Talk:Gretchen Carlson - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Home Lander (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 13 February 2018 (OneClickArchiver archived Jon Stewart comments of December 8, 2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:03, 13 February 2018 by Home Lander (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver archived Jon Stewart comments of December 8, 2009)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gretchen Carlson 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

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.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

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

	Biography portal 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 (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Beauty Pageants High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners 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.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Television Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Gender studies Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Minnesota Portal Selected Biography Template:Friendly search suggestions

This talk page is becoming long. Consider archiving inactive discussions.

Studied at Oxford University in England

The source for this is the Fox News website. Most likely she studied for a course at Oxford while a student at Stanford. Does anyone have any other sources for this? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article says she studied at Oxford while a student at Stanford. Is there some contention about that? Is the wording not right? Would you word it differently? Not sure how notable it really is, but whatever. --Tom (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Miss America site (which I normally take as authoritative on most Miss America bios; they have lots of reasons to get it right) also includes a mention of the time at Oxford, but is similarly obscure with details. BusterD (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The source (Fox) says: "Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford University and also studied at Oxford University in England", while the article says "While a student at Stanford, she studied abroad at Oxford University". Did she take a course at Oxford while a student at Sanford or was she accepted as a student at Oxford University? I would guess the first, but the source is ambiguous. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for what the point is here or a proposed rewrite. Should the article read While a student at Stanford, she studied abroad at Oxford University, but it should be noted that she was never accepted as a student at said school, just in case you were confussed...--Tom (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed link to list of articles from MMfA

A link to a list of articles that mention Carlson? --Tom (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a compromise. As I said in the thread above, I'd be happy to replace the summary with a longer section going into more detail, such as her whitewashing of the Bush administration (), her lying about Obama's proposed tax credit (), or her trillion-dollar error on Social Security (). If that would seem better to you, let me know. In the meantime, it would be absurd to write a bio of Carlson without mentioning the allegations of conservative bias, which your edit would completely expunge, so I'll restore the previous compromise. JamesMLane t c 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an non partisan sources? --Tom (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the BLP board. Going back and reading this talk page, its like ground hog day :)...anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is wiki turning into a democrat sounding board?

Interesting that wiki seems to be pandering to the left by allowing a 'Controversies' section into what should be simply a non-biased factual account of a persons' biographical info, not injections of personal ideas of what they deem to be a controversy. It's really interesting, and actually saddening, that Jon Stewart, a comedian, is given any kind of merit as a source for a biased controversies section on anything or anyone. Is the DNC invading Wiki now? George Sorros...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.209.233 (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted comedy show's comments

A comedy television show, though clever and humorous, is transient in nature and is woefully inadequate as a source for a living person's biography. Please discuss here to show good faith before reverting. Veriss (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clever and humorous, sure, but more importantly: grounded in fact. The latter reason is why such material goes beyond being a comedic segment and instead serves as social commentary. "It's funny because it's true," if you will. If it can be shown that relevant parts of the segment were taken out of context or fabricated for the sake of comedy I would fully agree with you that such a depiction of Carlson is unfit for an encyclopedia. At this point, it does not appear that that is the case, and so I have reverted the changes.

Finally, asking for "good faith" discussion before reverting changes, while failing to give the same yourself, is rather backhanded. There has been ample discussion on this material above and it was widely agreed that the comments were fair and appropriate. No new information has been brought forward, merely an unsubstantiated opinion, and so there should be no reason for such an edit. 134.88.191.136 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not just a collection of "facts". How notable is this incident and widely covered? Does it constitute undue weigth compared to the rest of the bio? --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How much weight should be given to the allegation that she exhibits right-wing bias? As I noted above, I'd be fine with including a detailed litany of her distortions and outright lies that favor conservatives, but as a compromise we've gone with this comparatively brief summary. The latest edits would (as has been attempted in the past) completely expunge from her bio any reference to possible bias. That would clearly be insufficient weight. JamesMLane t c 18:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using Wilipedia to promote you own biasis, agendas and hatred of others. --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring WP:AGF. Above, especially in the thread the thread "having a political position is not "controversial", I've provided a detailed explanation of why the material is appropriate. Notably, I've cited the WP:NPOV policy that says we report facts about opinions. It applies even to opinions that some Misplaced Pages editors consider ill-founded. You choose to ignore all the lengthy substantive arguments and instead ascribe my view entirely to my "biasis , agendas and hatred of others." The material that you're trying to suppress is consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. If you don't like that material, do some actual work and find quotations from notable spokespersons that praise Carlson for her fairness and balance. Those opinions can then be considered for inclusion on the same basis. JamesMLane t c 05:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are using a reference that is a search result for articles with her name in it? AFG doesn't mean I have to ingore editors with an obvious hostility towards BLP subjects. --68.9.117.21 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC).Sorry I wasn't signed in. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Notably, I've cited the WP:NPOV policy that says we report facts about opinions.

Certainly valid, but that observation is not unqualified...particularly as related to WP:BLP consideration. WP:NPOV (italics emphasis in original)...

...means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

"Significance" is at issue here and can be resolved by satisfying the sourcing provisions mandated by WP:V. While an article subject's ideological perspective may be worthy of note, that a "conservative" host might, on occasion, demonstrate a "conservative" bias that irritates those of an opposing ideology is hardly encyclopedic or "controversial". Whether alleged demonstrations of that conservative bias rise to a level of "significance" to warrant mention in this article must be supported by the provision of clearly adequate third-party sourcing demonstrating that significance. The provision of a "Google search" for sundry "Media Matter's" mention of her name as purporting to satisfy WP:V sourcing mandates for inclusion is about as lame as it can get. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because it is a living person and appears to be piling on of insignificant negative material. Any editor has the right and is in fact encouraged to remove questionable material until it can be shown with a reasonable consensus to be worthy of inclusion. I started a section here to discuss it, which is hardly backhanded. Reverting it without discussion after NPOV BLP was called into question is a problem.

I may be mistaken, but Comedy Central is not well known for rigorous editorial review. I enjoy watching Jon Stewart and many of his colleagues but I certainly don't confuse them with the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, ABC, CBS, BBC, etc. Perhaps his sketches carry a little more weight then Jay Leno or David Letterman monologues but certainly not enough for a BLP.

It doesn't pass the "so what" test. She hosts a light-weight morning coffee talk show. They march out cute puppies, interview girl scouts and every thing else. Jon Stewart lambastes every journalist -- who cares. I am still of the opinion that it needs to be removed. Veriss (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am still of the opinion that it needs to be removed.

I fully concur. Whatever notable might be the recipient of Stewart barbs is irrelevant to a determination of "significance" under WP:V, particularly where WP:BLP governs. Without provision of additional sourcing suggesting some "significance" to Stewart's observations on Carlson, this is triviality masquerading as substance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The only purpose of JS in this instance is to denegrate the subject. In general this is a violation of BLP. One of the biggest problems I have with this section, and have had for some time, is that there is no way to determine if it is at all true. The implication is that since Carlson is well educated that she must know the meaning of those words, and by extention she must know the meaning of every word less she be viewed as intentionally playing down her intelligence. I don't believe it belongs and never have. It is not encyclopedic and not very notable, not to mention I do believe it is a BLP violaiton. Arzel (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JamesMLane was the only non-IP acct to respond as opposing over the past two days since I originally raised my objection. Since he self-identifies as a "Hostile to the right wing"" editor and the self-described attorney twice reverted my previous edits, by removing what I think is poorly sourced and insignificant material, even after I raised BLP violation objections, I notified him on his user talk page of my intent to remove the section for good this time.

I firmly believe that I am fully in the right if I deleted it tonight but I want to be sure I have a fair consensus and that he has had ample opportunity to respond to my more then fair notice of reversion. If someone else moves the offending paragraph to the talk page, I won't object. Veriss (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) If the consensus is that someone can graduate with honors from Stanford without knowing middle school vocabulary words, the JS segment would not be funny. But that's rather irrelevant, isn't it, because our consensus on fact is inconsequential.

"Ignoramous", "Double Dip Recesion" and "Czar" are not exactly middle school vocabulary words. I doubt many people here knew the complete meaning of Double Dip Recesion before 2008, and how many knew that Ignoramous refers to a Lawyer? What it comes down to is if I can find a word which you don't know the meaning of that seems like it should be commonly known, then I can say you are a liar. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, I'll get technical: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Now, obviously it's been published in a video format ... but is that a reliable source? Turns out Jon Stewart being the most trusted source of news in what is, granted, an unscientific sampling doesn't need to come into play based on what Loodog posted below, because other non-comedic sources cited the clip:

Made it to the HuffPo, as well as a few others ... --Louiedog (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Made it into a liberal online newspaper, yeah that is really surprising. Anything that trashes FOX makes into HuffPo. Arzel (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, that only addresses one argument, that this segment is verifiable, not that it's notable. Type "Gretchen Carlson" then hit the space bar in the Google bar on the top right of your browser and read the auto-complete entries: Daily Show and Jon Stewart both appear. I think that is rather definitive evidence that this is something significant about her, and whether we think it's true or even whether it's true at all is rather negligible, because it has been published. I don't know how else one could possibly determine whether something is "notable" about a person without bringing their own personal point of view into the discussion. You can cite other news sources like Loodog did, perhaps, but then we're back to verifiability.

Again, I don't know much Wikipedian policy and there's a chance I'm doing something very wrong here, but I'm simply using common sense. The little Wikipedian policy I have read is ambiguous and contradictory: on the one hand it states "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone ... look out for biased or malicious content." and yet on the other hand it states "All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" ... how are we supposed to represent all viewpoints if we aren't allowed to report biased or malicious content? Negative reports are by definition malicious and the majority of praise and criticism about newspeople, even from so called "reliable secondary sources," is inherently biased. (That's kind of the point of the Daily Show.) Seems like the problem isn't with the article, to me. 134.88.191.136 (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As an act of good faith, I personally notified the two who previously were most vocal supporting retention (including the IP) that I was requesting a show of hands for a consensus and we let it run for four days, which in my observation of Misplaced Pages is fairly generous. Both parties I notified have responded and are included in the head count.

We let this run for four days and it appears the final count is five supporting removal versus three, mostly IPs, supporting retention. I will remove the text and associated sources from the main article at this point. I know that she is not a significant player in the news hosting business but I truly feel that regardless of her supposed political affiliation she is a human and certainly deserves a fair shake on her Wiki bio. Veriss (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If I may, a quote copied directly from the introduction of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" article on Misplaced Pages: "Critics, ...have chastised Stewart for not conducting sufficiently hard-hitting interviews with his political guests, some of whom he may have previously lampooned in other segments. Stewart and other Daily Show writers have responded to both criticisms by saying that they do not have any journalistic responsibility and that as comedians their only duty is to provide entertainment." This should hopefully settle the farcical idea of including this, or any other quote from Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Whoever Happens to be Hosting" in any biography of a living person and from any attempts to include it as a supposed collegiate reference. Thanks for bearing with me. Veriss (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism

This article receives the same vandalism on a daily basis from multiple IP addresses. It almost appears to be an organized effort. What is the threshold for requesting semi-protection? Veriss (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I had requested semi-prot soon after this latest spate of vandalism commenced but withdrew it to "wait and see" a bit longer. I think, however, we're getting quite close to requiring it now. Let's see what transpires from this point on before petitioning as there are several (I think) GF IP editors who have contributed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Show Update!

Gretchen is no longer the co-host of Fox & Friends. She is going to have her own show called "The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson." Her bio needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalenjm (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems to have been added to the article and I changed it in the summary box on the side of the page. It might be worth editing the rest of the article at some point, but her new show is still new, so I think it might make sense to wait until the show has established itself.MikeNM (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013 Gretchen Carlson Fox News

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the first sentence of Gretchen Carlson's wiki from "who co-hosts the Fox News morning show Fox & Friends... " to "who hosts the Fox News daytime show 'The Real Story' with Gretchen Carlson weekdays at 2PM ET. Carlson was the co-host of the Fox News Morning show Fox & Friends along with Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade." This should be changed because she is no longer the host of Fox & Friends, she is now the host of a new daytime show - "The Real Story" with Gretchen Carlson on the Fox News Channel. I would appreciate it if the wiki was updated. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.109.171 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2013

Done. I suggest that if you're interested, you start the new show stub at The Real Story with Gretchen Carlson. The Fox News site doesn't have a show url yet, though I see a few press release-y articles in the media. BusterD (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

References

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/09/25/real-story-with-gretchen-carlson-to-debut-sept-30-on-fox-news/

Violinist Claims

Moderately interesting if true, but nothing about the violin piece is sourced here. George Bounacos (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Please feel invited to correct this. A cursory search renders several reliable sources. Offline sources should be easy to find. BusterD (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Promo language in lead

Gaining experience as anchor and reporter for several local network affiliates, ...

Either this phrase was meant to begin "After gaining ..." or it's straight-up promotional language.

I suggest:

After gaining experience{{what}} as anchor and reporter for several local network affiliates{{which}}{{when}}, ...

— MaxEnt 13:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gretchen Carlson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Bill Oreilly and the guy from Red Eye

I'm fine with this page but we need to reedit Keith Olberman's page to include criticism from Bill O'reilly and the guy from Red Eye...because, you know, it's important to include criticism on any political figure's page from extremists on the other side who are prone to hateful diatribes.

Categories: