Trichome

Significant Information?

Is the note about Cenk being a Steelers fan really necessary to be included in the article? I would understand if it affected his show, but it really doesn't. I've watched his show and he only talks about football rarely, let alone his favorite team.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cremnlin (talk • contribs) 02:27, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section?

The filing of Keith Olbermann's lawsuit on 5 April 2012 has some criticism of Uygur I was tempted to add to the section on "The Young Turks." I then saw the MSNBC section contains a criticism of Uygur's style that supposedly led to him losing his MSNBC contract.

Olbermann's criticism is somewhat similar to the MSNBC appraisal, so I wonder whether both are better under their own section.

Olbermann's lawsuit states that "Olbermann had told (Current TV President David) Bohrman not to hire Uygur because he opined that Uygur had a difficulty distinguishing between facts and things he wanted to be true."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/88184045/Keith-Olbermann-Lawsuit?secret_password=4mfk19mcxgngnuvpvdv Reillyignatius (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of Armenian Genocide

Cenk Uygur has been accused repeatedly of denying the Armenian Genocide, based on a column appearing in the Daily Pennsylvanian and a Salon.com Letter to the Editor: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/1991/11/column_historical_fact_or_falsehood, http://www.salon.com/1999/06/16/punk_2/singleton/. Should a section covering the controversy be added?

I don't think a section is warranted, since it has not been a major controversy, nor has he talked about the subject since 1999 (as far as I can see). It seems to be unclear whether he still holds these views. Ana Kasparian has said "That op-ed is from 11 years ago. People change their political opinions all the time.", but that is still ambiguous. It should probably be added to the "Early years" section, along with the Armenian community's reaction (see [1] for example). InverseHypercube (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This clip seems to suggest that he has changed his views, but it is not very clear. InverseHypercube (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the Armenian American community has taken issue with this, and just because their numbers are small, doesn't mean that their concerns should be ignored; if the Armenian-American community numbered a few million, you can be certain it would've been a national story. Therefore, in the interest of historical record, I'm adding a section regarding thisSolntsa90 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and whether he still agrees with these views or not is immaterial; what matters (and what should be recorded) is that he said them at all. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is to stay, then it should be integrated with the rest of the article. Miscellaneous controversy sections are rarely a good idea in articles, and that is particularly true in biographies of living persons. I see no reason why this cannot be in the "political views" section. As for what views he had or does have, per WP:NPOV/WP:BLP, if there are sources saying he has changed or kept his views, then they should be included. CT Cooper · talk 09:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

more on his genocide denial

the most previous edition of the article REALLY softens up his outright denial of the Armenian genocide as "skepticism towards contemporary views of the armenian genocide." To say he merely showed skepticism is an outright lie.

Does this seem like skepticism? it seems more like outright denial to me, based on his letter "historical fact or falsehood?" that he sent to the Daily Pennsylvanian:

""The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place."

what is it, Cenk? editing your own page? 75.72.99.168 (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence that Cenk has edited this page, and implying otherwise without evidence is inappropriate. CT Cooper · talk 11:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply