acknowledging the perception, while not getting into WP:WTA or WP:SYNTH by presenting his statement as false. And we're doing so in the lede, so I don't see how there could be any objections. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I used the phrase 'widely considered' because that was the same phrase used on O'Reilly's page to describe him being conservative. Since William gave us a list of sources from WaPo, NPR, PBS, USA Today, and CNN that describe him as liberal, using the adjective 'widely' seems appropriate, but I sure won't knit-pick as some do. Rodchen (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Using "widely" because of lots of sources is synthesis (and perhaps a bit weasely). Also, articles are independent of one another so what happens in the Billo article is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand each article is independent, but if you feel that strongly about this issue, then me highlighting this same issue on the O'Reilly article, I assume would make you take action there. Rodchen (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that as an advocate of article independence, I should go to the Billo article and make that the same as this one. That makes absolutely no sense. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times you use what is in another article to justify what you want to do here, Rodchen, you might want to reexamine your understanding of articles being independent. As for "feeling strongly about the issue", you seem to feel strongly about the O'Reilly issue. However, you've never edited that article with this user name. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That is correct, because I consider the word 'widely considered' to appropriate. That term in used in the O'Reiley, so from my vantage there is no need to edit it. However, I would think Scjessey want to be informed of other articles which are offensive to him, to allow him the opportunity to 'correct it'. Rodchen (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Scjessey considers it to be appropriate as well. The point here is that the label was challenged. The O'Reiley article has nothing to do with this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't give a frog's fat arse what is said in the Billo article. I have a finite amount of time to work on Misplaced Pages articles and I only roam outside my watchlist for non-controversial stuff like removing vandalism. "Widely considered" is SYNTHESIS, and is therefore against Misplaced Pages policy (including WP:BLP). "Has been described" just states a plain fact without using Misplaced Pages's voice to claim something that isn't directly sourced. This thread needs to be closed because it is going nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Old requests for peer review