Talk:Kevin James (broadcaster)

Edit War In Progress

It's obvious that a bunch of right-wing tools are editing this with an eye toward protecting their boy. Most of the edits that have been made in James' favor merely REMOVE THINGS THAT WERE ACTUALLY SAID. There's nothing POV about quoting the man directly. I encourage everyone to simply watch the video. If you can still defend this man after watching this pathetic performance, then you need to really assess where your allegiances lie. Are you a true American, or just a Republican Cheerleader?

??------------

Is there a reason that James' numerous rhyming "energized and legitimized" offerings are not allowed in this article? I thought it apropos given the specificity of how many times Matthews asked a question.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.221.226 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsk,tsk. You know, lads, I only was gone for a little while when I decided to come back and see what'd been changed. I was rather surprised. For any newcomers that might be curious what's been happening on this little corner of wikipedia, different people have different ideas on how the "Kevin James" article should come out looking like. Kevin James is a radio personality. What's gotten people a little... "edgy"... is how a May 15, 2008 television appearance by him should be reflected on Wikipedia -- assuming it ought be included at all. By this point, I'm sure someone's called on an administrator to step-in. But, until that actually happens, might I suggest that everyone actually USE this talk page rather than just making edits continuously to the article? Doing both is fine, but also use this page. Moreover, until an administrator or someone of the sort arrives to fix up things, leave your "talk comments" right here under this "edit war in progress" heading just to keep things neat and clean. To that end, also make use of the "bullet" which is activated by typing out a "*" in wiki-format mode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFactor (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First, we are not all "lads" here, thank you very much. Secondly, the article needs more combing though for problems with grammar and syntax. For example, the closing statement in the most recent edit reads: "He then let him know that Chamberlain ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938." Who let who know? It can be surmised by the text; however, double pronouns referring to two different individuals is sloppy. Futher, the phrase "...let him know..." is pedestrian. It should be replaced with something to this effect: "Matthews then informed James..." Thirdly, there is more to "appeasement" than Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia, and is not as neatly summated as Matthews implies. I don't think he knows much more about it than James, and what he does know was probably gleaned through five minutes on the Internet prior to yesterday's broadcast. I am not choosing sides, and that is precisely the point. We need to stop being spoon fed propaganda from the media. The fact that James came across as a moron does not make Matthews a genius, merely because they opposed one another on a TV program. Let us begin to implememnt critical thinking processes, people. Mindian (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was using the term "lads" as a term of endearment and camaraderie. Were you insinuting something related to gender?

I think it's a giant leap of logic to say that pointing out James' error means saying Mathews is a genius. Maybe I missed something that was in an earlier version of the text, but over-romanticizing Mathews seems like a fabricated issue to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.219.149 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the vandalisms that have been taking place though inappropriate, were still damn funny. That said... Somebody go to the "Encyclopedia Dramatica" article and spice up the Kevin_James article there! (I can't provide a direct link... use google.)

People are probably edit warring because they want to either crucify or "legitimize" (pun intended) James based on their politics. The article should mention his show on Hardball because he had little notoriety outside the Los Angeles area until it happened. He has gained a national reputation because, for better or worse, he embarrassed himself on a country-wide broadcast. However, we should edit said section so it reads like an encyclopedia and not a public internet forum. Fleshing out the rest of the article may also help, so as not to make his Hardball appearance seem like 50% of his career. -Art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.101.150 (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know this "edit war" had been going on for so long. I suggest everyone watch the clip and see how the Chamberlain thing actually went down. It's clear from the beginning of the segment that James knows exactly what he's talking about, appeasement. That's why he compares Obama to Chamberlain. Sure, this happened before Obama had actually appeased anyone, but James knew what he was talking about and Matthews was just trying to make him look bad. There's no problem with adding that James was heated and screaming throughout the segment, but he was not torn up by Matthews in any way. Matthews just asks the same question over and over while James is responding in the background... Matthews was trying to point out that Chamberlain actually did something, whereas Obama was only campaigning and hadn't appeased anyone, it's besides the point and was only intended to smear James and protect Obama. Keepittrue (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hardball

Can we get a discussion of this here? There's a nonproductive edit war going on here, which I don't necessarily want to get in the middle of, but some of this really looks like unsourced pov negative content. Can we get a consensus on what should be included? Thanks, FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not unsourced. It is notable. The full account is online at the refs. Someone is deleting this I'm guessing because it is unflattering. --Replysixty (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Theish continues to hastily revert and possibly vandalize the article, and I have asked him/her to stop.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Eh. It's sourced but it is POV (undue weight) in my opinion. The guy is a complete and total moron but this doesn't really need to be in a BLP. I'm deleting in. Here's looking at you, 3RR! :) Protonk (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you will be heading for 3RR ... because this incident is notable and really his only reason for general notability as far as I can tell.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably just you and me. whether or not this issue is what grants him notability is unimportant. The focus and tone of the section are not appropriate for a BLP. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Um, quick question... What's BLP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFactor (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bio of a living person.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• OooooK... So, what's "3RR", then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFactor (talk • contribs) 05:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• A rule that basically blocks an editor from editing an article (or the wiki) for 24 hours (or so) if they revert it more than 3 times in 24 hours. Meant to stop edit wars. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• As I said in my edit comment, the rest of the article may be anemic, but that may be testimony to the relative obscurity of this person in general. The fact is, his appearance on Hardball is very notable and especially timely as it is appearing all over the Internet and has generated much commentary and thousands of comments. --Replysixty (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Notability of the incident in question isn't the issue here. If he had been arrested for drunk driving, would we post a play-by-play of the evening on the bio or provide a line noting the event? Protonk (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• We would if you did it on National TV in front of millions of people as he did.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I mean the hardball section is more text than the rest of the biography and it is about 9 minutes of the man's life. Remember, the information is out there. It is our responsibility to build a record that is a reasoned, NPOV collection of the facts. We start to lose that reputation if BLPs are filled up with everyone's latest gaffe. Protonk (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And Lee Harvey Oswald's page is made up mostly of his actions during about 2 seconds of his life. In addition, no one is stopping you from adding additional info on the man, his bio, life story, etc. However that is difficult to find at the moment, because before this incident, nobody knew he who he was for the most part.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. That's assuming it really was Oswald. =) --So long, and thanks for all the fish! (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And... I just fixed my sig. --AlphaFactor (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Oswald assassinated a president. Kevin James proved that talk radio hosts can be blowhards. One of these things is shocking and newsworthy. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• How is it whitewashing to demand that the tone of an encyclopedia article reflect the guidelines? I'm not whitewashing this. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes, per your complaints. However, you should not remove specificity (28 times) and replace it with vague wording "multiple" etc.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. I would err on the side of vagueness there. For one, it isn't really important how many specific times he asked it. At some point in the conversation it became more of a litany than anything else. In this case I think that the phrase "28 times" suggests a dialogue that didn't really take place. I would understand removing multiple if the intent of keeping it in was to drastically change the suggested times Matthews asked it, but I don't think that is/was the case. Of course I'm proud of Tweety for doing this, holding SOMEONE's feet to the fire. At the same time I fear that he (Matthews) felt he could do this by virtue of his relative stature. I would really like someone to do this to an administration official (or former, a la Jon Stewart and Doug Fieth). I understand that respect for the office forbids them from castigating them publicly for their ignorance but we should at least expect the fourth estate to treat mendacity and ignorance in government more seriously than in AM radio. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a tough one, because specific is better than vague. "28" times is illustrative of the tenor of the conversation and James unwillingness to answer, but is also highly embarrassing for James. If Wikipedia's mission included the effort to avoid embarrassing public figures, I'd see your point that "multiple" is good enough, but in terms of a clear description, I tend to favor 28. --Replysixty (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the Perino statement per your complaint. I hope such actions will show a good faith attempt to be collaborative.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I don't think the burden is on your to prove good faith. I didn't assume that you were acting maliciously in reverting my edits. Protonk (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Protonk I believe that you and I are beggining to work collaboratively ... however Theish is hellbent on disruptively editing the article. It may be best for you to look over his/her changes and deem if they should be reverted as well.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I can see the validity of removing the Perino note, although I do think it does give some context to the point Matthews was making about James. I agree the quotes may have been sensationalist. However, for whatever reason Theish is trying to "balance" (as s/he sees it) the article with irrelevant information (after trying to delete the section entirely). This certainly qualifies as disruptive. I do not think the information about the hardball appearance is excessive or disproportionate. If the rest of the article seems short on details, please fill it out as necessary. -Replysixty (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Theish, Matthews did not make the same mistake. Matthews said "Wasn't the USS Cole under Bush?" which is a question, not a statement. Then, he added a correction- "I mean, I don't know what I'm talking about here." This comment is not notable to the exchange. What is notable, and the reason people are discussing this event, is James' total meltdown. What you are doing is trying to create "two sides" to this event, trying to balancing a major "gotcha" moment with another incidental one. This is an NPOV issue at its heart. Even if Matthews had made a factual mistake, that does not "balance" the fact that James was on the air to vehemently argue a historical point for which he was wholly ignorant and for three minutes was called out on it on national television. If you truly think that Matthews' quote was notable (it was not), perhaps you should add it to the Chris Matthews page. --Replysixty (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone add that on the May 16, 2008 Hardball show that Matthews replayed the exchange with James from May 15, and then added "He's a good guy, we're going to have him back". The transcript has not yet been posted however. It just showed that Matthews is a class act and I personally feel that it would a nice way to end this section. --jkolden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkolden (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

The Hardball segment of this article was posted before the episode aired. Also, upon watching the youtube of the dialogue between Matthews and James, the assertions made in the article are erroneous. I, personally, did not agree with James; however, I feel that it is important for Wikipedia to maintain neutrality. The lack of neutrality, as displayed here, is precisely why my professors frown upon wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindian (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Mindian (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Hardball is first on at 5pm Eastern, and the first edits began moments after the incident occurred live. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out the youtube video. Everything is legit.. It's not my fault he made an ass out of himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs&e —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.137.219 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This incident has been picked up by several news sources, and is generating a lot of comment in opinion media. These things give significance to the incident, and they also increase the likelihood that a person navigating to this page will be searching for the information about James's Hardball appearance. There would be no shortage of sources to cite. Leoniceno (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Between the problem anon edits and specificially MSNBC on air mention of the incident on the Wikipedia article, I've semi-protected to prevent anon editing of the article for 6 hours. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just neutrality which is at issue here, it's clarity: the account of the content of the interview does not state exactly what was stated. Going to try to clarify it a bit, though I tremble to do so... --babbage (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)\

Ugh forget it, not going to get into this... --babbage (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully lads, I will remind that the overriding criteria for inclusion within Wikipedia is not whether an inclusion would tend to impair or promote the perception of a subject-matter, it is noteworthiness. Given the coverage that the "Hardball incident" has thus far triggered, the reasonable inference could be made that it fits within the noteworthiness guidelines. AlphaFactor So long, and thanks for all the fish! 05:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to specifically answer the following note per Gamaliel's edit: "shorten section per undue weight and also to remove qualitative descriptions of James' actions which are unsupported by references and probably pov". First of all, the descriptions of James' actions are certainly supported by the full video, which is offered as a reference. Second, as stated previously and echoed by others, "undue weight" must be balanced by "completeness". In this case, the perception of undue weight may be amplified by the paucity of the rest of the article. If you feel there is an emphasis issue, it is up to you to correct this not by shortening this section but by adding to the rest. I suspect, however, that there is actually no "undue weight" issue-- the notability of this particular episode outshadows the notability of other biographical information. My evidence for this is that prior to the Hardball appearance, Jams' entry was pretty sparse. --Replysixty (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the most important thing about James. It might be the most important thing that we personally know about James, but that is not quite the same thing. It does not deserve coverage in excruciating detail. The detail is unnecessary for "completeness"; much of what is there can be summarized. Undue weight and BLP issues also come into play here. A man's public humiliation should not be described at such length when the only source you have for anyone but us noticing is a blog from a Texas newspaper. A case can be made that this shouldn't be included at all. I am not making this case - I think it should be included and I think he deserves what he gets, but there are matters of encyclopedic worth and WP policy to consider.

As far as using the video for a reference, no. Your interpretations of James' actions in the video are not supported by the video, they are your interpretations, and as such are POV, most egregiously your use of the word "sputtering". We should use neutral language to describe James' actions and let them speak for themselves. They are damning enough. Gamaliel (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. "sputtering" is not a subjective interpretation of what he was doing. It is in fact what he was doing, and any fair, impartial observer would agree to the characterization. Incidentally, I listened to his radio show for the first time this evening and he attested to his- using his words- "belligerent" behavior. He happens to think he was ambushed, but there is no dispute about how he reacted. This is a NPOV issue, absolutely. But it is in keeping a NPOV that the article be complete and contextual. As I have said, if the detail of the Hardball event seems disproportionate to other biographical facts in his biography, I invite you to fill out the rest of the article with any further information about this man you may have. It is the Hardball episode that is especially notable here and for which he has achieved both notoriety and notability. I might also point out I did not write the word "sputtering"-- I am only defending it here. Finally, the Texas blog you refer to is a reference, it does not represent the totality of interest and comment. For that, I recommend you check out youtube here (131,000 views), here (234,000 views), Thinkprogress.org (149 responses), Digg.com (3398 diggs, 437 comments), Rawstory, onegoodmove.org, #1 on viral video chart, etc. etc. This is ALL over the Internet and has been watched hundreds of thousands of times. To suggest this is only on one Texas blog or that this is of minor incident is either uninformed or disingenuous. --Replysixty (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can come up with reliable sources that say he was "sputtering" then we can include it. I've removed large sections of the content per WP:NPOV/WP:V and WP:BLP. We cannot have these sorts of claims unless we have secondary reliable sources making them. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the Path to 9-11 section, the phrase

"Bush was the President in office on 9-11. The very individual who ignored every bit of intelligence provided to him. So, the fact of the matter is that, even if Clinton had anything at all to do with Osama Bin Laden's motives on 9-11, George W. Bush had more than enough resources to have prevented it, period."

seems a bit pointed, to me. Perhaps it could be phrased more neutrally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.252.244 (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I Don't Know

I just watched a lengthy MSN video of the segment. Both Matthews and James were interrupting each other with Matthews asking over and over what it was that Chamberlain did in 1938-39 to appease Hitler. Obviously, James did not know, but he never admitted it. He said "I don't know" at least twice, the second time in semi-complete sentence, and I am paraphrasing, "I don't know what President Bush meant when he was talking to the Israel Knesset regarding blah blah blah." I think we are going to have to wait to get a written transcript for an accurate discussion of this issue. At that point, someone may decide that it is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.136.125 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has deemed the humiliating appearance of Kirk Watson on Hardball as worthy of inclusion in Mr. Watson's article, so it stands to reason that the appearance of Mr. James should also be included in this article. This wasn't a run of the mill appearance as a talking head, this was an out and out public flogging and will be news tomorrow as it is already news tonight. Bluefield (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this so my signing etc. might be inept. I think as a social pheonomena what happened on Hardball with Kevin James is very important. Within a period of hours a person was revealed to be not suited to hs work as a radio talk show host, his employer is now in the glare of publicity. Within hours-around the world contempt. Kevin James is unimportant but the speed of light unmasking changes the world. The entire format of talk radio has now been opened to scrutiny. Who are these people, why have they been chosen, what do they know, etc. And it happened within hours! MaTilde she took my money and went to Venezuela MartyGee (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)MartyGee

Birth year

James' birth year is listed "1963" in the first paragraph, but categorized as "1965 births". Which is it? Reference? Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

28 times

I have verified the claim that Matthews asked a variation of the question 28 times, by counting them myself. If others would like to count them = here is the video. Let me know if you arrive at a different number?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 05:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, lad. I'm impressed. I'm damn sorry I doubted you! (AlphaFactor, 05:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaFactor (talk • contribs)

If others are concerned about the precision and accuracy of the count of 28, I would suggest that the phrase "over two dozen times" accurately conveys the magnitude of the evasion without purporting precision. Just a thought. Austinmayor (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I think Matthews even said in a later interview something like "I asked him about two dozen times ..." -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I found the interview on the You Tube, changed the reference in the article to a direct quote from Matthews where he says "over two dozen times" and pointed to the location on the Internets of teh You Tube moving visualization. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just edited this in the article for more accuracy. Both in the YouTube video and in the transcript, Matthews only said "two dozen times" and not "over two dozen times." Really minor, but if we're going to say what Matthews said we (meaning "I") should get it accurate and correct. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Finale

The final product this morning seems much more balanced and accurate. Please let us keep it that way. As I stated yesterday, I totally disagreed with James and supported Matthews' hammering home his point, but there is no need for exaggeration. James did an adequate job of inserting his foot in his mouth without any assistance from Wikipedia. Let us all work to maintain the integrity of the site. Thank you.Mindian (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

References

I tried to reference a New York Times article on appeasement to give readers a background but the footnote does not look right. I am new to this, so could someone either insert it properly or advise me how to do so? Thanks. Mindian (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured it out on my own...Thanks Mindian (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Official biography

Since there are so many ref tags, I thought I'd point to Kevin James' page on KRLA. Paper45tee (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hardball II

This is an article about Kevin James, not about Bush's speech in Israel. Such depth here is nothing more than a WP:COAT for the larger problem that people have with Bush. The actual incident probably would be better served by it's own article, and not hashed out here as a relatively minor aspect of a living person. Arzel (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit summaries, could you specify what exactly is original research? I'm confused. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors are watching the video and reporting on what they feel is important in the video. Examples are counting the number of times a question is asked, interpreting the way the questions are being asked, interpreting the way James is responding to or defending the questions. The section reads like a news report of the video which is being crafted by the opinion of editors. Additionally, much of the second paragraph may also violate OR and NPOV since the video is being used as the source and the quotes taken may be promoting a point of view. There were none, and continue to be no responses by James within the section as well. Arzel (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of that, especially the part about editors interpreting the actions of the participants. Having editors count the number of times Matthews asked the question is inappropriate, I agree, but there's nothing wrong with having them quote own Matthews' estimate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it sounds like Matthews accused Kevin of being a "blank slate" for no reason. I think it is important to write what was the conversation which led Matthews accuse James of being a "blank state". Docku (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In the current version there is no connection between the two paragraphs and the reader is left with no idea what is going on. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It reads much better now, but I do question the need for the number of times the question was asked. Clearly by that time Matthews was badgering James for some kind of answer. I think it is probably sufficient to simply state he asked the question and James responded that he didn't know the answer. It is really just trivial when the real story is that James defended the use of the word Appeasment, while not knowing much about the Chamberlin incident. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO it reads much, much worse now. But hey, my opinion is on record. As I have said above, this entire James entry lacks detail that would assist an average reader with understanding what is notable about this person and what was notable about the Hardball appearance in particular. This is due to the attempt of some to be "fair" and "balanced"-- fair in the sense of "we shouldn't include anything that would unduly suggest this was embarrassing to James", which is not a matter of opinion but of fact and no reasonable person would claim otherwise-- including James himself -- and "balanced" in the sense that because the biographical information is incomplete that detail regarding the Hardball appearance should somehow be "balanced" in length so as not to outweigh it. As I have said numerous times in this discussion-- if there is a paucity of detail in the biographical information, it is because (A) James' biography is not notable, or (B) it is notable but no one yet has provided the information to Wikipedia. To pare down the Hardball section, sanitize it of detail, and remove context (e.g., what Bush was talking about that James was defending) and to boil the event down to these two scant paragraphs to "balance" it with the biography does a disservice to Wikipedia's readership. --Replysixty (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. I watched the live interview of Kevin James with Chris Matthews and I have watched him speak in CNN before. The guy is unbelieveable. No words can describe how outrageously ill-informed he is. I would support as much description as possible which would convey a correct chracterisation of Kevin. This is certainly important in light of the fact he is a radio host and it is scary to think what kind of stuff he preaches to his audience.Docku (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest both Replysixty and Docku read up on WP:BLP. While he may be ill-informed on this topic, stongly worded negative reporting on him here because of this one issue is in violation of WP policy. Arzel (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLP does not say, "exclude the facts". I dont support inclusion of anything which is not supported by evidence, in this case, video. I guess the question now is whether we are going to portray the hardball incidence as it happened or try to word it in a way to comfort Kevin? Are we in any way obliged to undo the damage Kevin did it on himself? Docku (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the second paragraph of BLP reads. Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". It is one thing to accurately describe the situation, but it is entirely another story to do as you have stated. I would support as much description as possible which would convey a correct chracterisation of Kevin. This is certainly important in light of the fact he is a radio host and it is scary to think what kind of stuff he preaches to his audience. It is not the job of WP to make sure everyone else knows how much of a crazy person you think he is. Arzel (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up comments made in this discussion section with the way the article is written. I can't buy your arguments here because they seem to be based on a personal bias. Your interpretations of BLP aren't supported by the facts. Mr. James is not being harmed by a wikipedia article that merely cites the facts as they occurred. His behavior is, by now, well known, hence, no harm is being done. In fact, the privacy argument you raise is particularly weak when considering that the behavior being described by Mr. James occurred on a nationally broadcast television show. I must respectfully point out that your edits are not in good faith and they appear to be the work of an apologist. As a statistician you should be cognizant of how important citable quantities are in bolstering an argument or describing a situation. Also, since you believe that "too much statistical weight is given to minor random controversy and criticism" I must point out that most of the controversy and criticism on this minor matter is produced by you. I am going to leave the James article alone as I've seen such behavior by apologists for other bio subjects in Wikipedia. The peculiar stubborness of said apologists just wears me out, so I'll seek other places to insert accuracy and clarity in wikipedia. Please note that "Reality has a well known liberal bias." -- Quartermaster (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he is not being harmed? It would appear that your own personal bias has overtaken your ability to look at this from a neutral point of view. I personally have never heard of Kevin James prior to this incident, and would not have even know about it at all had not another editor asked my opinion, so I must question that this is a well known incident. I must also question what you mean by appologist? And I must remind you that WP is not the place to air your personal grievences against other people. I suspect you have never read a real encyclopedia in your entire life. Arzel (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's everyone be civil and stop accusing each other of bias. Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand appropriately and gently smacked down with great chagrin. Apologies to all. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I appologize as well. But answer one question you had about statistics. One of my personal pet peaves is the signifigance placed on statistics that have no frame of reference. Two dozen may seem like a lot, and it may very well be alot, but unless you know or have an idea if what the average and variance are than the point statistic has no meaning. I often see the people on these programs as the same question over and over again to try and either make a point, or trap the other person into saying something dumb or take a specific position on some topic. The difference here being that people actually took the time to count how many times the question was asked, and that CM made a point of saying how many times he asked the question. Arzel (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) After finally having time to review the actual video, this section needs some work. CM may have asked the same question 2 dozen times, but it was almost a constant badgering of James. It is not quite clear if James even knew what CM was trying to ask. James gave the answer that Chamberlin was an "Appeaser" to which CM just kept interupting, "What did Chamberlin do?" It wasn't until the very end that CM asked James what Bush was referring to when James said he didn't know. As such the entire section is currently not factually correct. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a factual correction, we can start from here. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

> One of my personal pet peaves is the signifigance placed on statistics

> that have no frame of reference.

Taking too many research methodology courses (statistics courses at UCLA beyond Intro to Statistics) is what drove me out of the field of psychology - the fallibility and malleability of statistical data is very familiar to me. However, I think you haven't been paying close attention to the discussions herein in this case (not a hanging offense since I assume we both have day jobs that prohibit us from a universal focus on wikipedia). The final number of times Matthews asked the question as I placed it originally in the article is sourced to the guy who asked the questions (Matthews). That doesn't mean his count is correct (though original research - actually counting the times he asked the question - shows he underestimates the number himself). That being said, we give the number of times the question was apparently asked, cite the source (Matthews), and then let the reader of the article decide its relevance. I would say we're giving a source and a context - it's up to the readers of the article (who will be, by their nature, lazy - take it from a reference librarian) to examine the sources. If they do so, they are likely to come up with differing opinions about the incident; however, by just omitting that relevant fact, we do a disservice to the readers of the article (we decide for them). In fact, I would like to fold in the Orange County Register article here as another relevant source somehow, because, if you read it, it does two things that show James in a more positive light (if someone accesses that source): 1) James is very honest about his performance and ignorance, and 2) the article is actually a negative review on the "gotcha" journalism practiced by too many of the punditocracy on the right and left. Problem here is that I approve of the brevity of the Hardball section (which really was too long in earlier incarnations) and including a discussion of that might unduly increase the current length (2 paragraphs) of the section. Take it as an editorial challenge to do so. Now go give User:Gamaliel an Anti flamewar Barnstar -- Quartermaster (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Just noticed Arzel (talk once again, independent of other editors and with no recognition of contrary edits or good faith discussions herein, got rid of the number of times (with referenced citation) that Matthews asked James the same question over and over again. I don't know what to say which hasn't been said. No edit war me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Watch it again. What you have put into the article is simply not true. This is the problem with reporting on video, and the reason I stated earlier for OR problems. Matthews clearly was simply asking the same question over and over again while James was trying to answer "Appeasment". It wasn't until the very end that Matthews clarrified his question and responded that he didn't know. You can debate as much as you want, but unless it is stated "exactly" like it happened in the interview it is a Libelous statement and in violation of WP:BLP. I emplore you to work with me on this. Arzel (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Arzel, but this section just plain sucks right now. Some of these the so-called "editors" should be ashamed. Shall we walk through the current version together?

Thanks for illustrating my point about OR. While I agree that several sentences need to be rewritten, the entire section is still basically OR. I'll follow your points with my responses. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

On May 15, 2008, James appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews, to debate Mark Green of Air America Radio, on remarks made by George W. Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset.

No context for what this speech may have been about. Of interest might be that Bush was drawing a comparison between Obama and Nazi appeasers, particularly Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement with Hitler and promise that he had brought "peace for our time". The article might also have indicated that although Bush did not mention Obama by name, the white house made it clear to several reporters that he was in fact referring to Obama. None of this gets in the article, so the casual reader has no idea what the issue even is about. There isn't even a link any more to the Munich Agreement!!! Also, remarks were not "made by" a speech.

This is not an article about the speech or the Munich Agreement that Chamberlain made with Hitler. Perhaps the actual speech that Bush gave will develop into it's own article and we can add a link to that article, but this is not the article to dicuss the speech. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not advocating a full discussion of the merits of Bush's comparison or his speech at large or a description of the Munich agreement. I am saying that to understand the notability and context of the Hardball appearance, the reader must have a background of what happened and what was at issue. The discussion revolved around the content of Bush's speech, so a one-line description of what was being discussed is appropriate. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If explicit context of the speech is needed for understanding of this controversy then I have to say this is not the controversy. This section is about James' appearance on HB and his apparent melt down on live TV. I say again, if you want to discuss the speech go discuss it in that article. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From reading your comments, I am inclined to suspect you don't understand an encyclopedia's goals at ALL. I don't mean to be insulting, but of COURSE you need to indicate what the speech was about to understand this controversy! That can certainly be accomplished without editorializing or commenting on the speech itself, but to not include it is like writing an article about Burr-Hamilton duel without a background section. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Although not mentioning by name, many observers, including James, interpreted Bush's remarks as being directed at Barack Obama.

Aside from the grammatical strangeness of this sentence ("Although not mentioning by name" <- who? what?), James did more than interpret Bush's remarks at being directed at Obama, he vehemently argued that the comparison was apt and that if Bush wasn't making the comparison, "he should have." Again, the text gives nothing to indicate that James advocated the comparison to Obama.

You are right the sentence structure needs work, but you are interpreting video the way YOU saw it. You may even be right, but it doesn't change the fact that when you start going into the tone and tenor of what he said you are editorializing, what it is that he said. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "interpretation" that James was there to defend Bush and that he very explicitly defended and advocated the comparison to Obama. It's not up for debate. That's what happened. Second, this is not just incidental information. This is critical to any description of what happened. As for tone and tenor, I think the facts- if provided accurately, suggest the tone and tenor and stand on their own. No editorializing by me or anyone else is necessary. Editorializing is giving opinion, commentary, analysis, etc. I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting accuracy and completeness. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is up to interpretation, you already said James "vehemently argued that the comparison was apt." Who said that? No reliable source that I have seen. Granted you didn't put that into the article, but I can see that this is your intent. If no editorializing is needed, then further interpretation into what James was doing is not needed. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said that? *JAMES* said that!!! And I quote, from the appearance: "If he wasn't talking about Barak Obama, he SHOULD HAVE been talking about Barak Obama. I HOPE he was talking about Barak Obama." (That was my emphasis.) And when asked by CM "do you think there was any doubt he was" James answered, "Not in my mind." He repeated this sentiment several times, also saying "I'm glad he [Bush] did it. I wish the white house had been a little more forthcoming in saying 'you better believe this was against Obama...'" Did you even watch this video, Arzel?! These are not my interpretations, they are his words! Give me a freakin' break! --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthews repeatedly asked James "What did Chamberlain do?", two dozen times according to Matthews, often interrupting James as James repeated "Appeasement" several times.

Again, a strange sentence construction, but that aside... does anyone seriously think the above description in any way captures the tone, tenor, or context of the exchange? What happened was that Matthews put James on the spot, James squirmed, and was unable to answer Matthew's historical question. You don't get ANY of that from the description above. If anything, the description is suggesting that Matthews was badgering James.

The sentence is bad, but some editors insist that the whole two dozen times aspect is somehow important. That aside, you are again giving your opinion of what happened. Matthews was badgering James at this time. James was trying to say something about Appeasment when Matthews was simply yell back the question. James would start again, rinse and repeat. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If the 28 times is important (I don't care one way or the other), it should be presented as a statement of fact, not Matthews estimate. It is not important how many times Matthews estimated he said it, what's (more) important is how many times he said it. For someone against "editorializing", your characterization of Matthews as "badgering" is certainly a loaded term and an opinion. But regardless, in the exchange Matthews was clearly repeating the question however many times, and James was clearly unable to answer the question. There is no controversy about this- if you listen to James' radio show he readily admits it. No reasonable person would suggest that James knew the answer and was simply unable to say it because of Matthew's "badgering". This is not a matter of interpretation or POV. However, to NOT accurately account for what happened DOES inject NPOV issues. To characterize the exchange as in the current incarnation of the article is certainly misleading. It is vague and does not get to the heart of what is notable about the Hardball appearance. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it was 28 times you can't put that it. This is the very definition of OR and further illustrates the problem using video as a source. Again you are inserting your own interpretation by saying "no reasonable person would suggest James knew the answer". You want to characterize the situation correctly, and already have a predispotition of what the average person should think. While you might think it is vague, it is true without undue interpretation. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I totally disagree. The video *IS* the reference. It is not "research". Even if it WERE, which it is not, it is incontrovertible. And AGAIN, even if it weren't... the solution to your "problem" is not to take out the statement, but to find and include one of the many refs you could easily find that supports the assertion. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

James also stated that Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement during the years preceding WWII legitimized Hitler's actions.'

Give me a break! While true that James did state something to this effect, any fair account of the exchange would mention that James clearly was speaking in the vaguest terms and had no idea the answer to Matthew's question. This is not an issue for debate, it is a matter of fact, and is the core issue of substance in this entire Hardball section. Nothing in this article would leave the impression that (A) James was talking out of his ass, (B) Matthews called him on it, and (C) James was humiliated as a result. This is what is notable about the Hardball episode, and there is nothing on it here! The wording above also makes it seem like Chamberlain promoted a policy which he himself would have called "appeasement" and that it was an ongoing policy lasting years (where Matthews was talking specifically about the Munich Agreement, signed in September of 1938).

Again, you are giving your interpretation, and if this is what is notable about the incident then it is both not notable and in violation of WP:BLP policies. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not giving my interpretation. I am giving a fair account of what happened. Which assertion above (A), (B), or (C) do you think a neutral observer would question having watched the video clip? It is no more an interpretation than to assert that Hardball is a TV show, that Chris Matthews was the host, or that James was the guest. Yeah, you could start getting epistemological and ask "how do you know the show exists", "maybe Chris Matthews is actually the guest and James is the host" and "how do I know it all wasn't a dream?" but this level of criticism is unreasonable. Now from reading your profile I glean you frequently cite BLP while making controversial edits, but may I suggest that you re-read the BLP, particularly BP:ONEEVENT. The James entry existed before the event, so I do not advocate spinning off the event into its own entry (nor do I think it's significant enough to warrant its own entry). However, the BLP recommends covering the event. Not skimming over it. not generically describing it, but covering it. The current article is too vague and does not do this. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I use BLP frequently because editors frequently violate BLP. Furthermore, I think you are confusing the speech event (which I think is notable) and James' appearance on HB which I don't think is notable. BLP also recommends that topics not be given undue weight. I find it hard to believe that this is the defining moment in James life, but as the BLP reads right now one would have to conclude that it is. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally we get to the heart of your problem. You think the speech is notable but the HB appearance is not. You are very wrong about this. Both the speech AND the HB appearance are notable. Your reasoning suggests a misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. You say "I find it hard to believe that this is the defining moment in James life, but as the BLP reads right now one would have to conclude that it is." THIS is your problem. To James himself, the appearance may or may not be the "defining moment". However, to the general public and Wikipedia's readership it probably is. An encyclopedic article is not intended to be a biography to satisfy the personal needs of the subject. Rather, it is intended to provide the PUBLIC with an understanding of notable people, places, events, things, etc. Wikipedia's function is as a resource for the public to expand its general knowledge and understanding. In this case if you don't think the BP appearance is not notable to this end, not only are you very wrong, but your edits have acted counter to that. You should just say so and let the debate be about whether it should be there or not. I am happy to provide clear evidence that it should. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Eventually James was asked by Matthews to state, in plain terms, what it was that Chamberlain did that constituted appeasement to which president Bush was referring, and James conceded that he did not know to what actions of Chamberlain Bush was referring.

Again, someone is doing some serious spinning/distorting here. James "conceded" he didn't know which actions Bush was referring... because he didn't know ANY specific actions Bush COULD HAVE been talking about. Not to mention that previously James HAD endorsed Bush's comparison himself saying "it was the same thing" presumably in reference to Obama and Chamberlain.

Again, your interpretation. How do you know what James knew? Furthermore, this is a perfect illustration of trying to use video where both parties are talking over each other continuously. Please remember we are not reporters. This is not a newspaper. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I know what James knew by (A) observing his behavior on the show, which clearly demonstrated he didn't know, (B) from numerous accounts by others who I'd be happy to ref (if you REALLY think that this is a controversial assertion-- c'mon, be honest...do you?), and (C) from listening to his program the next day when he admitted that he didn't know. This statement, like so many others, should not be controversial, and you walk down a slippery slope into Descartesland to try to characterize it as "opinion". --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you just admit that you are using your own interpretion, your own point of view. If you have some reliable sources then bring them to discussion. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am growing tired of saying the same thing again and again. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthews then accused that James and others on the right of being a "blank slate" who didn't know anything about history. Green said "Kevin, when you are in a hole, stop digging." Matthews concluded the interview by stating "You don’t understand there’s a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong, most people would say, is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia in 1938. That’s what he did wrong. Not talking to somebody. Appeasement is giving things away to the enemy."

Why is the fact that this episode has been all over the net, resulting in hundreds of thousands of hits, thousands of comments, and many columns and blog entries no longer in the article? It is extremely notable. It was here, but then Arzel deleted it for no good reason. These recent edits to this article have been an embarrassment. The article as-is lacks context, accuracy, NPOV, coherence, balance, and style. Arzel, you said "work with me", so I am going to leave it alone for the moment, but if there are not some sweeping revisions soon that address my concerns and those expressed by others, I will revert to an older, better version. --Replysixty (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thousands of internet hit, comments, and blog entries have no relevance to it's notability here. WP relies on reliable third party sources for content. I agree that the current version is not perfect. However, previous versions read like a hit job on James violation one of the core principles of WP:BLP. Furthermore, previous versions read more like an article on the actual speech. Now I will grant that the speech itself is very notable, but given the sparcity of articles about James' appearance on HB I question whether this section deserves as much weight as it currently has.

Hang on- you really don't think that the fact this clip went viral is notable? Would you also remove all Wikipedia references to Billboard top-40 placement on songs? Would you remove Neilson TV ratings from shows? Do you go through all the other newsworthy events, internet memes, movie entries, etc. and delete references to how they were received by the public? I would argue that the popularity of the clip/appearance IS very much part of this. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unless there are some reliable sources that are talking about it. You seem to have a mis-conception that just because something gets lots of blog comments or youtube views that it is instantly notable. Your strawman arguements are pointless here, BLP's are held to a much higher standard than the Top-40 or the Neilson TV ratings. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Way to miss my point. Regardless, you need to review what constitutes "notability" and then come back and apologize. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about James, [comment removed], but Matthews was being a dick to him, and there are reliable sources that comment on this. If you want to makes changes by all means do so, but remember to abide by WP policies regarding BLP, Undue Weight (which is already over or close to being over), and Original Reporting. Arzel (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's watch the unflattering comments about living people, please. Gamaliel (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Matthews was particularly "being a dick" -- I think he was just calling James out on what he suspected was hot air without substance. However, this conjecture certainly DOES qualify as POV and editorializing. In any event, if you think that the POV that Matthews sandbagged James is notable, I could see that and would encourage you to include something that says, "Following the explosion of downloads of the clip online, some commentators criticized Matthews for being overly and unfairly aggressive (etc. etc., with references of course)", but before you get all exotic like that, I think the basics of what happened need to be covered. I will come back later and see if the article is fixed. If not, I will be BOLD and put what I think is a more accurate and complete article on which to build. --Replysixty (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how he "called out" James when he wouldn't even let James say a word without yelling back the same question. If you want to make improvements to the article do so, but to make threats is not the way things work here at WP. I must warn you that anything in violation of WP:BLP will be removed immediately. Read up particually on the aspect that WP is not Tabloid journalism. It is not to make someone look like an idiot (even if he is) just because you think he deserves to look like an idiot. Arzel (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Matthews Bagering - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/orl-myword23b08may23,0,856917.story

Talk about NPOV.... you accuse me of making threats, then "warn" me that you'll remove- oh forget it. And then you provide an opinion link as... why, exactly? In any event, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, my friend. But on Wikipedia you have to be both right and have a lot of free time on your hands. I'm not going to go back and forth all day, so you win for now... by attrition. Congratulations.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/opinion/orl-pitts2108may21,0,3404468.story <- You found this for me. Thanks. --Replysixty (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just as an independent observer here, I watched the video several times. It seemed obvious to me that a) Matthews was asking James what it was Chamberlain did that he was accused of appeasement, and b) Matthews repeatedly asked the question because James was trying to duck it. I'll leave now. Go back to your debate.

References

Citable sources regarding Kevin James notorious Hardball meltdown

Might be useful for future discussion to have a section that points to external sources documenting Kevin James' May 15 appearance on Hardball. I'll start with a column from that notorious liberal mouthpiece, the Orange County Register:

• Gary Lycan, "On the radio: Talk host Kevin James caught in TV 'smackdown'" May 22, 2008

Highlights include quotes from James himself saying things like, "I knew that and I was comfortable in what I knew about Neville Chamberlain. In hindsight I should have done a little more research." and "I normally don't start screaming so soon."

Feel free to add your own. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Leonard Pitts. "Loud, proud, and ignorant." Tribune Media Services (Orlando Sentinel). May 21,2008

Highlights include:

No, that honor goes to unthoughtful conservatives, the loud, proudly ignorant voices of talk radio, books and television of which Kevin James is now the poster child. Matthews kept asking him to explain the sins of Neville Chamberlain and he kept crying, "appeasement! appeasement!" clinging to the words like a drowning man to a raft. That's what people like him do. They are geniuses at rhetoric ("War on Christmas," anyone?) that rouses the rabble and lets them feel aggrieved, while simultaneously having the intellectual heft of cotton balls.

-- Quartermaster (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few more (previously deleted from main article) useful for future reference and editing:

• "Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James" by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post, May 15 2008.

• "Chris Matthews Stumps Right-Wing Radio Host: ‘Tell Me What Chamberlain Did?’ ‘I Don’t Know’" from ThinkProgress, May 15 2008.

• "Smackdown: Chris Matthews Decks Clueless Radio Talker" by Wayne Slater, The Dallas Morning News, May 15 2008.

--Quartermaster (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

File:KevinJames.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KevinJames.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin James' Current Job

As an LA City employee, I don't think I should edit this article, but it might be worth mentioning his appointment by the mayor in 2013 as one of the five full-time commissioners that run the Los Angeles City Department of Public Works ([1]), and his current position as board president. It may not be all that exciting, but the department does have over five thousand employees and a budget of about half a billion. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin James (broadcaster). 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/20101212171726/http://apla.org/publications/optimist/2007/fall/OptimistFall2007.pdf to http://www.apla.org/publications/optimist/2007/fall/OptimistFall2007.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 03:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin James (broadcaster). 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/20070704135452/http://www.krla870.com/subpage.asp?StationId=KRLA-AM&PageNo=35 to http://www.krla870.com/subpage.asp?StationId=KRLA-AM&PageNo=35

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 13:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kevin James (broadcaster). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721041005/http://krla.townhall.com/pages/KEVINJAMES to http://krla.townhall.com/pages/KEVINJAMES
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721041005/http://krla.townhall.com/pages/KEVINJAMES to http://krla.townhall.com/pages/KEVINJAMES

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)