This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Barbara West (TV news anchor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I restored the article back to the October 28 version. User 'Steve Dufour' deleted entire sections and then proposed the article for deletion.
The article is not going to be deleted. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on news anchors.( Independent4ever ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
Is it really appropriate to have 3 sentences of biography and 4 full paragraphs of controversy/criticism? See WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. -- Rividian ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The article should probably be marked as a stub pending expansion of the biography sections. This blog link doesn't meet WP:RS standards, but might be helpful in locating Reliable Sources http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/10/conflict-of-interest-orlando-journalist.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.27.79 ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to cleanup the page best I can to make it more readable & sensible. For disclosure's sake, I have met Mr. West and I know some of his friends. I don't agree with their views, but I do agree that things have gotten out of hand here. Cwolfsheep ( talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is Definitely not speaking from a neutral voice. I have tagged it with a NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.196.13 ( talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
what is with the surge of random IPs editing this one article only and claiming that this article is not "neutral". When did stating the facts become "biased"? -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain" uses weasel words ( WP: Weasel) and lists one source with one commentator's opinion. I'm not against including this information if reliable sources can be found. Otherwise, this should be removed. JenWSU ( talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the WP: Bold move to remove the dubiously sourced content until such time that a reliable source can be found. Also, this section disrupted the flow of the article, mentioning questions posed to John McCain before the next section which introduces the fact that he was interviewed. JenWSU ( talk) 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I filed a request for semi-protection @ Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. I hope that at least gets the random IPs off long enough to clean things up. Cwolfsheep ( talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a sentence at the end of the Republican ties section which stated that West had a conflict of interest in her interviews, and it specifically mentioned that blogs and Keith Olbermann were sources.
So I deleted the contribution. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hence why you were reverted. SmallRepair ( talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
(undent)I understand that you personally believe that editorial statements are to be avoided but as I'm sure you can see from the above discussion (and elsewhere) that this contradicts Wikipedia policy. NPOV does not mean no point-of-view. And, yes, there should be additional reliably sourced opinions; please add them. As to the issue of whether they are redundant, could you point out where the conflict-of-interest is addressed elsewhere? Thanks. SmallRepair ( talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, characterized it as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".
You argue that this is this is a redundant statement. I would argue it is an additional point; commentators argued that her first McCain interview was soft-ball but the later one was tougher due to the criticism she received for the Biden interview. How exactly is this redundant? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Well, all appearances aside, I believe I have given reasons. I will expand You recommend this:
... the liberal MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party. The non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." [16] The conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned ....
Also, help me out here. Below, you stated:
Per WP, when a source is biased, then material relating to the bias of the source is proper balance.
Could you please point me to policy that makes that statement? Per WP policy, our objective is to characterize Olbermann's POV which has been done (i.e., liberal) as has been done for the conservative commentators. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC television program Countdown with Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party.
You argue that "citing editorial opinions is not part of BLP". But as another editor above pointed out:
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
You state that there is clearly no COI issue here. I may or not may agree with your argument; it may or may not be accurate to define COI as only related to direct payment. The issue here is that the editors are not asserting that she has a COI but that commentators have made that claim. Wikipedia isn't about truth but about verification. See WP:ASF:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. [emphasis in original]
Here we are not asserting the opinion but a fact that someone made the assertion. From WP:BLP:
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources
This isn't a "conjectural interpretation of a source" as you boldly asserted above; it is what they asserted -- no interpretation was necessary. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You are arguing that Olbermann should be characterized with:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." [1] The Tulsa World's Jay Cronley wrote "On one channel there's the irrational Keith Olbermann fighting to keep froth off his chin" and "This is like an attempt at the conning of America. " [2]
I think you are on the right track here but I think a better technique then this sledgehammer (these sources are best used on Olbermann's page) but instead to characterize Olbermann which is the usual style in wikipedia. I would suggest making this change:
Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC liberal commentator Keith Olbermann
television program Countdown with Keith Olbermannquestioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party.
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Collect changed the "liberal" characterization to "left wing" per the AP source. Commonly on Wikipedia, we avoid the use of "left wing" and "right wing" as they are vague. Left wing can mean anything from communist to anything left of center. Right wing, similarly, can mean fascist to anything right of center. Wikipedia prefers the more neutral "liberal" or "conservative" or even "left/right of center". Or are you arguing that we should change the term conservative to "right wing" for Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Easy to dig up sources that characterize them in that manner. I would be happy to consistently use one or the other as a compromise (I'm sure you see that using only left-wing but not right-wing isn't neutral) but I guarantee that both left- and right-wing will be reverted by another editor. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In WP, when a cite is used, the person reaing the article expects that the cite is being represented accurately. Using "liberal" where a non-partisan cite says "left wing" is intellectually reprehensible. Place it in quotes, and no one should revert it since it accurately represents the cite. BTW, "left wing" and "right wing" are found many places in WP, so do not claim otherwise. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read below where I do believe that you are correct that other opinions to balance those of the criticism should be added. I said
That said, I agree that the section requires additional viewpoints -- for instance, it should include reactions from the conservative side that said that Biden's attitude was wrong, the interview was proper and that West's affiliations should not be used to judge her. This was addressed on the Larry King show, Chris Mathews show and the Rush Limbaugh show among many others.
If you would like (and we can agree with the changes so far), then you may add these other viewpoints or I would be happy to do the research and add them. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I will go over it again. The Olbermann quote is clearly POV which is allowed as repeatedly made clear to you; I strongly recommend you re-read this talk page so it doesn't have to be repeated here. Olbermann's statement is balanced by both Limbaugh's and West's statements which brings neutrality to the section. Your objective: to add in a statement that NBC isn't liberal. Why do you want to do that? You want to add in criticism of Olbermann. Do you want to add in criticism of Limbaugh and O'Reilly also? (That is the fifth time I've asked that). Your actual goal is to characterize Olbermann as "left wing" using said source. I've explained why Wikipedia doesn't encourage the use of "left wing" and "right wing" but prefers the more neutral "liberal" and "conservative" or "left of center" or "right of center" unless, of course, in the case of a neo-fascist or communist do these terms have value. Either we characterize *all* of the commentator's POV (liberal and conservative) which can be done without the necessity of using sources since their respective pages do characterize them as liberal and conservative (but notice, not left or right wing), OR we characterize them *all* as "left wing" and "right wing" with respective sources OR we don't characterize them at all. Your objective is to characterize only Olbermann as left-wing. That is unacceptable. I get it. You don't like Olbermann. You need to let your personal biases not guide your editing. You will never find consensus for such a one-sided addition to the article (i.e., without including also similar stuff about Limbaugh and O'Reilly). I disagree using the "left wing" and "right wing" characterizations but you seemed intent on utilizing "left wing" and so went with it knowing full well that that would be quickly reverted as that is absurd. I concur with either utilizing "liberal" or "conservative" without the need for citations or for not characterizing at all. There. I've summarized again the points here. To date, three editors disagree with your idea of characterizing the commentators as "left wing or "right wing". I don't know what else can be said without repeating it umpteen times. I hope that you noticed that I removed the use of the term "conflict of interest" from the article to address your concerns. I wish you could see that we are working here in good faith and collegially. Having to go over old ground repeatedly serves no purpose. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
References
This article has been placed under protection for the next 24 hours. Please discuss the *issues* at stake here. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Her interview with John McCain on October 27, 2008 has nothing to with the controversy. Why is it mentioned?
I live in Orlando and have meet Mrs. West and her husband. I have noticed that this biography pages is only listing the second interview that she did with Biden that had hard questions and only listing the first interview with McCain that had easy ones. This implies a right wing only view point. Since Mrs. West has done two interviews with both (the first ones being easy and the second being hard) I believe the harder interview of McCain is vaild to be in the article to provide a balanced neutral view point. Joseph M Boy ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I cut down the "controversy" section to two sentences and removed the "guilt by association" info on her husband. One "controversy" should not dominate the whole article, if Ms West is notable at all that is. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think her husband's ties to the Republican party are relevant in this case. Steve Dufour, it is unethical for you to delete and vandalize an article and then nominate it for deletion. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
Fine. What percentage of the article do you think should be devoted to the Biden interview? Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
2008 presidential race interviews controversy
On October 23, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden with questions she personally wrote. [1] West asked Biden if he was "embarrassed about Barack Obama's affiliation with ACORN" given allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN in elections past, likened Obama's response to a question from Ohio voter " Joe the Plumber" to a quote from Karl Marx, asked how Obama's views on distributing the wealth differed from Marxism, and questioned if Obama's view might lead the U.S. "into a socialist country much like Sweden." At one point, Senator Biden asked West if she was joking, and later suggested she was offering "talking points" against Barack Obama.
The Obama campaign responded saying "This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question. Let's be clear: This station's interview with Joe Biden wasn't tough -- it was just absurd."
[1] A subsequent interview with the candidate's wife,
Jill Biden, was cancelled.
[2] Obama's Florida spokeswoman, Adrianne Marsh, called Biden's interviewer, Barbara West, "both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts."
[3]
WFTV's news director defended West, saying she had not been inappropriately tough,
[4] but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing
[5] it to her interview with Republican candidate
John McCain which they characterized as softer.when she had asked him questions such as "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box — in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?".
[1]
[6]
Later, after West interviewed McCain again,On October 27, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. West asked McCain about alleged in-fighting between his own staff and that of
Sarah Palin and whether it was indicative of Palin's belief that the ticket is not going to win, the strength of McCain’s own campaign, why independent analysis showed that Joe the Plumber would do better under Obama's tax plan, and whether the wealthy really need
tax cuts. McCain jocularly requested West not say "anything mean" or else he "may get angry."
[7]
[8] Mark Thomas, a columnist for the
Orlando Sentinel, characterized it this interview as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".
[9]
===Republican ties===
West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, who contributed $2,250 to four
Republican candidates from 2000 to 2006.
[10]
[5] His biography as a board member of
Solgames USA Inc. states that he is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet."
[11] This has led Jeff Bercovici from
Portfolio magazine and the
MSNBC television program
Countdown with Keith Olbermann to question whether West has had a
conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews.
[12]
[5] West herself is also a registered Republican.
[10]
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
1. "This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question." I agree this can be deleted. This is just the opinion of the campaign and adds nothing to the discussion ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
2. "which they characterized as softer ... "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box — in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?"." I think the quotes should be kept because they mirror the partisan line of questioning in the Biden interview. In addition, I think it's necessary to add the date (October 14, 2008) to provide the proper context. It was there before, but someone deleted it. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
3. "Later...may get angry." I think it may be appropriate to add a couple of quotes from that interview as well, showing she asked tougher questions. Other than that I am okay with your rewrite. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
4. "His biography ... states that he is a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." I think the reference to Wade West's biography is relevant because it underscores the fact that he is a political strategist for the Republican Party. You can be a private citizen and donate to the Republican Party, but he did much more than that. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
just about say it? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, [emphasis added]
Details of her husband shouldn't be included. He's consulted for a number of different people and groups [3] and drawing attention to his Republican links is borderline synthesis. Just because a couple of fairly minor sources have suggested that it might have caused bias doesn't mean it should be included. The same goes for the fact she's a registered Republican. Unless we are going to mention the affiliation of every journalist on their page then this is really bad. Using Raul's Razor ("An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie") this article clearly fails. It reads as if she is clearly attacking Biden because of her Republican views. The whole section should be cut to be as short and factual as possible. Trebor ( talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
which I got from reliable sources vs. his purported statements on Wikipedia which, as you know, have no standing here. Hence why I redacted the term "Republican strategist". I'm unsure how WP:SYNTH applies here, borderline or otherwise. That is when an editor:In fact, in interviews, West has said he has worked for Clinton and both Bushs.
That isn't happening here. There are two sources which each independently put these facts together and draws the conclusion not the editors.puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources
Labeling this section as having a POV problem is not a sufficient argument. The criticism is attributed explicitly to those making said criticism which satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:V. You may characterize the sources as "minor" but they are both reliable sources. And, you are correct, they are "clearly" claiming her bias was the motivation for her mode of attack -- but not the page editors.As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
References
In the sentence: "On the official biography page for Barbara West on WFTV.com, she lists her first two specific accomplishments as covering the inauguration of President George W. Bush and covering the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. [1]", I think it is original research to take out only two items from her work profile out of the half dozen or so it mentions. If we are going to use that as a source we should include all of the info it contains, which is not so much. (On the other hand, we could take it off and make the article about the interview, not her.)
The information about her husband and her Republican Party membership could be moved up from the section on the interview to a new "personal information" section. This would actually make more impact if the reader knows about it before reading about the interview. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am going to make a couple changes since the 5 day ban on me editing the page is up and Therefore informed me that he does not have the time to make them himself. Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the picture is really needed. Most people know what a TV interview looks like. I am not an expert on WP policy or copyright law, but it seems to me that WP using a coyrighted picture in an article which the copyright owner is probably not too happy about might not be such a good idea. Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
One of my main interests on WP is biographies of living persons, and defending people who seem to be unfairly treated by their bios. Although I am a conservative (who voted for President Obama) I have defended people of all political shades, and non-political people too. I personally don't think a local TV interview of a vice-presidential candidate is all that important. However, I see that some people do. Would you consider starting a new article on just the interview? That article could be a long as you want and could include the opinions of experts and pundants from the four corners of the earth. Then the information given in this article could be trimmed down a little so it doesn't overweight the rest of Ms West's life. People who are interested could follow a link to the other article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If you don't feel like starting a new article on the Biden interview, here is my suggestion to remove some of the weight given to the incident. I would take off these last sentences of the section: "But some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain which they characterized as softer.[9][4][10] When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, said it was tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".[11][12][13] While saying he may have asked things differently, commentator Bill O'Reilly said that Biden and her critics were unfairly characterizing her questions as "far-right" and that Biden had overreacted and should have answered her questions.[14] Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and [MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West was influenced in her presidential candidate interviews by her husband's connections with the Republican Party.[15][9] Commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned why other reporters with political connections by marriage aren't also questioned.[16] West said that while her husband had worked for Republicans he was also involved with Democrats and denied any impact.[17]"
The Obama/Biden campaign's charges and the station's reponse are still there. What is removed is just back and forth opinions. They would be great in an article on the interview, but seem a bit much for this bio article, when no opinions are given about West's work as a whole. Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
But some media commentators criticized her performance claiming she gave a softer interview with Republican candidate John McCain. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In response to the assertion that she was exhibiting
right wingconservative bias and grandstanding [1] [7] other commentators said that was an unfair characterization and Biden had overreacted. [8] A few noted her husband's connections with the Republican Party questioning if that was an influencing factor on her questions, [7] [1] a charge West absolutely denied. [9] [10]
References
Personally, I was impressed by Biden's good humor in the face of what was less a grilling than a desperate audition for a primetime job at Fox News.
By the way, the Bercovici cite improperly implied that he wrote his editorial for the print Portfolio Magazine, when it was actually a blog entry. Aslo the Olbermann cite was not to the transcript. In neither case were their words directly pertinent to the claim made as to what they said, so I corrected the cite to a transcript, and used Olbermann's own words for his ref, and I gave a more accurate precis of Bercovici's blog. Still POV, but the inacurate use of refs is not a good idea, even to try pushing a pint. <sigh>. I still think this is a "single event" and falls under "NOTNEWS" and "BLP" problems. Collect ( talk) 11:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Transcript says "How is Sen. Obama not being Marxist" and not "a Marxist." per cite. Collect ( talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
My source is [4] and [5]. What one are you using? I also got the line verbatim from several of the sources. I agree it makes (little) a difference but we should stick with the facts. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around? [emphasis added]
The Dallas cite and some others miss the "a" but it is not exactly a major deal. Collect ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I consider 6 cites for a short sentence to be overkill. How many is reasonable, remembering that the cites are there to support the sentence and are not supposed to be a huge part of an article in and of themselves. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't choose them other than just taking the last four. No intent otherwise to be sure. I told you to pick, remember? Collect ( talk) 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The article cites that Ms. West is a registered Republican, but I'm not sure if this is relevant considering, after looking over several other members of the press' wiki pages WP does not cite their political affiliations. Advocate7x70 ( talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Barbara West (TV news anchor). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Barbara West (TV news anchor) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I restored the article back to the October 28 version. User 'Steve Dufour' deleted entire sections and then proposed the article for deletion.
The article is not going to be deleted. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on news anchors.( Independent4ever ( talk) 17:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
Is it really appropriate to have 3 sentences of biography and 4 full paragraphs of controversy/criticism? See WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK. -- Rividian ( talk) 12:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The article should probably be marked as a stub pending expansion of the biography sections. This blog link doesn't meet WP:RS standards, but might be helpful in locating Reliable Sources http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/10/conflict-of-interest-orlando-journalist.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.27.79 ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to cleanup the page best I can to make it more readable & sensible. For disclosure's sake, I have met Mr. West and I know some of his friends. I don't agree with their views, but I do agree that things have gotten out of hand here. Cwolfsheep ( talk) 03:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This article is Definitely not speaking from a neutral voice. I have tagged it with a NPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.196.13 ( talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
what is with the surge of random IPs editing this one article only and claiming that this article is not "neutral". When did stating the facts become "biased"? -- CFIF ☎ ⋐ 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain" uses weasel words ( WP: Weasel) and lists one source with one commentator's opinion. I'm not against including this information if reliable sources can be found. Otherwise, this should be removed. JenWSU ( talk) 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I took the WP: Bold move to remove the dubiously sourced content until such time that a reliable source can be found. Also, this section disrupted the flow of the article, mentioning questions posed to John McCain before the next section which introduces the fact that he was interviewed. JenWSU ( talk) 17:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I filed a request for semi-protection @ Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. I hope that at least gets the random IPs off long enough to clean things up. Cwolfsheep ( talk) 16:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a sentence at the end of the Republican ties section which stated that West had a conflict of interest in her interviews, and it specifically mentioned that blogs and Keith Olbermann were sources.
So I deleted the contribution. -- Amwestover ( talk| contrib) 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hence why you were reverted. SmallRepair ( talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
(undent)I understand that you personally believe that editorial statements are to be avoided but as I'm sure you can see from the above discussion (and elsewhere) that this contradicts Wikipedia policy. NPOV does not mean no point-of-view. And, yes, there should be additional reliably sourced opinions; please add them. As to the issue of whether they are redundant, could you point out where the conflict-of-interest is addressed elsewhere? Thanks. SmallRepair ( talk) 23:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, characterized it as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".
You argue that this is this is a redundant statement. I would argue it is an additional point; commentators argued that her first McCain interview was soft-ball but the later one was tougher due to the criticism she received for the Biden interview. How exactly is this redundant? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Well, all appearances aside, I believe I have given reasons. I will expand You recommend this:
... the liberal MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party. The non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." [16] The conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned ....
Also, help me out here. Below, you stated:
Per WP, when a source is biased, then material relating to the bias of the source is proper balance.
Could you please point me to policy that makes that statement? Per WP policy, our objective is to characterize Olbermann's POV which has been done (i.e., liberal) as has been done for the conservative commentators. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC television program Countdown with Keith Olbermann questioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party.
You argue that "citing editorial opinions is not part of BLP". But as another editor above pointed out:
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
You state that there is clearly no COI issue here. I may or not may agree with your argument; it may or may not be accurate to define COI as only related to direct payment. The issue here is that the editors are not asserting that she has a COI but that commentators have made that claim. Wikipedia isn't about truth but about verification. See WP:ASF:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. [emphasis in original]
Here we are not asserting the opinion but a fact that someone made the assertion. From WP:BLP:
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources
This isn't a "conjectural interpretation of a source" as you boldly asserted above; it is what they asserted -- no interpretation was necessary. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You are arguing that Olbermann should be characterized with:
The Project for Excellence in Journalism found NBC's regular newscasts "aren't influenced by the left-wing prime-time talk shows hosted by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC." [1] The Tulsa World's Jay Cronley wrote "On one channel there's the irrational Keith Olbermann fighting to keep froth off his chin" and "This is like an attempt at the conning of America. " [2]
I think you are on the right track here but I think a better technique then this sledgehammer (these sources are best used on Olbermann's page) but instead to characterize Olbermann which is the usual style in wikipedia. I would suggest making this change:
Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and the MSNBC liberal commentator Keith Olbermann
television program Countdown with Keith Olbermannquestioned whether West has had a conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews due to her connections with the Republican Party.
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) Collect changed the "liberal" characterization to "left wing" per the AP source. Commonly on Wikipedia, we avoid the use of "left wing" and "right wing" as they are vague. Left wing can mean anything from communist to anything left of center. Right wing, similarly, can mean fascist to anything right of center. Wikipedia prefers the more neutral "liberal" or "conservative" or even "left/right of center". Or are you arguing that we should change the term conservative to "right wing" for Limbaugh and O'Reilly? Easy to dig up sources that characterize them in that manner. I would be happy to consistently use one or the other as a compromise (I'm sure you see that using only left-wing but not right-wing isn't neutral) but I guarantee that both left- and right-wing will be reverted by another editor. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In WP, when a cite is used, the person reaing the article expects that the cite is being represented accurately. Using "liberal" where a non-partisan cite says "left wing" is intellectually reprehensible. Place it in quotes, and no one should revert it since it accurately represents the cite. BTW, "left wing" and "right wing" are found many places in WP, so do not claim otherwise. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read below where I do believe that you are correct that other opinions to balance those of the criticism should be added. I said
That said, I agree that the section requires additional viewpoints -- for instance, it should include reactions from the conservative side that said that Biden's attitude was wrong, the interview was proper and that West's affiliations should not be used to judge her. This was addressed on the Larry King show, Chris Mathews show and the Rush Limbaugh show among many others.
If you would like (and we can agree with the changes so far), then you may add these other viewpoints or I would be happy to do the research and add them. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 13:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent) I will go over it again. The Olbermann quote is clearly POV which is allowed as repeatedly made clear to you; I strongly recommend you re-read this talk page so it doesn't have to be repeated here. Olbermann's statement is balanced by both Limbaugh's and West's statements which brings neutrality to the section. Your objective: to add in a statement that NBC isn't liberal. Why do you want to do that? You want to add in criticism of Olbermann. Do you want to add in criticism of Limbaugh and O'Reilly also? (That is the fifth time I've asked that). Your actual goal is to characterize Olbermann as "left wing" using said source. I've explained why Wikipedia doesn't encourage the use of "left wing" and "right wing" but prefers the more neutral "liberal" and "conservative" or "left of center" or "right of center" unless, of course, in the case of a neo-fascist or communist do these terms have value. Either we characterize *all* of the commentator's POV (liberal and conservative) which can be done without the necessity of using sources since their respective pages do characterize them as liberal and conservative (but notice, not left or right wing), OR we characterize them *all* as "left wing" and "right wing" with respective sources OR we don't characterize them at all. Your objective is to characterize only Olbermann as left-wing. That is unacceptable. I get it. You don't like Olbermann. You need to let your personal biases not guide your editing. You will never find consensus for such a one-sided addition to the article (i.e., without including also similar stuff about Limbaugh and O'Reilly). I disagree using the "left wing" and "right wing" characterizations but you seemed intent on utilizing "left wing" and so went with it knowing full well that that would be quickly reverted as that is absurd. I concur with either utilizing "liberal" or "conservative" without the need for citations or for not characterizing at all. There. I've summarized again the points here. To date, three editors disagree with your idea of characterizing the commentators as "left wing or "right wing". I don't know what else can be said without repeating it umpteen times. I hope that you noticed that I removed the use of the term "conflict of interest" from the article to address your concerns. I wish you could see that we are working here in good faith and collegially. Having to go over old ground repeatedly serves no purpose. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
References
This article has been placed under protection for the next 24 hours. Please discuss the *issues* at stake here. -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Her interview with John McCain on October 27, 2008 has nothing to with the controversy. Why is it mentioned?
I live in Orlando and have meet Mrs. West and her husband. I have noticed that this biography pages is only listing the second interview that she did with Biden that had hard questions and only listing the first interview with McCain that had easy ones. This implies a right wing only view point. Since Mrs. West has done two interviews with both (the first ones being easy and the second being hard) I believe the harder interview of McCain is vaild to be in the article to provide a balanced neutral view point. Joseph M Boy ( talk) 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I cut down the "controversy" section to two sentences and removed the "guilt by association" info on her husband. One "controversy" should not dominate the whole article, if Ms West is notable at all that is. Steve Dufour ( talk) 17:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think her husband's ties to the Republican party are relevant in this case. Steve Dufour, it is unethical for you to delete and vandalize an article and then nominate it for deletion. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
Fine. What percentage of the article do you think should be devoted to the Biden interview? Steve Dufour ( talk) 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
2008 presidential race interviews controversy
On October 23, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden with questions she personally wrote. [1] West asked Biden if he was "embarrassed about Barack Obama's affiliation with ACORN" given allegations of voter registration fraud by ACORN in elections past, likened Obama's response to a question from Ohio voter " Joe the Plumber" to a quote from Karl Marx, asked how Obama's views on distributing the wealth differed from Marxism, and questioned if Obama's view might lead the U.S. "into a socialist country much like Sweden." At one point, Senator Biden asked West if she was joking, and later suggested she was offering "talking points" against Barack Obama.
The Obama campaign responded saying "This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question. Let's be clear: This station's interview with Joe Biden wasn't tough -- it was just absurd."
[1] A subsequent interview with the candidate's wife,
Jill Biden, was cancelled.
[2] Obama's Florida spokeswoman, Adrianne Marsh, called Biden's interviewer, Barbara West, "both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts."
[3]
WFTV's news director defended West, saying she had not been inappropriately tough,
[4] but some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing
[5] it to her interview with Republican candidate
John McCain which they characterized as softer.when she had asked him questions such as "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box — in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?".
[1]
[6]
Later, after West interviewed McCain again,On October 27, 2008, Barbara West interviewed the Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. West asked McCain about alleged in-fighting between his own staff and that of
Sarah Palin and whether it was indicative of Palin's belief that the ticket is not going to win, the strength of McCain’s own campaign, why independent analysis showed that Joe the Plumber would do better under Obama's tax plan, and whether the wealthy really need
tax cuts. McCain jocularly requested West not say "anything mean" or else he "may get angry."
[7]
[8] Mark Thomas, a columnist for the
Orlando Sentinel, characterized it this interview as tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".
[9]
===Republican ties===
West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, who contributed $2,250 to four
Republican candidates from 2000 to 2006.
[10]
[5] His biography as a board member of
Solgames USA Inc. states that he is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet."
[11] This has led Jeff Bercovici from
Portfolio magazine and the
MSNBC television program
Countdown with Keith Olbermann to question whether West has had a
conflict of interest in her presidential candidate interviews.
[12]
[5] West herself is also a registered Republican.
[10]
Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
1. "This campaign has now spanned 21 months and Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Joe and Jill Biden have done countless tough interviews and they've answered every single question." I agree this can be deleted. This is just the opinion of the campaign and adds nothing to the discussion ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
2. "which they characterized as softer ... "Why haven't you gone after [Obama] on these serious issues of voter registration fraud and the mortgage crisis?" and "Do you feel that the Democrats are trying to paint you into a box — in other words, make it impossible for you to criticize Sen. Obama?"." I think the quotes should be kept because they mirror the partisan line of questioning in the Biden interview. In addition, I think it's necessary to add the date (October 14, 2008) to provide the proper context. It was there before, but someone deleted it. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
3. "Later...may get angry." I think it may be appropriate to add a couple of quotes from that interview as well, showing she asked tougher questions. Other than that I am okay with your rewrite. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
4. "His biography ... states that he is a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." I think the reference to Wade West's biography is relevant because it underscores the fact that he is a political strategist for the Republican Party. You can be a private citizen and donate to the Republican Party, but he did much more than that. ( Independent4ever ( talk) 20:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC));
just about say it? ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)West's husband Wade West is a former political strategist, [emphasis added]
Details of her husband shouldn't be included. He's consulted for a number of different people and groups [3] and drawing attention to his Republican links is borderline synthesis. Just because a couple of fairly minor sources have suggested that it might have caused bias doesn't mean it should be included. The same goes for the fact she's a registered Republican. Unless we are going to mention the affiliation of every journalist on their page then this is really bad. Using Raul's Razor ("An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie") this article clearly fails. It reads as if she is clearly attacking Biden because of her Republican views. The whole section should be cut to be as short and factual as possible. Trebor ( talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
which I got from reliable sources vs. his purported statements on Wikipedia which, as you know, have no standing here. Hence why I redacted the term "Republican strategist". I'm unsure how WP:SYNTH applies here, borderline or otherwise. That is when an editor:In fact, in interviews, West has said he has worked for Clinton and both Bushs.
That isn't happening here. There are two sources which each independently put these facts together and draws the conclusion not the editors.puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources
Labeling this section as having a POV problem is not a sufficient argument. The criticism is attributed explicitly to those making said criticism which satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:V. You may characterize the sources as "minor" but they are both reliable sources. And, you are correct, they are "clearly" claiming her bias was the motivation for her mode of attack -- but not the page editors.As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
References
In the sentence: "On the official biography page for Barbara West on WFTV.com, she lists her first two specific accomplishments as covering the inauguration of President George W. Bush and covering the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. [1]", I think it is original research to take out only two items from her work profile out of the half dozen or so it mentions. If we are going to use that as a source we should include all of the info it contains, which is not so much. (On the other hand, we could take it off and make the article about the interview, not her.)
The information about her husband and her Republican Party membership could be moved up from the section on the interview to a new "personal information" section. This would actually make more impact if the reader knows about it before reading about the interview. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I am going to make a couple changes since the 5 day ban on me editing the page is up and Therefore informed me that he does not have the time to make them himself. Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the picture is really needed. Most people know what a TV interview looks like. I am not an expert on WP policy or copyright law, but it seems to me that WP using a coyrighted picture in an article which the copyright owner is probably not too happy about might not be such a good idea. Steve Dufour ( talk) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
One of my main interests on WP is biographies of living persons, and defending people who seem to be unfairly treated by their bios. Although I am a conservative (who voted for President Obama) I have defended people of all political shades, and non-political people too. I personally don't think a local TV interview of a vice-presidential candidate is all that important. However, I see that some people do. Would you consider starting a new article on just the interview? That article could be a long as you want and could include the opinions of experts and pundants from the four corners of the earth. Then the information given in this article could be trimmed down a little so it doesn't overweight the rest of Ms West's life. People who are interested could follow a link to the other article. Steve Dufour ( talk) 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If you don't feel like starting a new article on the Biden interview, here is my suggestion to remove some of the weight given to the incident. I would take off these last sentences of the section: "But some media commentators criticized her performance by comparing it to her interview with Republican candidate John McCain which they characterized as softer.[9][4][10] When she later interviewed McCain again, Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel, said it was tougher than her previous McCain interview because she was "well aware of her bizarro, Marx-quoting interview with Joe Biden".[11][12][13] While saying he may have asked things differently, commentator Bill O'Reilly said that Biden and her critics were unfairly characterizing her questions as "far-right" and that Biden had overreacted and should have answered her questions.[14] Jeff Bercovici of Portfolio magazine and [MSNBC]] commentator Keith Olbermann questioned whether West was influenced in her presidential candidate interviews by her husband's connections with the Republican Party.[15][9] Commentator Rush Limbaugh, in response, questioned why other reporters with political connections by marriage aren't also questioned.[16] West said that while her husband had worked for Republicans he was also involved with Democrats and denied any impact.[17]"
The Obama/Biden campaign's charges and the station's reponse are still there. What is removed is just back and forth opinions. They would be great in an article on the interview, but seem a bit much for this bio article, when no opinions are given about West's work as a whole. Steve Dufour ( talk) 07:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
But some media commentators criticized her performance claiming she gave a softer interview with Republican candidate John McCain. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] In response to the assertion that she was exhibiting
right wingconservative bias and grandstanding [1] [7] other commentators said that was an unfair characterization and Biden had overreacted. [8] A few noted her husband's connections with the Republican Party questioning if that was an influencing factor on her questions, [7] [1] a charge West absolutely denied. [9] [10]
References
Personally, I was impressed by Biden's good humor in the face of what was less a grilling than a desperate audition for a primetime job at Fox News.
By the way, the Bercovici cite improperly implied that he wrote his editorial for the print Portfolio Magazine, when it was actually a blog entry. Aslo the Olbermann cite was not to the transcript. In neither case were their words directly pertinent to the claim made as to what they said, so I corrected the cite to a transcript, and used Olbermann's own words for his ref, and I gave a more accurate precis of Bercovici's blog. Still POV, but the inacurate use of refs is not a good idea, even to try pushing a pint. <sigh>. I still think this is a "single event" and falls under "NOTNEWS" and "BLP" problems. Collect ( talk) 11:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Transcript says "How is Sen. Obama not being Marxist" and not "a Marxist." per cite. Collect ( talk) 00:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
My source is [4] and [5]. What one are you using? I also got the line verbatim from several of the sources. I agree it makes (little) a difference but we should stick with the facts. ∴ Therefore cogito· sum 02:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around? [emphasis added]
The Dallas cite and some others miss the "a" but it is not exactly a major deal. Collect ( talk) 16:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I consider 6 cites for a short sentence to be overkill. How many is reasonable, remembering that the cites are there to support the sentence and are not supposed to be a huge part of an article in and of themselves. Collect ( talk) 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't choose them other than just taking the last four. No intent otherwise to be sure. I told you to pick, remember? Collect ( talk) 16:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The article cites that Ms. West is a registered Republican, but I'm not sure if this is relevant considering, after looking over several other members of the press' wiki pages WP does not cite their political affiliations. Advocate7x70 ( talk) 19:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Barbara West (TV news anchor). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)