Talk:Erin Burnett/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

On Burnett's CNN debut

I think it is likely that there may be some lasting flap from this, but can we give it a couple of days to develop? Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Her unqualified comments ("Nobody really knows what it is about") on OCW should be included.--84.152.60.57 (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Erin Burnett and her CNN debut

You are invited to make your case for the inclusion/exclusion of this material. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge sections?

Does anyone oppose merging the CNBC and Return to CNN sections under a single header...maybe Cable News Career or something like that? Some of the information about her new show is repeated in both sections (stated three times in the article, in fact, if you include the lead). Also, the part about her giving the commencement speech is out of place in that section. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Big change

I am about to make a large edit to this article, but since some content has been in dispute, and it has appeared on the BLPN board recently, I am putting it here first for a while. See: User:Quinn1/sandbox/Erin Burnett. I suggest this change in content for everything below the Early years sub-section. (Most of it is just moved around...I did not really add or remove any info.) Anyone cool/not cool with this? Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 18:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change so as not to effect any positive edits that might have occurred in the meantime. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I cannot help but suggest that one's skills as an editor/contributor would be improved were one to study the difference between "affect" and "effect". Meant in good faith. Unimaginative Username (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking it to talk

I generally never revert past one revert but this is a BLP with synthesized content. Could we please continue this discussion here with out editing into the article, perhaps even rewriting the content in a way that is compliant with RSs. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

BLP

This content and source say nothing about Burnett, they talk about CNN and its ratings during several timeslots in a short period of time (one month!), this does not belong in Burnett's article, and I'm not even sure it belongs in the show's article, since the scope of the source is so narrow and is being presented in a way as to make it look like the subject's fault when the sources indicate no such thing. Here in this article, the content violates BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these are numerical facts. Do you dispute them? Breaking a 20-year ratings record is certainly an important part of her career. If you want to also note that the rest of CNN's ratings are also suffering, perhaps the CNN page is the appropriate place for that. Michael2127 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles that you cited reference the entire CNN network. It is unfair to single out Erin Burnett when it is clear that these stories are about many different people.

When I removed the ratings line last week I also removed the line that was positive in reference to Erin’s ratings. Ratings are by definition volatile and discussing them over some arbitrary time period on Wikipedia pages as if they reflect a TV person's body of work is unfair. For example, there are also positive ratings stories which I don't think deserve inclusion either.--KatherineBarnard (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ratings are basically the most important fact about any TV show, and her TV show is the most important aspect of her career. They are quite relevant and important. And they're not volatile - her ratings have stayed consistently low. More notably, she DID break a 20 year ratings record, so that's definitely notable. Michael2127 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree. There are several problems with this content:

For starters and most importantly to this article, a BLP: The statistics are about the TV show and the channel and not about Burnett herself. We can't use the ratings to create an implied conclusion WP:OR, that the ratings are Burnett's fault. Ratings, if useful at all, have to considered as part a continuum and must be used in context.

We can't synthsize sources to create content.

Source: While essentially every CNN program was down double-digits, 9pmET, which is home to “Piers Morgan Tonight,” and 7pmET, which is home to “Erin Burnett OutFront,” each had their worst performance in the demo in 20 years.

Source: It was also the network's second-worst month in primetime for viewers in the key demographic since October 1991.

Things were especially bad at the 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. timeslots. Piers Morgan drew an average of 417,000 total viewers and 117,000 viewers age 25-54 — the lowest numbers the 9 p.m. slot has seen in two decades. Erin Burnett received just 89,000 viewers in the key demo at 7 p.m.

Wikipedia text: By May 2012, Erin Burnett OutFront averaged just 89,000 viewers in the key demographic aged 25-54, which were the lowest ratings for CNN in the 7pm time slot since October 1991.[18] [19]

- doesn't say averaged, it says received... big difference

- doesn't say in either source anything which means: "which were the lowest ratings for CNN in the 7pm time slot since October 1991" which refers back to Burnett.

- What it does say: "It was also the network's second-worst month in primetime for viewers."

connecting this source content: It was also the network's second-worst month in primetime for viewers in the key demographic since October 1991.

to this source content: each had their worst performance in the demo in 20 years.

to get this: which were the lowest ratings for CNN in the 7pm time slot since October 1991.

is synthesis, creates WP:OR and is non compliant content per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

I think you're confused. Michael2127 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are the one who is confused, and if you don't stop edit warring to force your preferred verstion into place, you will be blocked. The sources you're using do not say anything about Burnett's career, the sources talk about CNN's ratings in several timeslots - there's no indication this has anything to do with Burnett as you are synthesizing. Dreadstar ☥ 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ratings are basically the most important fact about any TV show, and her TV show is the most important aspect of her career."

This is your opinion, and you are attempting to push content into an article to support that opinion.

"And they're not volatile - her ratings have stayed consistently low."

They aren't her ratings they are the Program/CNN ratings. Further drawing a conclusion on statistics that either have or have not been added to an article is synthesis and OR.

You have three editors suggesting you are mistaken. Your insistance on pushing into an article non compliant content especially when three different editors have taken the time to explain how and why your preferred content is not compliant with Wikipedia policy and guidelines is not collaborative and is disruptive. (olive (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

No, this is common practice for Wikipedia entries on TV shows, to include their ratings, particularly if they break some record like she did. Michael2127 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an article about a TV show, its a BLP.(olive (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

You seem to be making some sort of an existentialist argument and I'm not a trained philosopher. Michael2127 (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm describing synthesis and OR not existentialism. You are a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia editors should understand policy and guidelines. If they don't fine, we all have lots to learn. But when three editors suggest you are mistaken in your understanding you might think about whether you are missing something in regards to OR and synthesis.(olive (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

3 editors making an incorrect point do not trump 1 editor making a correct point. That just demonstrates that Erin Burnett has at least 3 fans who are willing to edit her Wikipedia page by ignoring Wiki standards. Michael2127 (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

3 editors is a consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and decisions are often made using consensus. In fact, I am uninvolved both in terms of these articles, and in that I have never seen this program and have no opinion whatsoever of Burnett or her show. We are clearly arguing policy, and just as I am not willing to suggest you have some less than neutral motive, please don't assume that I or any one else has. Lets just stick to the content we are discussing.(olive (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

@Michael2127, personally attacking editors who disagree with you by calling them 'fans' is deplorable and violates our No Personal attacks policy. You're ignoring several policies, Michael, because you're taking a number about CNN's ratings and putting in this article, making it look like Burnett is causing a ratings dip - when the source says nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, I've been reading other sources that indicate CNN's ratings were suffering long before Burrnett's show. You have nothing to back up your claims that this is some important point in her career, you're just making that up yourself. It violates WP:NOR. It violates WP:V, because the 'numbers' are taken out of the context of the source and presented here in a misleading way. Dreadstar ☥ 02:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these are numerical facts. Do you dispute them? Breaking a 20-year ratings record is certainly an important part of her career. If you want to also note that the rest of CNN's ratings are also suffering, perhaps the CNN page is the appropriate place for that. Michael2127 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, where do your sources say this is an "important part of her career"? Your opinion doesn't matter, you need Reliable sources that say that. Further, I don't want to 'also' add anything about CNN's ratings, I'm telling you that the sources you use are talking about CNN and not Burnett or her career. Either find sources that meet WP:BLP and WP:RS for this purportedly "important part of her career" or stop edit warring to force your material into the article. You're going to need high-quality, reliable sources that clearly support the content you're trying to add, and the sources you're using are certainly not up to the high bar threshold of WP:BLP, nor do they contain material that supports your assertions. Dreadstar ☥ 02:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Those sources refer to Erin Burnett's ratings for her individual show. Yes, they mention that ratings for other CNN programs are also low. I don't think that's relevant for this article, but if you do, include it. Michael2127 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See my comment here. And btw, your comment is backwards, the source is about CNN's low ratings, and the 'mention' is about Morgan and Burnett's ratings. Nothing about records or career, etc. Just putting the content out of context as you have, makes a larger implication than "it's just numbers". Therefore it violates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This ratings record she broke is certainly an important part of her career. It is the main noteworthy fact about her job, which is the most important part of her life. A couple of you apparently are maintaining that info about Erin playing field hockey and lacrosse and a joke about camels she made are crucial info to this article, but her show breaking a 20-year ratings record is not important. Get real. Your judgement about relevance is obviously poor. This info will stay in this article. Period. Michael2127 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You get real, please. Where do sources say what you're saying? You need WP:RS for the material to stay in the article, period. Dreadstar ☥ 03:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"While essentially every CNN program was down double-digits, 9pmET, which is home to “Piers Morgan Tonight,” and 7pmET, which is home to “Erin Burnett OutFront,” each had their worst performance in the demo in 20 years." http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/may-2012-ratings-cnn-hits-20-year-low_b130250 Michael2127 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No editor on Wikipedia has the right or the knowledge to say what is the most important part of a job, and even further of a life... good grief. None of us can make those kinds of judgement calls for another person.... Source it or leave it out... and as for the other content, camels and Lacrosse... not sure who added it but I suggest you check the history before you throw stones.(olive (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC))

@Michael2127, yes, CNN's shows in a range of timeslots had their worst performances in 20 years; the sources say nothing about Burnett's career, nor does it say anything at all about a 'record'; CNN has been around for over 30 years, so there's no indication of a 'record'. You're putting these 'just numbers' into Burnett's article, and the way it is presented implies something negative about her - which is something you've stated over and over, including in your edit summary here, but there's nothing in the source that says it's about her at all - CNN has been struggling with ratings in those slots long before her show, so it could be that it's not negative about her at all - it could be a high point of her career that she was able to keep the numbers from going lower than they were in May. But we need a reliable source that says so, and you can't just plug in primary source numbers with extremely limited context that makes it look like a career low for her. That implication violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; and therefore it also violates WP:BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 03:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial comments

Clearly Forbes is not a tabloid, Same with the Balt Sun. What they said should be public and let the public decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.214 (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No one said Forbes was a tabloid. Your cherry-picking of sources to add content that says "Writers in Forbes, the Guardian, and The Baltimore Sun variously described her coverage as "smug," "vapid," and "stomach churningly awful." is indeed tabloidy and unencyclopedic; and strikes me as an attempt to merely attack the subject of the article instead of presenting encyclopedic facts and content. Dreadstar ☥ 21:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bloggers and columnists say lots of things we don't add to our articles - we don't add worthless attack comments without a decent reason, and from my investigation of your desired addition I didn't see one - I suggest you present something for inclusion that says what your are desirous of without the name calling and demeaning portrayal of the living subject of this article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the history.

1) I was not the person who put this up so someone (else) thought it should be there.

2) Just a few days ago this was taken down by Kathrine Bernard (who said she added things)>>Ohnoitsjamie (talk (actually, you mostly deleted things) (undo)

3) Ohnoitsjamie put it backsaying )>>Ohnoitsjamie (talk | contribs)‎ (15,437 bytes) (actually, you mostly deleted things) (undo)

4) Kathrine Bernard took it down again.

5) Ohnoitsjamie put it back up

4) Dreadstar took it down saying >>Dreadstar (talk | contribs)‎ (13,942 bytes) (→Controversial comments: needs better sources and more accurate content

6) I put it back(thinking we had another KB)- I said there were ref...

7) Dread took it down-- and only then it became tabloid. -Dreadstar (talk | contribs)‎ (13,475 bytes) (→Controversial comments: rem tabloidy material) (undo)

7) I put it back( again thinking we had another KB)saying forbes is not a tabloid

Last (and my opinion) is in her coverage Ms Burnett of that event, she seemed to go way way out of her way to show only the ignorant protesters. If she presented a biased story,as many seem to think, why whitewash it? Let the public make there own opinion. CNN did not respond to nothing: CNN issued a statement in response to the blowback, saying "We support Erin and the OutFront team and we respect that there will be a range of opinions on any given story."[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.214 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What if we added something like: Several media sources have disputed Ms Burnett's report as being biased

Would that make everyone happy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.214 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be something to this effect on the page, as coziness with the financial industry is what Burnett is best known for in media circles. There are innumerable reputable sources attesting to this fact, and it must be included somewhere on the page. I suggest: Burnett has subsequently garnered substantial criticism from journalists and media watchdog groups including for reporting seen as biased in favor of the financial industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebeljacobo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem to be talking about the Occupy movement, can you quote something out of this source that talks about bias regarding the financial industry in general? If so, then we can look at adding something about it. Dreadstar ☥ 22:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Erin Burnett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728054652/http://www.standrews-de.org/news/detail2.cfm?NewsID=836 to http://www.standrews-de.org/news/detail2.cfm?NewsID=836

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Erin Burnett. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://i.cfr.org/content/about/annual_report/ar_2012/Membership_Roster2012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312225235/http://www.salisburycorporatelaw.com/partners_of_the_firm.cfm?show=kkingburnett to http://www.salisburycorporatelaw.com/partners_of_the_firm.cfm?show=kkingburnett
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/burnett.erin.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessinsider.com/david-rubulotta-2011-9

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

OutFront

Hello,

Does Erin have to talk so much with her hands? It's annoying watching her! Can she please restrain herself.

Serge Windsor (ON) Canada 184.145.51.55 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)