Talk:Erin Burnett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Erin Burnett article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Reflection

Having recovered from a long 4 hour drive, I was going to do a summary, consensus, and recommendation to start a consensus edit for an admin to change the article. But, it has been unprotected so that is late.

Unfortunately, it will not look at if will stay that way long, but I will give it a try. Just the lack of a NPOV and the quoting of blogs, which a few days ago was against [WP:BLP], shows the edit war will start anew.

I also have used this edit to revert the vandalism of a user, who was warned [1] not to change the edits of others. I hope that individual will respect the comments of others. This page is the talk page and not the main page so changes are handled a little different.[2]. I see no reason for that user to change the headings of others or to place a major heading as a minor sub-heading . ADMINS PLEASE ENFORCE.

I will edit the main page in a bit but need to put forward a few comments. I will not place all the references here as many are already on this page so they don't really need to be duplicated.

Just sometimes it is better to argue with a wall instead of a person. After a while, the wall will talk back to you and then after a little while longer, will agree with you.

Having put up with a lack of civility, stubborness, threats, misquotes, and parania, it is time to end the ridiculous debate. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on the views of an editor who owns a page. If the change to the page can not be agreed on quickly, or an edit war starts again, then I ask an admin to protect the page again and bring this forward to arbitration as it is now wasting everyone's time for no good reason. I am not asking for my edit to be the final, but will see what will happen. In fact, others are invited to edit as that is what wikipedia is. The truth needs to be heard and enough of the edit war that is way too one sided.

As for signings, it seems some don't understand how to. After editing a page, place 4 of the ~ at the end. This will automatically place your name ( with a link) and a date stamp. It is also good practice to preview your edit before saving the page. Also, place an edit summary as this helps in some cases when a quick review is done.

Please, everyone be nice and civil. --statsone 04:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I apologize for not signing some comments and then editing them with a sig. Have you been to User:Theresa knott's talk page? She listed some good sources there. You idiot kid 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No she didn't. ICarriere did. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for China Quote entry

Alright, let's use this space to come to a consensus regarding the quotation and format.

I believe the majority of us want to include the following: 1. Header = Controversy 2. The Hardball quotation in full + Hardball transcript source 3. Reference of quotation on The Daily Show + video link. This was also just briefly mentioned on the program iCought, but I didn't want the full thing - anyone else see this? 4. EB's explanation + source.

It should not include any of the following: 1. Any sort of opinion or judgement on what she said. Avoiding polemic adjectives such as "liberal talk show host." You idiot kid 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree/disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by You idiot kid (talk • contribs) 05:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, everywhere you look on Wikipedia. The bias of a talk show host is noted.
Whether it's the conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh or the liberal talk show host Jon Stewart it's relative. It's not a negative in either case, it's merely descriptive of their views. Furthermore, showing the bias of where commentary comes from reduces the bias of the article. see, WP:NPOV
As to the quote, it became irrelevant once it was clarified. - ICarriere 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this addition while I was putting in the quote. I have tried to place an edit with a wp:npov so it looks like it is a good place to start. I would like to see some better references for the comments by Jon Stewart and the follow comments later on. --statsone 05:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that you reverted my add. That did not help move us closer to a resolution. Nor was it done by any consensus.
What I inserted into the article was a fair depiction of the events. Anybody who reads the page can watch the videos and decide for themselves. - ICarriere 05:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point about labeling JS as a "liberal talk show host" but I wonder if that is what he would consider himself? Where is the line between fact and opinion here? Furthermore, I think the original quote should be in there so those who come to read this page can see what exactly stirred the controversy and why exactly she felt the need to clarify. You idiot kid 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We cannot call him liberal unless he calls himself liberal. We certainly cannot state "The mis-interpreted comment". That is pure opinion and certainly violates NPOV. According to his Wikipedia article Jon Stewart is a political satirst. Why not call him that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The China quote section definitely needs revision as it stands. Burnett's original comment clearly generated controversy - she would not have felt the need to clarify/backtrack (unprompted) the following week otherwise. Yet ICarriere removed this quote as "vandalism", leaving only the second of the two quotes. Surely we need the inclusion of both quotes in the section? And either "satirist" or "comedian" is a better label for Stewart than "talk show host". Gr1st 10:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I know I'm not the only one who's tired of ICarriere's playing games with this article. Somehow, the editing of an entire article is being bent to the will of a single editor who's all-but-functioning as Burnett's damage-control PR representative. If any further deletion of the original Burnett/China quote occurs, or if any repeated inclusion of weasel-wording like "misinterpretion" happens, then some sort of action is required to prevent the editor-in-question with having any further say with this article, period. -- J.R. Hercules 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think both J.R. Hercules's [3] and Gr1st's [4] version for the China quote section are pretty good. Though J.R. Hercules's missed the end of the clarification quote "...but safety and quality come with a price." which I think is important as it's really the subject's main thesis. Aquavit 16:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave From Queens Opinion

I have never seen someone as dishonest and disreputable at this site (granted I'm fairly new, I usually edited anonymously and never bothered to sign up out of laziness) than this ICarriere. I sincerely hope someone with power just looks at this thread and permanently blocks this person's power to edit here. It's beyond ridiculous. The quote did not come from Jon Stewart, it came from Erin Burnett and was said on Hardball.

ICarriere obviously has a bias and probably is part of the Erin Burnett Fan Club, she being the elitist who makes Marie Antoinette seem slightly more compassionate. And I too have a bias as you can infer.

But I think we are close to a consensus WITHOUT ICARRIERE that is 100% neutral. Simply quote her first remark, then you segway into the next paragraph and say, "The following day on Hardball EB said, ....."

Words like clarify are still biased although better than "correcting a misinterpretation." I personally don't feel she was "clarifying." I personally feel she was spinning, that she was given that quote to say ahead of time by someone else and she just delivered the sound bite when prompted by Matthews. I wouldn't be surprised if she read it from the teleprompter.

That said, just remove any of the biased adjectives and biased vivid verbs that are remaining and replace them with blander language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.186.83 (talk) 12:13, August 22, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for protection

I have made a request for full prtection. --statsone 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and support this request. You idiot kid 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From a neutral third party

I think the article is fine the way it is written now. The Daily Show is a notable source and to get on it usually means you did something pretty notable (usually not in a good way). ICarrere, you are seriously harping on WP:BLP and ignoring WP:CON and WP:OWN. I don't want to dissuade you from editing but let it go. From someone who happened upon this article and the talk page, it is you who seems out of line. Spryde 17:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As someone who has been here since the beginning the quote looks great as it is now. Although, I hate how she said "a extension" and not "an extension" but I guess we can't correct her own grammar. Should we clean up the rest of the article, and by that I mean should we get rid of the second quote in the "Quotes" section as its source seems to violate the no blogs rule? You idiot kid 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, reading it, that blog sourced it from Portfolio.com. I will update the source at is would be more appropriate Spryde 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Changed the title of the reference ( minor edit) --statsone 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a neutral third party too, I think: I think that having the two quotes together connected by the Daily Show comment presents the matter neutrally, and it should stand as is.--SarekOfVulcan 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from Ossified

Frankly, this one seems like a no-brainer. (1) Erin Burnett's comments on China are the most notable thing that she's ever uttered since being on TV. I'd never even heard of her until I heard about what she said about Chinese-manufactured toys (which is what brought me to this page). Second, there's more than ample proof from reputable sources that she said it. Any denial of that smacks of wikilawyering to me. Third, it seems that the same people who set the bar extraordinarily high when it comes to proving that she made the statement, set an extraordinarily low bar for demonstrating that she said it accidentally, or that it wasn't what she really meant to say. This appears to demonstrate a violation of WP:NPOV. Ossified 04:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how what she said was an "accident." I believe what she said was stupid, and she realized that and corrected herself. But these words didn't magically, accidentally, fall out of her mouth. She chose them and regretted it. I think that once the majority of us found a reputable source for her correction, we were all in favor of including that. You idiot kid You idiot kid 06:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
Consensus is a beautiful thing! The result on this page is quite good. Ossified 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Edit by 65.7.153.91

Greetings, I am reverting your additions as they appear to be POV/slanted. I am assuming good faith so if you could either source or provide verification of the statements without the loaded words ("curiously") put in, please do so! Spryde 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Or Gr1st did before I did... Spryde 14:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So much for neutral...

Ok, after watching this page for awhile, I guess I am now involved a bit. Looking at the school for her, it seems there is a bit of confusion on where she went to school. I have one source that says St. Andrew's School in Potomac, Maryland and a internet fan site that says it is this St. Andrew's School. Since verifiable and reliable source trumps fan site, I gotta revert to that version. Logic also dictates that since she grew up in MD, that she went to high school in MD however knowing the area she grew up in, rich people can trump logic sometimes... Spryde 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. And yet this WashPo article says she went to boarding school in Delaware. Is it possible she went to two schools named St Andrew's? Gr1st 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now this sucks. Two sources that are conflicting. One is a op-ed piece (Howard Kurtz is a media critic/journalist) and the other is a profile in a industry trade publication. The area that she grew up in on the Eastern Shore is near Middletown but pretty damn upscale which lends to the school in Potomac (upscale prep academy as well). Any other reliable sources we can find to break the tie? :) Spryde 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say Kurtz is a better source, but in any case Potomac is a long way from the Eastern Shore, and the Potomac SAS isn't boarding. ASt this point I'd say the scale tips in favor of the Delaware school. I'd check for a yearbook but I'd have to recover my login and I don't have time to do that right now. Mangoe 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've changed to the Delaware one and eliminated the "most likely" quote for now (I'm a bit dubious), though I'm not adamant about its exclusion. Mangoe 17:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The source seems valid. Did you want the quote removed because it wasn't sourced or because it wasn't appropriate? --statsone 03:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ICarriere, just wondering why you changed the birth location? We have two sources citing different locales. Spryde 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The SAS material is out for now

I've cut out the "St. Andrews School" material for now, since we have plainly contradictory information. I'm going to try to get access to SAS (Delaware) yearbooks today and see if she shows up there. Please don't put anything back unless we find a new source. To recap the problems:

  • All sources say she grew up on the eastern shore.
  • One source is claiming she went to a "St. Andrew's School" in Maryland; another claims it is the one in Potomac.
  • Another source is claiming that she went to the SAS in Delaware.
  • We have no evidence she ever lived on the other side of the bay.
  • None of the Maryland SASs are boarding-- certainly the Potomac one isn't.

I've found another scrap of evidence, which is not (unfortunately) definitive. Here we have a workshop by one Robert Rue which has a recco by the headmaster of the Delaware SAS based upon Mr. Rue's tenure there as a faculty member. It also has the follow recco from Ms. Burnett: "I still remember Bobby Rue's probing, patient questions about literature that expanded my mind and enabled me to reach my own conclusions. He was an outstanding and beloved teacher who brought insight and humor to the classroom." I don't think this is an ironclad proof, but it strongly implies that she studied under him at the school in Delaware. Mangoe 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your last change because I think it's poorly written (sorry). Also, we don't removed well sourced information without replacing it with newly sourced information.
I applaud your research into the subject, but more is needed to establish your claim.
To the contrary, Delaware is almost 100 miles away from where she grew up (see map). The reference cited states she attended SAS (Maryland). That reference is from one of the few interviews that she has given. That's not to say it couldn't be an error.
But, please wait to change until we have more information or at least one good citable contrary source.
If we already have a citable source, replace with Delaware and referece that source. Korismo 18:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We already have a source: the Howard Kurtz article that has been cited. I've also found at least two other sources that suggest the same, though it requires more inference from them than I am comfortable with. There are also several fan sites that agree with Kurtz; I haven't looked into them further since, after all, they're fan sites.
Left's go through it again:
  • Potomac is just NW of DC, on the opposite side of the bay from where she is said to have grown up. The St. Andrews there is a day school. It is impossible for a kid to commute that far every day.
  • The St. Andrews in Delaware is a boarding school, so distance is no impediment; moreover, it offers squash and field hockey, which the article you prefer says she played. The Potomac school does not, and given its history, it's a sure bet it has never offered squash.
  • While I'm at it, she is quoted in the article as saying that she could only get three TV stations in her hometown. Washington DC has affiliates of all four major networks, plus two PBS stations and a couple of other stray UHF stations. In the Maryland suburbs you can also get the Baltimore stations to some degree, plus MPT. Even as far away as Frederick you can pick up more than three stations.
  • The statements are not quotes from the interview; they are statements by the reporter.
What the evidence suggests is that she said that she went to "St. Andrews School", and the reporter, ignorant of geography, assumed that it was the Potomac, Maryland one. The only reason I haven't definitely settled on the Delaware one is that the evidence is thus far not incontroverible. Mangoe 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You have me all wrong. I said, if you have a source, add it to the page. I've reverted your last edit and replaced Maryland with Delaware. That should make everyone happy except maybe ICarriere.
Now, please add the source you have to the page under refereces. Thank you. Korismo 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Too late, I've already added the source. That should end this mess. Korismo 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at her yearbook and confirmed that she went to the Delaware SAS. I also have an accurate cite for the "most likely to..." claim (the old version wasn't entirely accurate). Mangoe 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Bit of a problem with the "ironclad source", the link doesn't work. I think we should reverse the change until the link can be fixed. Thanks 67.185.223.19 07:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a 38M PDF. Give it a chance to load. Mangoe 11:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say, the 20 year... Erin: Talk Show Host should not replace the previously written comment. There was no reason to remove, where she was voted "Most Likely To Host a Talk Show. They are not mutually exclusive statements. And while the yearbook was an interesting read, I don't know that it belongs on a Wikipedia.
Also, I checked with the SAS privacy policy and the yearbook is not considered public information. Access to the book requires a secure login credential, which means it really should not be used a source. Korismo 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I see no privacy policy on the library's website, and I do not require any kind of secure access to get at the yearbook. It is true that there was a time when the yearbooks were so hidden, but they are not hidden now. And as far as the reliability of the B&C story is concerned, it's wrong about what school she attended, and it doesn't source its information. The yearbook statement has an absolutely reliable source, so that's what's going in the article until someone comes up with a new source. I'm frankly inclined to strip the B&C story out entirely as a source.Mangoe 14:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the conversation, but why would you strip out the B&C source? Because, they made an error in reporting a single item? Huh?
Also, I can't download the PDF from SAS. Is anyone else having this problem? - ICarriere 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting for your pleasure...) Well we can cite the information from other sources which means we can avoid any possible issues at a later date just in case they get anything else wrong as well. Something as simple as high school attended should have been something very easy to factcheck. The fact someone guessed really is not a good thing for that article. Regarding the download, I had trouble at first. It is a very large file that I downloaded to disk instead of using Adobe Reader to open instantly. I can confirm she is on the page specified in the citation. It must be nice having a whole page to yourself in the yearbook (or not...). Spryde 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Of the two remaining cites, the one is a direct quotation (presumably from an interview for the story) so it is safe. The one about her sisters I'm ambivalent about, but for now I'm not inclined to challenge it. Mangoe 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as a student here at St. Andrew's (class of '08) (check my IP address) here in Middletown, DE I can tell you that Ms. Burnett did indeed go here: I've asked the teachers, she's in the yearbook from 1994 in our library (the physical copy, not the pdf). All the confusion over the place of schooling is understandable. St. Andrew's is a boarding school, which might clear up why she'd live in MD but go to school in northern DE. It seems to have been one minor mistake that snow balled when big wigs like Kurtz relied on, ironically enough, unreliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.45.114 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome 76.160.45.114! Thanks for the further followup. One thing is that Kurtz actually got it right (as opposed to B&C). Spryde 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back for another round of pain

I have just removed a few items I can't verify ("International Superstar") and the exact Birthday. In all the sources provided, I see age 31 but no exact day. Until we can get a reliable, verifiable source, it has to go. Spryde 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have also removed the "now cited" reference to "International Superstar". The "International Superstar" comment was added by KevinAction, who I'm sorry to say is simply wrong.
Joe Scarborough begins and ends his segment with EB by saying, "with us today, international superstar, Erin Burnett" or "that was international superstar, Erin Burnett". The comment by Scarborough is clearly used as filler, not as a nickname. A nickname would be a name in place of the persons name. This is used in addition to the persons name.
I get the feeling that people are a little too anxious to contribute to this article. I realize Erin Burnett is beautiful and all, but come on people -- it's an encyclopedia article. - ICarriere 07:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Archive Discussion page?

This page has become very long. If anyone knows how to archive pages, it would be great to have that done. - ICarriere 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)