Talk:List of Keith Olbermann's special comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Keith Olbermann's special comments 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 August 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tea Party movement#Use of term "teabagger"|teabagger]] The anchor (#Use of term "teabagger") is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Inappropriate

"and looks to capitalize on the popularity of his special comments" is NOT NPOV. Ademska 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. Henrymrx 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Ademska 08:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Comment summaries

There has been some recent disagreement regarding the proper method for summarizing the list of Special Comments. Several editors have voiced neutrality concerns; reverts have the following explainations:

While I recognize that we must neutrally present information, the issue here is not WP:NPOV, it is one of original research. MSNBC, as a primary source, already provides a summarization of each Special Comment. WP:OR strictly prohibits synthesis of thought, and without a reliable secondary source that summarizes each Comment that's exactly what we're doing -- original research. Listing a source's existing summary isn't "parroting talking points". We should not be in the business of injecting our own analysis of or summarization of each Special Comment, and in this case we should stick with what the source says. If need be, we can designate that each summary is from the source itself. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest here folks. Most of the articles in Wikipedia are rife with "orignal research," especially if you include the kind of O R that I am being "accused" of, which is merely to summarize cited materials in as neutral a way as I can. The issue is ,indeed, just as much NPOV as it is O R because both are supposed to be core principles of Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that the MSNBC summary of Olbermann's " Aug. 18 special comment" is clearly biased against McCain. We could, of course, change all of the comment summaries to the MSNBC versions and "warn" readers of the fact. The article would then be little more than a clone of another website. Perhaps this is what some editors want. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone there, Tex. First of all, please restrict your comments to the actual issues instead of questioning other editors' motives. Second of all, there is no "accusation" here -- we're all trying to work together to build a quality encyclopedia. This RFC is simply to ensure that we're all following our core principles, policies, and guidelines. I don't think the fact that other stuff exists is justification to allow original research, especially when the primary source has already provided a summary. The summary provided by the source is necessarily accurate because it's the source of the commentary. Please don't confuse using an existing summary with some sort of endorsement or constitutes bias on Wikipedia's part. Re-tooling an existing summary to try and sanitize it to attempt "fairness" is absolutely original research and can't be a better choice that going with a reliably sourced alternative. My proposal is to stick with sourced summaries and to indicate that they're straight from the horse's mouth. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put "accused" in quotation marks for a reason. The summary provided by a source is certainly the summary provided by a source but it isn't necessarily either accurate or fair. If someone asked you to summarize your trip to Las Vegas would your response necessarily be accurate? More to what should be the point, none of the Olbermann "special comment" summaries announce to the reader that they are "coming straight from the horse's mouth" In the absence of this information a reader would expect to see a summary that was neutrally written, not an extension of the views of the "horse" or the horses arse, whichever you prefer. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bait notwithstanding, please understand that the summaries are necessarily accurate because the source itself has summarized the main points of the Special Comments. By attempting to sterilize the point, you're changing the meaning. WP:NPOV is not an authorization to bleach politically charged commentary -- this list summarizes the content of the Special Comments, which is clearly best covered by the given summary from the source. Original research is not an option. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no, a source's own summaries are not necessarily accurate. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as false advertising. However, if the August 18 summary is indicative of the other summaries they are "accurate" in the sense that they are all basically an extension of Olbermann's politics. In which case use them all, but inform the reader in no uncertain terms that they are all coming straight from MSNBC. This will make a nice little project for you, and if you or someone else doesn't do it properly I'll be there to carp. Incidentally, there is no substantial difference between the kind of summary I did in the case of Olberman's August 18 "special comment" which you labeled "original research," and the kind of summaries that I did on the other Olbermann articles for which someone awarded me a barnstar. Who was that guy? Goodnight and good luck. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because the description changes the meaning of how it is described in the reference used for making that information. Changing the description could be WP:NOR violation. Docku^Hi 15:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Doc, but apparently you weren't listening to the dialogue very assiduously. The description blurbs were not referenced at all, only the the titles of each "comment," which is not the same thing. If the MSNBC descriptions of their boy's "special comments" are going to be used throughout the article then the reader should know this up front. Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation and attribution when possible or more reflective description (not white washed or polished) when not possible would have been a better description of what I had meant. It is my opinion, you are welcome to disregard it. Docku^Hi 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "attribution." Which, not to make a mountain out of a molehill, invites the question why you didn't attribute the quotation to MSNBC when you changed my description, especially since this was the one point that Blaxthos and I agreed on in our dialogue. I would also add that there should be no obligation whatsoever to use MSNBC's description of each comment which will tend toward bias since they are a form of advertising. If those descriptions are used, however, then the reader should know it. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the reference, i reverted it back to the factually correct previous version. Well, I should have attributed it to MSNBC myself, well, now, Thanks, you have done it yourself. Docku^Hi 21:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to use MSNBC's summary (which is the only option compliant with Wikipedia policies) then we must of course note that the summary comes from MSNBC. The advertising assertion is, of course, a red herring. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Practice what you preach. This sentence was written in the third person and thus became your interpretation. Switzpaw (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, here's another. How is the reader supposed to know that this is coming from the primary source? It's a reasonable expectation that a summary written in the third person (i.e. Keith explains ..) is spoken from an independent voice, be it a secondary source or an NPOV summarization from a Wikipedia editor. To use this rationale as a way to present Olbermann's opinion as fact is not following the spirit of the policy. Switzpaw (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "dude", I have no idea what the accusatory "practice what you preach" means. Second of all, read the comment just above, in which I specifically said "we must of course note that the summary comes from MSNBC." And finally, please note the line just above the list of special comments (in the article), which clearly states "The links in this table are to transcripts or videos of the special comments. The special comment titles are taken from the MSNBC website; they are not mentioned on air." :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research question

A question: is it original research when we write a summary and then cite the source material (maybe implicitly) as the source? And if so, isn't that what usually happens in articles that feature plot summaries for novels (like the Jane Eyre article) and Grey's Anatomy episodes and like, so how would the summaries for the special comments be any different? Purifiedwater (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says that's valid, but Blaxthos is trying to say it's original research. So I guess he considers the summaries to be an interpretation? Switzpaw (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Campaign Comment

As noticed during the beginning of 39th Special Comment(20th Oct. 2008), now the host Keith Olbermann started to publish Special Campaign Comment for the 2008 Presidential Election as his no.1 story of Countdown. In this case, 'the SCC' should creating the new and independent page of SCC as a sub-title of Special Comment (e.g. SCC-1, SCC-2), or just keep posting as the following SC (e.g. SC-40, SC-41)? What should we do? Any opinion will be delighted. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olbermann stated in October 17th's or 20th's broadcast, I believe, that the Special Campaign Comments would not really be Special Comments. But a SCC page would likely not meet notability requirements, so I would recommend creating a subsection of this article. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, this paragraph has been done eventually by some passionate user(Not by me, anyway). Thanks trillion for this hard work. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the interpretation summaries for each special comment

WP:RS says: Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion (for example, a work of fiction is not a reliable source for an analysis of the characters in the work of fiction). For such statements, we must cite reliable secondary sources. When secondary sources are not present, editors have to take on the role of TV Guide editor, and we're not supposed to do that. Switzpaw (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Suggestion: Use the MSNBC article subtitle as the content summary and be consistent. Switzpaw (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These "summaries" are essentially a few word blurbs that give the subject of the special comment. That's OK, correct? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have reliable secondary sources to present the summary in an impartial factual manner. If we used the MSNBC article subtitle, at least it would be obvious that it's MSNBC's characterization of the content. Switzpaw (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we covered this before. It's always better to use a summary from the primary source than writing our own. Your quote from WP:RS is not germane here -- this isn't "analysis", it's a verbatim summary from the source itself. ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. The notion that the MSNBC website is a primary source here is bogus. It's like saying that a book's jacket blurb is a primary source relative to an author's work.

B. Even if it weren't bogus, at present, most of the comment summaries for this article are not taken "verbatim" from the MSNBC website. A few are. Some are loosely paraphrased. Many are neither.

C. "Special comment titles" and "special comment summaries" are not the same thing. Notice that they have separate little boxes.

D. If the Olbermann-puffing MSNBC website descriptions are to be used verbatim, essentially making the whole article an advertisement (which means that other people, certainly not me, will be doing the work), then the reader should clearly be apprised of the fact. Caveat emptor. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you expect MSNBC to carry its content on its website? I don't see how "Olbermann-puffing" is in any way objectionable, unreasonable, or an argument for exclusion. Once again, this is primary source material, and MSNBC is the publisher -- if you don't understand the concept of primary source, I don't know what more you can do than to re-read the policy. I've only added two or three to the list, to which I know at least the last two were directly cited and contained verbatim summaries from the source. If you'd like to help us out, we need to make sure each entry is properly sourced and summarized. I'll be pretty busy in real life for about the next month, but I might have time to work on a few here and there. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I thought this was already there. Sorry for missing it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated - but is this needed?

If I were a registered editor I might consider launching a discussion as to whether this list is noteworthy enough for inclusion. I'll let others argue that; what I did instead was I updated the wording in the intro to past tense as Olbermann's "special comments" ended their run in 2012, though his current "Resistance" show for GQ is basically all "special comments". 136.159.160.6 (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Keith Olbermann's special comments. 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) 00:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]