http://vpn745846014.softether.net/sovereign-debt-restructuring-and-debt-sustainability-an.php She made the statement on TV under no stress or threat. She was working at the time and was receiving payment as it was her job. There are no privacy matters to deal with here. She did the harm herself. Wikipedia is not spreading any false rumours. ICarriere wrote The definition of a reliable source states It has verified. Move on please. ICarriere wrote As I said before, my concern about the quote is that it was spoken with a hint of irony.
And to portray the quote as her opinion seems both deceptive and potentially harmful Irony? She said the quote. She is the owner and needs to deal with the consequences. Is was her opinion when she made them. Please see above. ICarriere quoted Discussed above. ICarriere wrote The second problem I see is whether the quote created a controversy worth mention. Please state the facts clearly. The source is the Hardball transcipt. As for the controversy, there is one. The quote is now part of Erin Burnett 's life.
The sources quotes were in response by a request by Admin Theresa Knott where she asked w. As for the Yahoo Groups ICarriere wrote It was you that removed a post regarding a fan club  and left the comment Please do not add so called fan clubs that are nothing more than a borage of advertisement on a user's page . As for the group itself, it is interesting to note they feel the other incident on the same show where Chris Matthews showed a lack of professionalism and even harrassment .
It is a controversy that belongs on the Chris Matthews page and maybe even on the Erin Burnett page as it has received more attention than this quote. ICarriere wrote What I find even more troubling though, is the source of the so-called controversy. Again the source is not a blog. It is the transcipt itself. As for the post on the blog, you are confirming it is a controvesy and belongs on this page.
Please read above. This has been discussed too long and the obvious diecision is to allow the quote to be entered. I think Controversy was not the best title for the section so I had changed it Controversy dangerous Chinese goods but if anyone has a better suggestion, please put it forward. Please be civil as discussed before. I think the only disputable thing here is whether or not this qualifies as a controversy or not, which, in turn, probably depends on whether or not the comment was made in jest. However, I think including the comment seems the safer route as the comment has gathered considerable attention, even getting mention on the Dail Show which is why I'm even reading this talk page, for instance and seems to have been said seriously.
The argument on sources is laughable. She said the thing on TV, which can be confirmed through the Hardball transcripts, as many people have pointed out. It was shown on the Daily Show, gathered attention at Digg and Reddit, etc. The fact that the clip was linked to by a blog doesn't mean anything. The fact that ICarriere thinks repeating this argument over and over again makes it right shouldn't sway anyone else. We have reliable sources establishing that Ms.
Burnett made the remarks on national television, and there is ample evidence that the incident generated significant attention and controversy. There is nothing beyond sheer speculation to substantiate ICarriere's assertion that she misspoke though as correctly noted above, if Burnett issues a public statement to this effect, it certainly should be quoted in the article. ICarriere is attempting to manipulate the article's content to reflect his personal bias and accusing others of "vandalism" for adding the verifiable and notable information that he seeks to suppress.
Any claim that Burnett's comments haven't generated controversy is bizarre in the extreme. Burnett's quotes have been cited and reader-discussed on the most-widely-viewed political blogs and web-sites on the web. That translates to hundreds-of-thousands of web readers at a minimum, and untold-millions of web readers at a maximum. The one editor here who has apparently made it his mission in life to hide knowledge of Burnett's quote from the general public i. Hercules , 20 August UTC. ICarriere - I do not know who you are, but that quotation needs to be on her page.
When I edited the page to add it, I did not express any bias and left the quote in full. Regardless of what your opinions obviously are you cannot change what she said in her own words. She did not misspeak, she clearly stated her opinion. Furthermore, I have yet to hear her say anything to the contrary.
For you to say she "misspoke" is your own opinion and should not be expressed on this page. I did not read about this from any "left-wing blog" nor watch it on the Daily Show, I actually watched it on Hardball. I agree that I shouldn't have used the blog as my source, but I do not mind going back and changing my reference to be the actual show. A source does not have to be another internet site - I was merely trying to link to the video.
Additionally and for the record, I recently created a Wiki account and I am a new user. I have no other accounts. You idiot kid , 20 August UTC.
Once again there are still major problems with the wording of the controversy section which shows a tremendous bias toward Ms. Burnett by those eager to protect her from embarrassment. One - the labeling of Burnett's critics as "liberal" should be removed. I personally think Burnett is an inhuman right wing piece of garbage but that assessment does not belong on Wikipedia's page for her, it belongs here.
Second - the word "misinterpreted" should also be removed. She wasn't misinterpreted.
Personally I feel she was trying to backtrack from her comments. Nevertheless, my personal opinion of backtracking is just as inappropriate as the word misinterpreted. The fair way to do this is simply show her quote and then show her followup. ICarriere has accussed me of having Sockpuppets . Even though there are more IP addresses he could of put down, he didn't. The case will be rejected as I don't have nor do I need sockpuppets.
ICarriere on the other hand, has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar   with full details there. This deserve no further comment. An request for checkuser has been made  and it a very weak one. Please explain as you are essentially accussing me of having sockpuppets. Here is a direct link to the Hardball transcript. It is in plain black and white, in her own words. There is no need to link to youtube or a blog, there it is. Your Words: 1 "You have all tried to add similar sources to the page.
Furthermore, I have tried to make edits at least twice and get an error message saying that someone has edited at the same time as me - so is this even possible? However, please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and we all know how wiki articles are written. I think, if anything, our prose is similar to the style commonly found on WP.
And the only contributions have been to the Erin Burnett page. However, I joined on the 17th of August, the date of the airing of the Daily Show quip when I was able to see how to spell her name and search for her WP-bio. I know how this site works. Besides, it's not all that hard, plus I have an interest in this page and have been following its comments all over WP.
I think it would be best to drop this puppet talk and get to the point of editing this page. Now, without mentioning puppetry, can you please express clearly your major objections to adding a Controversy section and including EB's original quote from Harball, her appearance on The Daily Show pop culture ref , and her subsequent explanation for her original quote? You idiot kid , 21 August UTC. Unproteceted - been long enough. I'm not going to change the article page because I know that ICarriere would just revert my edits and we'd be back to where we started in this whole mess and I'm going to bed soon but it can't go without remark.
He didn't put the quote on the page!!!!
It's what the controversy is about, you have to be kidding. His personal editoral slant: "liberal talk show host Jon Stewart", "mis-interpreted comment", "immediately clarified". ICarriere has the quote a bit off. It's tough to transcribe live speech and I'm not giving him a hard time about this. Here is what I caught when I listened to the video.
I ask others to please double check. Toys made in China, there are some safety questions about toys made in China, alright, that's the fact.
All quoting is selective - yep, ok Rogers He decides to concentrate on the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem. Kerrey Dem. I have a yahoo mail account and a my. Secondly, I will discuss Matthew interviewing me. The Europeans were in the middle.
I had said, that look, if people want to start making toys, and by extension a lot of other things guaranteed to be safe and make them in China, then the costs of production are going to go up in China and that means prices at Walmart may to go up too. Nobody wants that. I don't want that, you don't want that but safety and quality come with a price.
Lastly, I encourage people to chip in on what should be on the article's page. I don't think ICarriere should be able to dominate the moderation of this. He was wrong about excluding the quote in the first place and has shown poor judgement repeatedly. Aquavit , 22 August UTC. So it is clear that Erin Burnett has no real formal educational credentials beyond the undergraduate level in economics or finance or anything?
She doesn't even know the difference between an acronym and an abbreviation. She does talk a lot, but actually conveys remarkably little. 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. I also have used this edit to revert the vandalism of a user, who was warned  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. I see no reason for that user to change the headings of others or to place a major heading as a minor sub-heading. 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. 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. I believe the majority of us want to include the following: 1. This was also just briefly mentioned on the program iCought, but I didn't want the full thing - anyone else see this? 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. I think both J. Hercules 's  and Gr1st 's  version for the China quote section are pretty good.
Though J. Hercules 's missed the end of the clarification quote " 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. 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. 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 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. I have made a request for full prtection. 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.
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 , 22 August UTC. Frankly, this one seems like a no-brainer. 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.
Ossified , 25 August UTC. 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 , 29 August UTC. 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 ICarriere, just wondering why you changed the birth location? We have two sources citing different locales. Spryde , 5 September UTC. 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:. I've found another scrap of evidence, which is not unfortunately definitive. 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.
Mangoe , 7 September 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 , 24 September UTC. 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 , 23 October UTC. This page has become very long. If anyone knows how to archive pages, it would be great to have that done. Some nitwits keep insisting on removing the camel cull story, on the basis that Burnett's pet names are worthy of being in an encyclopedia but a global incident where she insulted the leader of a country is not. Get over yourselves and allow the controversies to stay on. Other than some minor concerns with the wording "rant" may be accurate but is far from NPOV, and there is no way to know if the posts really were from "informed Australian citizens" , my main concern is that it relates to comments made on the News story , and thus is simply relating the equivalent of non-notable, highly opinionated forum posts and is very much one sided.
If the story has legs then there will be better commentary to use, and if not then this is, at best, undue weight, and at worst attacking the subject. No section on this ignorant bitches comments about Australias prime minister? It made headlines worldwide and should be here. It appears that Erin Burnett has a habit of making odd comments and then backtracking. In my mind, it would be appropriate for there to be a section on Controversies including the China story and the Rudd story.
Perhaps something along these lines:.
Summary: Hardball: Review and Analysis of Chris Matthews's Book [ Businessnews Publishing] on wamadawipu.cf *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers . The must-read summary of Chris Matthews's book: “Hardball: How Politics Is Played Told By One Who Knows Game”. This complete summary of "Hardball" by Chris Matthews, a well-known American political commentator and media personality, outlines his insight into the game of politics.
Her story presented the culling as " airstrikes " against camels which she described as " Media in Australia picked up on the story which became a high news item in almost every capital newspaper around the country       as well as on television bulletins  with headlines mainly focussing on Burnett's description of the nation's Prime Minister as a serial killer. The Adelaide Advertiser received over comments from readers of the story and ran a humorous poll titled, "What feral menace is most in need of culling?
After the media attention in Australia and subsequent fallout, Erin Burnett appeared on her other CNBC show, "Squawk on the Street" on Thursday August 6,  to claim that her story was a " deadpan joke", describing the camel cull as " While the true nature of the story remains controversial, her claim of it being in humor is supported by her final statement on the original airing of the show, "I know there was some humour, a little bit, but Kevin Rudd.
I hope they have this on in the morning in Australia. Camels which are very human-like when you see them in person". During Burnett's retraction on the "Squawk on the Street" segment on Thursday, she invited the Australian Prime Minister to appear on the show but failed to offer an apology for any offence that she had caused to the Prime Minister, the Australian Government or the Australian people. No clarification, statement or apology was offered on the "Stop Trading Listen to Cramer! Celestra talk , 13 August UTC. I added the above section to the article and it's been removed again without any discussion entry.
Has this been done by an editor correctly or is someone trying to stifle information? The only reference for the story that she appeared nude on the cover of Maxim in is today's Australian story about the camel cull controversy. A detailed search of the net fails to reveal any evidence of such a photo shoot other than an oft-shown cover pictire which looks very much as if it is photoshopped.
I'll stop short of removing the reference to the Maxim shoot but I think a more experienced editor might want to look at it closely. It is correct to remove that paragraph as its abusive writer may not be Australian - there are American spelling conventions, and Australians would not use that "roo" sentence nor add an apostrophe before the word "roo" either.
However, it would be worthy to add a controversy section to Burnett's bio in Wikipedia. It is considered offensive that that TV program inadvertently compared the culling of a feral and introduced species to the genocide of Jews by Poles a few decades ago. Also, it is insensitive to label an elected official as a serial killer, especially in a country where the Aboriginal population was systematically exterminated by the British colonists. This Prime Minister made significant inroads by being the first Prime Minister to apologise for all the hurt and failings throughout two decades of British misery.
Britain tested atomic weapons in the desert and poisoned local Aboriginal populations and their country just after the holocaust. Camels are destroying Aboriginal cultural sites. It would be prudent if Burnett were to travel to Australia and apologise to the Aboriginal population for mixing holocaust imagery with their plight and for her trivialising Aboriginal culture and land.
I moved messages from and earlier to the archive. I saw your news segment about the Camels in Australia. There is not 1 million camels. Add to Wishlist. USD 5. Sign in to Purchase Instantly. Explore Now. Buy As Gift. This summary offers a concise overview of the entire book in less than 30 minutes reading time.
Matthews offers an insight on the game of politics and explains the practical methods used by politicians. Product Details. Average Review. Write a Review. Related Searches. Summary: The Myth of the Rational Voter -. View Product. Summary: Broken Government - John W. Dean: How. Complete summary of John W. This summary of the ideas from John W. Dean's book Broken Government presents the author's belief that Republicans have transgressed or ignored This ebook consists of a summary of the ideas, viewpoints and facts presented by Glenn This summary offers a concise overview of the entire book in