Talk:Keith Olbermann

Did he damage his depth perception by hitting his head on the top of the door frame or getting it caught in the door? These seem different to me, but in the "Olbermann at ESPN" section it says he got it caught in the door. In the "trivia" section it says that he hit the frame.

_______________________________

Do we really need this trivia? I'd accept the shoe sizes, the damaged depth perception (however, I'd remove the "Ouch.") and the Celiac Disease. But if no one objects I think the vertebrae and the pajama-part should be deleted.

_______________________________

"Big Guy" Trivia

Shoe size is 13 1/2 or 14.

Possesses six lumbar vertebrae instead of the usual five.

Damaged depth perception in 1980 by rushing to catch a subway car at New York's Shea Stadium and slamming his head into the top of the door frame. Ouch. [edit]

Non "Big Guy" Trivia

Has Celiac Disease (gluten intolerance).

Claims not to blog in his pajamas, because he doesn't own pajamas.

__________________________________

---Wintermute- 21:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trivia is supposed to be trivial

I think getting rid of the pajamas part is fine (although there are quite a few female fans who DO think this a fun fact to know). I'm also glad that you left the vertebrae part, though. Combining the sections is more efficient, but less interesting to read.

-S*Bufe

Of course you're right... trivia is supposed to be trivial. However, I also feel that it belongs on a fanpage rather than in a Wiki-article. A Wiki-article should offer a quick overview, some facts and further links with additional information, so how about this: find a good fan-site that offers this trivia and add the link to the article (right after the trivia part). I think that would be a solution we could both live with, wouldn't it? ---Wintermute- 09:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of such a fan site. I own Olbermann.org, and might start one someday. I'm content with the article as it stands. -S*bufe

I think the trivia gives you a picture of who he is. For instance, Olbermann has done several segments on Celiac Disease. The pajama thing is a bit too cheeky for me, but the vertibrae part is not. Boisemedia

Great! So we're agreed. Now we just have to wait for a vandal to come by and put in a big paragraph about liberal paranoia and tinfoil hats. -S*Bufe

---

I see, so in the mind of S*Bufe anything less than a founding father of the ACLU is a 'vandal'? Gotcha!

Truth be told, Olbermann has made some vicious hateful comments about James Dobson, especially when he got caught flat out LYING. And, like they say, if the paranoid tin foil hat fits...wear it!

Lots of changes coming to this article. It's a blatant suck up piece and doesn't even deal with Keith's HORRIBLE reputation (amongst both liberals AND conservatives) for his antics behind the camera.

Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't see any of your changes. I wonder why? Whoops! I see now. You've been banned for life. Ouch. That's gotta hurt. LOL! Eleemosynary 06:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I added to the trivia section his beef with O'Reilly.

To 209.86.17.244: Why did you take off the Recountdown article?

i put it back

---

There should be some mention in the article about his unwillingness to back down from James Dobson's response to the Countdown's report about Dobson's charges against the We Are Family Foundation. You know, that thing about Sponge Bob. Olbermann and Dobson are now fierce rivals because of this. I don't blame Olbermann for taking on Dobson. Somebody's got too. :-) -Amit

"Somebody's got too. :-)" -Amit

Why?Big Daddy 14:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From The "Pretty Much Says It All' Department

"I don't know of such a fan site. I... might start one someday. I'm content with the article as it stands." -S*Bufe

LOL! Articles about WAY-out-there liberals like Keith Olbermann get the stamp of approval from potential 'fan site' operators, while Bill O'Reilly's article is edited by people that make Michael Moore seem like Phyllis Schaffly.

I think I'm starting to understand Wikipedia circa late 3rd Qtr 2005. And it's breathtaking! Big Daddy 14:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Olbermann a "WAY-out-there" liberal? Only somebody who has never actually met anyone to the left of Paul Gigot could say that.

Check out that guy's talk page. He was clearly a neo-con and all-around trouble maker posing as an independent mediator. And he refused to be crticized.

Hmmm, are we sure Bill O'Reilly didn't have an account on here? :) --D-Day 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

related by marriage

It says he's related to Mike Tyson by marriage. It also says he's never been married. Therefore, if they are related it is through Tyson's marriage (to Robin Givens)? Not according to google, but maybe someone else knows? Kaisershatner 16:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is true. Tyson's adoptive father, Cus D'Amato's niece married Olbermann's father's brother, making Keith Mike Tyson's cousin.

Regarding changes by 12.167.224.228

• What's the purpose of deleting this?

"In high school, Olbermann compiled an extensive list of first and third base coaches in baseball history. This documentation now sits in the Hall of Fame, and is considered the definitive compendium of first and third base coaches in baseball history." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Aside from the obvious typos and misspellings (not a great way to honor the deceased), being "taken to task" by OlbermannWatch hardly qualifies as an event worthy of record in the Wikipedia.

"He was taken to task inthe blogosphere for trying to make the story about himself the day after news veteran Peter Jennigs passed away from lung cancer." 128.138.211.139 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Proof?

"Owing to its more jaundiced view of the White House than other cable news programs, it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration."

This seems like such an unable to be proven and potentially fallacious statement. Is it encyclopedic? -- iKato 01:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recently, i added a perfectly legitmate commentary on Olbermann's feud with O'Reilly, two minutes later it was deleted...Real objectivity here huh??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.138.155.98 (talk • contribs) .

Look at the reasons for the revert. I'm sure you think your original theory holds all the water in the world, but unless you can site a reputable source Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --sigmafactor 16:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

www.keitholbermann.org

http://www.keitholberman.org hosts the only discussion forum on the internet devoted to Keith Olbermann. I set it up specifically becasue of that lack.

Please do not trim the external link to my site as it is valid and will quickly become the major fan site.

To trim my site up and leave a link to Bloggerman is not correct--Keith has abandoned Bloggerman and has not posted to it since mid-December when he took on the Sports job with Dan Patrick again. He doesn't have time.

Further, it isn't like Bytes are in such short supply readers can't be given these options. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.215.99 (talk • contribs) .

The Wikipedia style manual says to limit fan site links to one site. I picked the one I did because it seemed to be the biggest. I left the link to his blog becuase it's an official site. --waffle iron 16:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to your site again because:

• It's small and
• It fails WP:VANITY

--waffle iron 16:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is small becasue it is 48 hours old. It won't stay small. It doesn't need to be deleted. The style manual is in error. http://www.keitholbermann.org Is the only forum devoted to Keith Olbermann on the internet. It is unique. That is why I spent money to create it, it is something not available elsewhere. The link belongs. Please enlighten as to your personal agenda against this site?

If you look at the discussion behind that rule page you see the conscensus is this:

"The answer is to be reasonable. If there are only three or four sites findable on the web pertinent to an article, and all of them are fan sites, then linking to them all is reasonable. If there are twenty or thirty pertinent sites then use judgement and link to the best ones, just as in an article on an historical figure, you would link to web pages that were most useful in respect to that article, regardless of whether a page happened to be on a university website or was a good discussion or essay on someone's personal website."

There isn't 20-30 here, there were 4, now there is 1. Deleting my site but leaving another is blatantly unfair. Playing tug of war--which is what we will otherwise do--is childish and non-productive. My site isn't vanity becasue I am NOT Keith Olbermann. It is a serious site which I am seriously promoting.

I did not delete anyone else's site, and I would appreciate it if folks would stop deleting mine.

Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote a website you own. You admit you just created it and you are using this to increase your traffic. That's advertising and therefore fails according to WP:SPAM --waffle iron 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all--the fact that I created the site does not prevent me from noting it's existance. I happened to notice it first since I wrote it. It is not spam. Try again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.215.99 (talk • contribs) .

Please read WP:SPAM, especially:

Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.

Also, your site has four pages; one of which is a redirect to a more established site's video section.

Reverting.--sigmafactor 06:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Bias

Since the section is a mess, I propose a change. Because bias can only be thrown around and is strictly opinion, I think the section should be changed to just cover his feud with Bill O'Reilly.

Unlike the bias, his problems with O'Reilly can be well documented in fact and should be covered anyway, as they are an important part of his career. The section, after you remove the opinion statements and the bits without cited sources, are all about O'Reilly anyway.

Are there any objections?

Ltspoonstick 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears that several users have reverted the changes you have repeatedly made, possibly suggesting you are alone in your opinion.

I modified these sections to address all issues.

That's the thing, I haven't made any changes. I've reverted the article each time the Accusations of Bias section has been put up, and it keeps getting reverted right back.

I appreciate the changes, but the opinion section is still there, wrongly so. It's almost ridiculous. I'm not saying there shouldn't be something about whether he's biased, I just think that "it has developed a loyal viewership among critics of the George W. Bush administration" (if a Democrat was in office, do you think he wouldn't criticize them?) and "..Some conservatives.." don't belong. It needs editing.

Ltspoonstick 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost fired?

I'm confused - how did Olbermann almost get fired from MSNBC for saying "Do whatever you have to do to stop smoking — now. While it's easier"? Clearly something's missing from this story. Nobody gets fired for telling people that they should stop smoking. Rhobite 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence.. feel free to replace it if you can shed some light on why MSNBC would fire a commentator for promoting healthy behavior. It doesn't pass the common sense test. Rhobite 15:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feud with O'Reilly

user 81.135.245.231 keeps removing the incident that Olbermann played on his show... that of threatening callers on a call-in show for calling him and saying Keith's name. John wesley 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:81.135.245.231 It had to be removed in previous forms as it has no context. The majority report is not credible. Now that there is evidence that Olbermann played it, it should stay.

I did not know the M.Rpt played parodies, I need to double check their stuff now. John wesley 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)