Talk:Tim Russert/Archives/2015

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MOderated Meet the Press for 17 Years, not 16 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.138.15.1 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Political orientation

I remember reading in a Reader's Digest article that Tim Russert is a lifelong Democrat. If somebody can find the source, I think it would be worthwile to include this information, although he is remarkably impartial on Meet the Press. Cwenger 04:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Small thing: I removed the "still" before "An avid Bills fan."

Where did "with conservative leanings" come from? He worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo who certainly weren't conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LM1234 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He was a moderate Democrat-- he was no far-Lefty. But best of all, he kept his politics out of his reporting to a large degree. 66.227.84.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, he sold his soul for the wealth and power. GE chairman Jack Welch thought all liberals were phonies and took great delight in "buying their souls." He felt that NBC News should advance the agenda of GE, which was right wing and Republican. Russert was one of Welch's true success stories.Cbsite (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

After Russert's death, the major news media made fuzzy references to his "political operative" past, but never who he had worked for. In the same fashion, the printed press afterward also made no mention of who he had worked for. I guess it was understood that he had worked for the Dems - how would he otherwise have gotten his own show on a major network? (note to liberal editor: this is factual commentary on the coverage of Russert immediately after his death - not a discussion of his character or otherwise - facts are facts, get over it) Thomas (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

He worked for Moynihan and Cuomo. That is sufficient indication of politics. --Crunch (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Although it is clear that Russert was a Democrat, in orientation, he did a great job in keeping matters neutral on TV, and it is a shame that his successors don't do that. That is really the point of his politics -- that it didn't get in the way of him doing real journalism, which is pretty much dead today.

Newspapers

I removed the whole section about newspapers and Kinght Ridder. I love newspapers as well, but this really doesn't belong here, especially with the strange time refernces ("Tuesday", "last week").

Election Night 2000

Shouldn't there be something about Election Night of 2000 and the now famous whiteboard lesson on the American election system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.154.52 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Prosecution rests in CIA leak trial of former White House aide

WASHINGTON — NBC's Tim Russert deflected criticism of his ethics and credibility as the prosecution rested its case Thursday in the obstruction and perjury trial of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250846,00.html Crocoite 22:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Note on spelling of Iraq

Someone had put on there that he once misspelled Iraq as "Irak." That says nothing about him, and um, I think it should be self-evident why you don't put random occurences of a journalist misspeaking unless it is a major gaffe or part of a pattern. Also the user linked to YouTube. Shouldn't links to YouTube be banned here? 1.) it's not news and 2.) as time goes by, the videos on YouTube will eventually expire and be removed and so it makes no sense to cite something to a non-permanent source like that. 71.150.251.192 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Is "faux everyman image" really something that should be in the article? If you click on the reference link, it doesn't seem like a credible source. Wuzee (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the reference link is an editorial piece, and the criticism is more of a personal attack than a real genuine criticism.ajiav 23:07, 25 February 2008

The idea that Russert was a journalist is also just "opinion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.67.236 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Journalist" has an objective meaning, which TR unquestionably meets, and a subjective one. WP uses the subjective sense only when quoting. Yr opinion of whether he met your version of the subjective sense doesn't even belong on this talk page, let alone in the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The term "f.e.i" is hopelessly subjective, and unlikely to be widely believed in the case of a guy who was first in his or any preceding generation of his family to go to college, and who got to law school because one of his dad's buddies, a chronic winner at gin or pinochle, gave him a sack of cash for the purpose. If there was a chorus of it, it could be covered, but we'd need not a ref that proved it was said, but at least one highly respected source who described that chorus.
--Jerzy•t 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert did bad and misleading journalism, questioning, day after day, and this article treats him like a god. Legitimate criticisms like the American Prospect article are relevant.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tim_russert_stop_the_inanity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.67.236 (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

Is there any credibility to this death notice or are we dealing with another case of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.176.234 (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drudge has it now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.154 (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also on NYTimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.1.83.181 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw it on the NYtimes website before MSNBC reported on their website or on air Jim (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun-Tines is reporting it on their front page as of 3:32pm Eastern time. "Details developing: Sources have reported that Tim Russert, longtime host of NBC's "Meet the Press" has died of a heart attack. He was the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, and hosted Tim Russert, a weekly interview program on MSNBC." (Stevenamos (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

The page currently says: "Tim Russert passed away of an apparent Heart Attack June 14, 2008."! HOLY SHIT! WE BETTER WARN HIM TO GO SEE A DOCTOR! Fdgfds (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad they caught it in time! Thank you, Mr. Time-Traveler! I hope he gets better. D: 72.224.14.144 (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have a note in there about the heart attack being "obesity related?" There's no medical information that indicates his weight was an issue in his heart attack. 64.81.139.190 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CBS is reporting that Russert heart attack was diabetes related, perhaps it should be included. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/06/13/tim-russert.html?ref=rss

I request a semi-protected tag to be placed on the main page of this article. After he died, vandals are making inappropriate comments about his death. Thanks, and in advance, Harold26 (c) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ding dong the witch is dead!" yeah I'd say that was inappropriate. Also the picture of him is unflattering 169.132.18.249 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that "Liberal piece of crap finally died" is more inappropriate :/ -76.172.41.63 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have the exact time that MSNBC REPORTED his death? Why is that notable? I could possibly see having the time of his death (though even that is not important), but the time it was reported to the public by one media outlet?. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no one knows what he died of yet, that line that says heart attack should be removed until actual cause is known, NY Daily News doesn't know anything, they are making it up on the fly and just guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.67.105 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The buffalo news confirms heart attack, citing the NYT and Post, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The NYTimes is reporting a coronary embolism, actually.Choiniej (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to mention that Williams broke down. Can someone change it? 217.132.3.125 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He was a beautiful man. It was comforting to see someone in a position of power who so clearly had a big heart. 66.227.84.101 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments to improving the article and avoid commenting on the subject himself. See WP:TALK for more info. Nufy8 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence stating that Russert's wife and son were in Italy when he died (which has mysteriously disappeared) can be confirmed: "NBC's Tom Brokaw says Russert's wife and son, Luke, were in Italy at the time, celebrating Luke's graduation from college." From: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003816530&imw=Y Although I have an account, I cannot edit the page. Can someone add the citation? The sentence about celebrating Luke's graduation, which also says [citation needed] can be confirmed by the same article and many others. J.A. Hurley (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know the president made a comment about Russert's death and legacy. Can someone please write something on it?Mdriver1981 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should note that Mr. Russert's death occurred on Friday, June 13. The day of the week coupled to the date is significant for superstitious people. Fredric100 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)--Fredric100 (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that a link be but on Sally Quinn's name. 70.190.85.156 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote from the article - "breaking with this tradition the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia announced his death nearly 30 minutes before NBC." Nobody cares about this. Please remove it. It might be appropriate in an article ABOUT how much faster or braver or something that Wikipedia is, but it has nothing to do with Tim Russert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.57.50 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death

Is it a coronary embolism or a heart attack? MSNBC and most other sources are reporting the former, while the New York Times is reporting the latter. — BrotherFlounder 20:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Both are reliable sources, and would be fine in themselves. Maybe a line "The cause of death was reported as either a Heart Attack ^[1] or a coronary embolism ^[2]." would satisfy both sides, as there are legitimate reports going either way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to confirm the New York Times says coronary embolism? I'm not seeing anything on their site. Nufy8 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find it, but it looks like both MSNBC and the NYT have removed the apparent cause of death from their respective articles. Looks like we'll have to wait a bit. — BrotherFlounder 20:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC has removed the cause of death entirely from their article, now simply stating "died Friday after being stricken at the bureau," "Russert was recording voiceovers for Sunday’s “Meet the Press” program when he collapsed, the network said," and "no further details were immediately available." I suspect any "cause of death" reports mentioned in articles are speculation by lay observers at this point. I suggest waiting until there's a more authoritative staement of the cause of death (like, from a doctor/medical examiner/coroner) before citing a cause of death at all. I suggest stating something like the following:

Russert collapsed and died while recording a voiceover for Meet the Press in Washington, D.C. on June 13, 2008. He had just returned from family vacation in Italy, which celebrated his son's graduation. News of his death was reported live on NBC and MSNBC by Tom Brokaw. Despite early speculation of a heart attack or coronary embolism, the cause of Russert's death is not yet known. :--Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that a coronary embolism is one possible cause of a heart attack - the two don't need to be mutually exclusive. Why don't we just wait until there's some consensus or more information in the media. 155.212.202.250 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Kevin.

(EC)I'll see what I can find... but wait a tic, wouldn't a coronary embolism (a blockage moving through the body and getting caught somewhere) cause a heart attack (a blockage of blood vessels in the heart causing cardiac arrest and muscle death in the heart, which stops blood pumping and causes death)? Maybe we're arguing the same point. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we're on the same page. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how news can report a young man dying of a heart attack without reporting on what could have led to that! such as his lifestyle. The medical phenomenon is even more interesting than his professional life.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk • contribs)

A note, Wikipedia ain't the news, so it's not our place to speculate. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but if they end up calling this death 'from natural causes', that would be completely silly.

Heartattack, as far as I know, according to CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News --Roadgeek9 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC has backed away from stating any cause at all. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

CNN is now speculating that it is cardiac arrest. --Roadgeek9 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speculation isn't reliable. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

as of right now, any cause of death listed here or elsewhere should be prefaced with the word apparent.Toyokuni3 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to avoid stating anything until the cuase is more than "apparent." I'm of the opinion that no information better than wrong information, plus there's WP:CRYSTAL. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A coronary embolism and a heart attack are the same thing. As someone who has a bit of expertise on this subject, I believe what they meant to say is pulmonary embolism. CH52584 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a coronary embolism and a heart attack (myocardial infarction) are *not* the same thing. An embolism in the coronary artery can cause a heart attack, but they're two different physiological events, and a pulmonary embolism is something different all together.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that a pulmonary embolism is completely different. In layman's terms, coronary embolism and heart attack are used interchangeably--if you want to get ultraspecific, MIs never cause death...it's what the MIs cause that ultimately causes death. I read in the article that he just got back from Italy: long flight ---> venous stasis ---> DVT ---> pulmonary emboli. That's why I believe they may have meant pulmonary embolism, not coronary. CH52584 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that they're often used interchangeably, even though technically it is incorrect to do so. An embolism is a blood clot that gets stuck while traveling through the bloodstream and leads to the MI. And you're also right that a long flight can indeed lead to a DVT, which leads to the embolism, which leads to the infarction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the reports that his death was sudden and that there's no obvious cause of death (choking, poisoning, trauma, etc), the odds are exceedingly low that this cause of death would be anything other than a form of sudden cardiac death or pulmonary embolism. I don't think it would be against wikipedia policy to go ahead and state that a form of sudden cardiac death was the apparent cause of death. That would be specific enough that it explains what the experts expect the autopsy to uncover, but general enough so that it isn't pure speculation. CH52584 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V and WP:NOT#OR. Be patient, the sources will come soon enough. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim's physician is on MSNBC now saying that, according to the autopsy, he died from a coronary thrombosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

His physician almost mentioned him having an enlarged heart and a history of coronary artery disease, so I would say it's almost certainly coronary thrombosis. Rest in Peace, Mr. Russert. -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean "almost" mentioned? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he/she meant to say "also" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.85.67 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant "also mentioned" -Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

As I can't, someone change the official cause of death. Nobody dies of coronary thrombosis. Coronary thrombosis caused a myocardial infarction (read: heart attack), which killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.252.62 (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim didnt die while recording voiceover tracks. He actually took a break from the recording and went down to the NBC cafeteria. It was on the way there that Tim collapsed. An intern administered CPR and 911 was called. The intern continued CPR until the medics arrived. Tim was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead. This is important because there are rumors that there is a recording of his death. There is NO recording of his death. Thank you for your time and I hope the page gets updated with the proper information. 72.74.194.36 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Rob G. Georgetown

If you have a verifiable source for that information, why don't you update the page yourself? --Crunch (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC) I Don't Know How... it shows a lock where the edit would be i think... TrentIsSmoking (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Rob G.

Page protection

AndonicO has protected the page to prevent edit warring. Any chance we can go pull back to a semi-protect or just deal with edit warrers directly? A lot of people may be visiting Wikipedia for the first time to read this article and it would be nice if their first exposure to the project wasn't a big warning. This isn't a criticism of the protect decision, btw, it's just an attempt to start a dialogue or discuss protect related issues for the main article. Cheers! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the article should be semiprotected. Edit warriors, on a breaking news article that is already semi protected, should be warned and blocked if necessary. The article is likely to see the most improvement in its history during this time if it stays semi-protected. Commented to this effect in the thread at AN/I. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree on the semiprotect for the reasons stated by Avruch Digx (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit-warring appears not to be a true edit war, but rather good-faith attempts to correct inaccurate information. Various early sources have reported the cause of Russert's death as a heart attack or coronary embolism, and it appears that various editors have "corrected" the ariticle to state one or the other. MSNBC has backed away from including a cause of death in their aticle, so I suggest we do the same (see above). --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored semi-protection (will expire the 18th of this month). · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A breaking news story should not be full protected for more than a few hours... full protection of 3 days here seems to contradict the spirit of protection policy. --Rividian (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem is, the information really isn't out there. some of the references people are citing are themselves changing, removing information, so the references themselves conflict.

if we wait a few hours or a day until there is some solid information, we won't have the issue of 2 people, who can both cite their edits, warring. -TinGrin 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but protecting the article assumes that the ONLY edits that will be made are ones inserting bad information. Wikipedia isn't structured to accommodate that. It interprets that as damage and routes around it. I'm confident that we have the skill and tools to deal with the situation without locking the page down completely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Within 3 minutes of the death hitting the airwaves, this article was vandalized several times, including once being turned into a copy of the article Pretzel. Classy though that may be, it's not acceptable - so Semi Protection is justified, I think, if only to prevent what is now a high-traffic page from being covered with "cocksdickslol". UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the day when 'cocksdickslol' is of such unimpeachable quality that it must actively fight vigorously to avoid being successfully nominated as a Featured Article. Tim Russert, I agree, is not that article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Page protection is also wrong because I can't edit it. I am not a newbie. However, Coren didn't like my name and blocked it. He asked me to create a new name and disabled autoblock. I did but the computer thinks I am a newbie and won't let me edit. Thanks a lot, Coren. HRCC (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• In general, i trust the judgment of my fellow admins, and i this case, i'm unwilling to say that Coren was wrong to disable the autoblock. On the other hand, this user is tendentious in their response to the courtesies extended to them, well beyond their right to fork their content, and their right to go away, and is blocked for 24 hours.
  --Jerzy•t 02:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  

Delete that picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxjohn1386 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am a longtime user and cannot edit this page. I can verify information that says [citation needed] but I can't add it. I agree that this is unfair. J.A. Hurley (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Jill

It's probably because you have very little edit history (only 2 edits). Unfortunately the article had to be semi-protected because of a run of rather nasty vandalism. Your best options are to either wait a day or two for the block to be lifted, or post your proposed edits here and another editor can merge them in for you. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an error next to Tim's widow's name

Please remove the "-2008" next to Tim Russert's wife's name on his page. She is still living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.39.234 (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that refers to the period in which they were married. Nufy8 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes it seem like they were divorced earlier this year; or is otherwise morbid. I've clarified this to only the marriage year per the IP. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in an infobox to have the years the marriage began and ended in brackets next to the subject's spouse's name. If only the year of the marriage is given, it is stating that the marriage has not ended. Russert's marriage began in 1983 and ended in 2008 when he died. His widow has her own article, which clearly shows she is alive. Correct & improve (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Tribute

The only word that has come down from the network thus far (I work at an NBC station - and am sitting in the newsroom now), is that Tom Brokaw will host a special tribute edition of Meet The Press this Sunday. Nothing else has been stated one way or the other regarding any other hosts. --Mhking (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was reported on msnbc that Tim was the person who suggested that the Newseum, facing the National Mall, have the first 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution etched into stone on it's face. Sitting among our national monuments, this tribute to our first amendment was brought to us by Tim Russert... --karenm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.147.146 (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien didn't make the usual "cool" entrance and the monologue on the 13 June 2008 show of Late Night with Conan O'Brien, instead showing two pieces of one of the many interviews he made with Tim. One was about a Tim's visit to Pope John Paul II and the other about Tim's son being an intern on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Conan stated that he was a true friend and that was one of the few that supported him in the first years in NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattao (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Russert & David Simon

Russert & Simon were both journalists, and Megan Russert, introduced in 3rd season of Homicide: Life on the Street, was clearly named to support the guest appearance bringing together TR playing himself in a cameo and his fictional detective sister MR as a regular member of the cast. Is a friendship between TR & DS documented somewhere? My exam'n of search results for

"Megan Russert" "david simon" "tim Russert"

was discouraging, but not exhaustive. Anyone? --Jerzy•t 02:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if they were and it's documented, is it notable enough to be worth listing in either article?
--Clubjuggle ^T/C 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we'll know for sure before we've seen the coverage of it.
--Jerzy•t 15:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Widow maker

I edited a sentence in the death section, including the term "widow maker". Russert died when his left coronary artery, or some part of it, became clogged, cutting off blood supply to the left ventricle. This ventricle, one of four chambers in the heart, is the most powerful chamber, and responsible for pumping blood to the entire body. A blood clot stopped blood flow to Tim's left ventricle, therefore halting the pumping action required to perfuse the rest of the body and all major organs. This explains the term "widow maker", as death is usually quick due to electricle pathway damage and cardiac cell death. Veracious Rey (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted elsewhere, "widow-maker" is a colloquial term used by physicians to denote a massive heart attack (and there are many different kinds covered under that umbrella phrase) that kills instantly or nearly instantly. As one doctor told me, "If you're going to die of a heart attack, that's the one you want."

However, I don't believe it's appropriate to put it into a bio article. It's more than a little undignified. Tho' many "wikipedians" aren't big on dignity, it doesn't mean that those of us who are shouldn't fight the good fight.

PainMan (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Final few paragraphs

Are the final few paragraphs, where people like Obama and McCain comment on Russert's death, really all that necessary? Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I feel the quotations should be taken out. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 24.186.96.84 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think tributes to his life and legacy are entirely appropriate, but they should be contained to a few pertinent ones. The president's tribute, for instance, speaks to the impact his career had on Washington. Al Hunt brought him into journalism, so his tribute should probably be included along with some of his colleagues from NBC News. But while Sens. Obama and McCain are both important figures in American life, their tributes aren't any more significant than anybody else's—even if one of them is destined to be the next president of the United States. I'll leave it to other editors to make the final decision, however. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 0:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
• I think these tributes are entirely unnecessary. This wiki has articles on presidents and saints, nobel prize winners and popes, kings and princes and virtually none of them from featured article Franklin Delano Roosevelt to revered figure John Paul II have a section with random quotes from mourners saying what a great guy he was. Whenever someone who had a visible or important role in human society dies, people are going to say nice things about him because, in Western culture at least, this is generally expected. These comments often distort the importance of a person's legacy and are inherently POV because they are made by close friends and colleagues looking back over all the good times as they come to terms with their grief. These tributes really have nothing to do with a person's life or career and belong in newspaper headlines, not encyclopedia articles. Indrian (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Let's not remove other people's stuff. If the news devotes 100% of the show to the man, the least we can do is devote 33% of the article to his death. I agree, not 100% of the article should be about his death, but at least quite a bit. Last week, he wasn't even mentioned at all. See, his death is a very notable part of his life. Presumptive (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• It's fine to say we shouldn't remove other people's stuff, but it's a little absurd to see the text of McCain's, Obama's, and the Clintons' warm statements removed and replaced with a mere mention, while excerpts from Limbaugh's statement are expanded to an entire paragraph. Either include tributes or don't, but there should be some balance and equity to it. Beeeej (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On my computer, the article is 8 screens long, 1.5 is the tribute. This is not too long. I would favor a maximum of 2 screens or a few more paragraphs max. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.115.204 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Washington Week

I added a bit on Gwen Iffil's remembrance of Russert - he dared her to go into broadcasting and helped her along. Sources will come from here: http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/transcripts/

I know, I know original research, but it did happen... just add the link when it comes up --SuperWiki (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --SuperWiki (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnote on death date

Do we really need that? It's intrusive, in that it interrupts the flow of reading, and also utterly unnecessary, since the fact that he died yesterday is all over every major news source. john k (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD suggests that we don't really need to proviate a citation unless the claim is likely to be challenged. As you said, his date of death is easily sourcable and non-controversial, so I've gone ahead and removed the citation. Warren -talk- 05:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some non-editors may in fact be using the pop-up tools to decide which lks to follow, or to read just the lead at a lk'd article. My impression is that footnotes in the lead currently cause the pop-up tools to truncate the preview of the article, meaning that such early footnotes, when unnecessary, are bad beyond even the visual clutter.
  --Jerzy•t 15:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  

Diabetes

I've taken a look at this article a couple of times today, and both version mentioned (in different ways) a connection between diabetes and his death or autopsy results. When you click through to the references, if diabetes is mentioned at all, it's in a very broad sense. A quick google news query about his death found nothing that specifically says he had diabetes or that someone of note said diabetes was a contributing factor.

Either supply a reputable source for diabetes being a contributing factor, or remove it from the article. Thanks. 72.244.206.56 (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Agreed with last comment. I watched several hours of discussion on Fox News and MSNBC and I heard nothing about his having diabetes.

On Greta Van Susteren's Fox show, she discussed the cause of death with a physician who seemed knowledgeable about Mr. Russert's health and no mention of his having diabetes ever came up. If this doctor had read the autopsy report, it certainly would have been noted if the deceased suffered from diabetes. As part of the disucssion was about "warning signs" and precautions to avoid suffering the same fate, it's hard to imagine diabetes wouldn't have been mentioned.

The physician did say that the long flight might have been contributory to the heart attack.

Therefore, I agree. Unless a source is suppled, it will have to be removed from the article. PainMan (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The article remains semi-protected. Could someone be bold and make the necessary changes? 67.101.5.197 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Done. Tvoz/talk 20:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly approve, Tvoz. You merely beat me to the punch. I just wanted to check the AP story sourced and, as the father of an eight year old, I got distracted and didn't get around to reading the referenced story.

Bravo.PainMan (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And someone added it again and I removed it. What is going on here? Tvoz/talk 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who readded it, but it was sourced earlier in the death section on this page. It doesn't say that his death was diabetes related, but it does state that he has diabetes. The link is http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2008/06/13/tim-russert.html?ref=rss --Dnvrfantj (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement I saw, did say it was a factor in his death--which it was not. As I wrote above, the doctor who appeared on Fox News, who'd seen the autopsy report, would have certainly mentioned it, had it been a factor. He had the "Widow-maker" heart attack. It might have been caused by the long flight from Italy, it might not have (given Russert's wealth, I certainly hope his widow doesn't sue the airline! But this is America. Somebody dies, someone else must pay!). But diabetes wasn't a factor.

I don't see the relevance of adding that he had it. Lots of people have health conditions that neither kill them nor affect their work or their place in history; are they all to be listed in every biographical article?PainMan (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed this statement:

Rick Sanchez of CNN reported on Sunday June 15, 2008 that Russert suffered from diabetes.

Diabetes had nothing to do with his death and its inclusion is irrelevant. As I noted above the previous comment, are we going to start including every health condition in every bio article? PainMan (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/141450 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.56.144 (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Full text of Limbaugh statement

Since Rush Limbaugh's statement of condolence* will certainly soon be taken down, I post it in it's entirety here to preserve the source:

Rush Limbaugh Statement on Tim Russert's Death: "It's just a shame. Tim was a regular guy with that perpetual smile he wore naturally all the time. He loved life and got everything he could out of it. Whether it was at dinner here in Florida while his son was taking golf lessons, or on the set of Meet The Press, Tim was always the same with me: genuine. He never condescended to anyone and was the consummate professional. He will be hard to replace. He was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist."

Also, I didn't want to stir up any undignified "partisan" rancor on this sad occassion. While Limbaugh's concluding sentence is certainly true, Mr. Russert's bio article was not the place, nor this the time, to post it. After the passage of time, certainly it can be added in a discussion of Mr. Russert's legacy as a journalist. But a revert war today would be juvenile at best.

• (Posted on his home page: [1] http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html)

Rush will almost certainly begin his Monday, 16 JUNE 2008 show with an elegy to Mr. Russert. Perhaps, under Fair Use, or permission from Mr. Limbaugh, a portion of it can be added to wikipedia's soundbite collection. PainMan (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So, as probably an editing faux pas, I added the entire statement before seeing this message. I think, when it comes to tributes upon someone's death, we can look beyond the partisanship of the political world and honor the individual. But, I'll fully understand if someone removes the addition. Rockhound (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There will be a time when more, if not all, of Limbaugh's statement can be added. I just don't think it would be dignified to get into a partisan edit war when Russert hasn't even been laid to rest. Later I most certainly will add at least Rush's last sentence. Surely, the collapse of anything like impartial reporting, and the Big Three networks news departments have become nothing but the press offices for the DNC and Liberalism in general.

But not right now.

And given Russert's stature within the Left-wing Media monolith, he certainly should be a part of any discussion of this fact. Though he largely succeeded in laying a veneer of an attempt at the mythical journalistic "impartiality" (if it ever existed, it died a painful death, long ago; it should be remembered that the first modern newspapers began in England and were used--and funded by--politicians to present their faction's views to the fraction of people who had the franchise). PainMan (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many statements

The deaths section is fast becoming a repository for every statement released by anyone notable, currently spanning 9 paragraphs. Can we just reduce this to a paragraph listing the names of the notables who released statements, but not give the text of every one? --Rividian (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse that suggestion. If you look at other important people who dropped dead, you will find Jean Cocteau has but one paragraph on his death, and Nelson Rockefeller two. The crucial difference is that Wikipedia wasn't around when they died, but really, I'm quite sure we can do with 1-2 paragraphs here, and without the standard condolences. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Another crucial difference is that Russert's death happened yesterday, whereas Rockefeller's death happened thirty years ago. Also, the fact that Russert was a prominent media guy means that the TV news is giving it a ridiculous amount of attention. john k (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We generally strive to avoid recentism though... we should strive to write as if it happened 30 years ago to keep it encyclopedic, as we aren't a news site. --Rividian (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but there's little point in doing much in this regard right now. People will just add stuff back in. Best to wait a couple of weeks, when everyone stops being interested in it, and then purge. It's not as though an enormous number of Wikipedia articles haven't had much more serious problems for far longer periods of time. john k (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

concur. it's geting out of hand. we're all agreed it's a sad occasion, but wikipedia is not for funerary observances.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting it down would certainly be appropriate. In previous points, other editors have suggested that the quoted remarks are entirely inappropriate, and while that may be true with regards to any sort of "tribute" on wikipedia, some of the quotations are probably relevant as far as his influence and within the context of the media-politics relationship (and Russert's role) in this particular election cycle. 12.216.236.213 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

But you've cut out the comments by political figures completely and left long ones for some other journalists - I think it's been cut down too much. Politicians were his adversaries as much as other journalists were his competitors and some feeling of what they had to say on his death is of interest. Tvoz/talk 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any particular reason not to let it be fairly large and inclusive at the moment. In a month or so we can cut it down mercilessly. john k (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz what I did is just intended as a start... a lot more trimming still needs to be done in my opinion, I was hoping other people would help out, I was just trying to get the ball rolling. Waiting a while is okay but I think we should try to make the article good now when probably thousands of people are reading it every day. --Rividian (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I see - but we could use the same argument (that many people are reading it) as a reason to have a more balanced and comprehensive listing of the tributes. As much as I agree we aren't wikinews, there is usually a tacit acceptance of going too far in talking about the circumstances, responses, etc, to deaths which are trimmed after a little time passes. I don't know if you were here when Kurt Vonnegut died, but there was quite a stir over this, including dozens of reverts and reinstatements of "So it goes", his famous fictional send-off from Slaughterhouse Five - eventually things calmed down and a more appropriate level of detail and tributes was reached. Same happened when Heath Ledger died. I think we should just hang back a bit and let it play itself out. People do come here to see the news whether we like it or not, and our article now, in my opinion, appears slanted away from the thoughtful comments that political figures made and are making. Tvoz/talk 20:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I've never really gotten into editing a major recent death article... and I'm not going to edit war over it, in fact I don't think there were any objections here yet when I made my edit. I personally think it looks better to just have 1-2 paragraphs about tributes rather than 10, whether the subject of the article died yesterday or 5 years ago. But I will do as you say and let it just play itself out. I am glad I started a discussion here though. --Rividian (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the number of tributes to three from objective journalists (Walter Cronkite, Carl Bernstein and Gwen Ifill) and two from politicians (Barack Obama and John McCain). I agree with many others posting here that a few such tributes are sufficient. Objectivesea (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about the tributes more, but you also, probably inadvertently, reinstated errors such as the diabetes references that I had removed and the rearrangement of his personal life section - I don't know what version you were working with, but I went back to the one I had just worked on which had clarified and corrected a number of things that yours reinstated. As for the tributes, I think including the current and former prsident along with the current candidates is not too much. Tvoz/talk 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree that there shouldn't be laundry list of "tribute" quotes; I don't think praise from his Ninth Grade journalism teacher would be informative. But a statement from Rush Limbaugh is absolutely appropriate. Both for the fact that he is the dean of Conservative Media and Russert was, arguably, the dean of Left-wing Media and the fact that they were friends. And make no mistake about it, Russert was an opinion-shaper, subtle though his technique largely was.

Re-inserted excerpt from Rush Limbaugh's statement. Whatever one's personal feelings about him, it is an indisputable fact that Limbaugh is the most popular political analyst in the United States. Arguably, he's the most influential as well. Given the incredible effect his injection of himself into the Democratic primary process ("Operation Chaos"), he almost single-handedly extended the contest for months.

A quote from Limbaugh is far more relevant and pertinent than one from the very obscure Gwin Ifill (except to we News Junkies, and don't even try to argue that one!). But I left the Ifill quote in place. I suppose wikipedia should strive for the equally mythical "balance."

To reiterate, he and Russert were also friends (as the former's website statement says). He also said Russert "was the closest thing there was at any of the networks to an objective journalist." From Rush, that's high praise indeed for a reporter working for the Left-wing ("Drive-by") Media. PainMan (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the suits at General Electric are clearly running an enterprise designed to ultimately destroy the capitalist system and America as we know it. It's shocking that they found someone as objective as Tim Russert to run their Washington news bureau. Rush Limbaugh should be pretty low on the list of people who should be included - I'd think that, besides the five left by Objectivesea, and the two more suggested by Tvoz, that remembrances from his colleagues at NBC would, at the very least, be of significantly greater importance than Rush Limbaugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Kenney (talk • contribs)

You, of course, couldn't be more wrong. There are few people more important than Limbaugh in American politics and political analysis today. And this fact is simply indisputable--as the outstanding success of "Operation Chaos" amply demonstrated.

On the Conservative side, he is the leader. (The Leader of the Opposition as National Review called him once (in 1993?). Given his immense audience (more than 20,000,000 daily radios tuned in), influence, his importance is a given--he is far more important than the faded and largely moribund Walter Cronkite (who has drifted so far to the Left, to paraphrase Reynaldus Magnus, he's Left reality) and the completely irrelevant Bruce Springsteen.

As for GE, the only thing GE's demanded of NBC's news division is (OH MY GOD, HOW DARE THEY?!!?) that they actually turn a profit! Of all the evil, money-grubbing scoundrels!!! The so-called "suits" have done nothing to alter NBC's role as a part of the Liberal-Socialist/DNC PR machine. PainMan (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it's appropriate to use a NPOV publication (wikipedia) to raise the visibility of that right-wing nutjob. I most certainly don't think that a Rush Limbaugh quote praising someone's impartiality as a journalist contains any merit whatsoever. Rush Limbaugh's statement is news grandstanding, and does not belong on NPOV Wikipedia ...except perhaps on Wikipedia's comedy page. PainMan, your non-NPOV is painfully obvious and entirely inappropriate in NPOV Wikipedia. Really, you're out there on the extreme right wing, trying to foist Rush Limbaugh as a hugely important journalist. This right-wing niche shockjock is not so important that his quotes deserve mention here; nor is it worth your time to try to leverage them into a NPOV Wikipedia article about a lifelong Democrat... that smells like the Republican Noise Machine game, pretending the whole world has moved left so that the rightwing non-NPOV will look more centrist and reasonable. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think that Tim Russert's death-- and the predictable quotes eulogizing him-- are remarkable or important enough to merit the amount of coverage that Wikipedia's article has given them. Russert's LIFE was interesting, and should be the bulk of the Wikipedia article; the circumstances of his death deserve little more than a sentence, and the quotes from the famous and not-so-famous eulogizing the man are a collossal waste of space. If one of the eulogies revealed that Tim had secretly been married to Bob Marley, that would be news...but "Famous man dies; world mourns; public figures say something kind about the guy" is uninformative because it is as completely predictable as a dog barking at a cat. Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

Tom Brokaw's name is misspelled in the death section. 24.215.235.184 (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly? --Dnvrfantj (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mother

Can someone please write something about Tim's mother..What happened? Why no mention of her or siblings? Just father who doesn't really speak... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.35.123 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

66.65.35.123, why don't you write something about Russert's mother if you can make it appropriate. If people think it's not, you'll see it--and quick.

But don't just wait around for someone else to do something that you think important. Do it yourself!

Joining the fray is more than half the fun 'roun' he'ah. PainMan (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed -- but have been unable to find any any details about Tim's mother - will keep looking ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.67.6.14 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not been able to locate a reliable source regarding her. It looks likely she died of cancer in 2005. WP improver (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The Early life section states his parents separated in 1976; did they divorce? WP improver (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What was her maiden name? WP improver (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph overtly partisan

The following paragraph:

During the trial, another witness, former Cheney communications director Cathie Martin, testified that she "suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format", allowing the administration to "control the message".

This is obviously intended as an attack on the Vice President and the Bush Administration. It implies that only Republicans would try to "control the message." I don't anyone over 8 actually believes that.

If it is felt necessary to demonstrate Russert's importance as journalist and interviewer, et al, another example, or balancing examples, should be used.

At least as written, this paragraph is just a blatantly partisan attack. Removed.

Your non-NPOV is distorting your view again, PainMan. The quote shows that perhaps Tim Russert and Meet the Press were not as impartial as the rest of the article implies. The quote shows that more than any other news show, an extremely partisan group felt that they could control "Meet the Press" to deliver their talking points to the public undistorted, unchallenged, and undiluted. It's remarkable because without it, the article solely gives us the impression that Tim Russert and his most popular show were hard-hitting and objective, or perhaps liberal. This is a meaningful quote that sheds objective light on Tim Russert, giving us a much-needed dose of perspective; it is not an attack on NeoCons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethnessatwikipedia (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) PainMan (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph removed after being reverted. To reiterate, it is nothing more than a partisan attack on the sitting VP and, by extention, the President. Not only is it irrelevant to Russert's involvement in the so-called "Leak" case, his name isn't even mentioned in it!

(How exactly can you "leak" the "secret" identity of someone who drives to Langley everyday?! [Was she so covert she was invisible?] But the farcical stupidity of that trial, and the havoc wrought by politically ambitious prosecutors pursuing weak-to-baseless cases to get their faces on tv, is to be discussed elsewhere.) PainMan (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We have no business getting into the rights and wrongs of the case here, so please don't use this as a forum to discuss whether or not PLame was outed, etc. But there's no doubt to me that this testimony is directly relevant to an article about Russert - it is Cheney's person saying how they viewed Meet the Press and therefore Russert, and is a notable and interesting point. As long as we have a reliable source that she said it, I think it certainly belongs in. Tvoz/talk 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A newbie like you Tvoz has no business telling me what my business is or isn't. Mind yours and things will be much more harmonious.

And the statement is irrefutably irrelevant and an undeniably transparent partisan attack on the Vice President. As Russert's name isn't mentioned--to reiterate another statement of mine! perhaps you should try reading everything I write before commenting on it?--how can it possibly be relevant?

The only thing evidenced here is your partisan attempt to smear the administration and Dick Cheney.

In fact, the mention of the entire case is irrelevant both because Russert's involvement was tangential (many other journalists were also questioned) since no underlying crime was ever proven. Valerie Plame was not an "undercover" agent or operative. Undercover agents do not drive to Langley everyday!

And, it's just that simple. PainMan (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not at all a newbie, and I have over 11,000 edits here, so I don't know what you're talking about. I am merely reminding you of the editing guideline that states that talk pages are not for discussions of editors' opinions about the subject or related or unrelated matters - they are only for determining how to improve the article. Your opinions about the Plame case, and mine, are not to be discussed on this page. The statement was made by a witness in the case, not by me or anyone here - and I am not even the one who put it in the article - but I believe it belongs there because it speaks directly to that individual's reporting of the administration's view of Russert and Meet the Press. It is irrelevant to this article - or any article - that you think that Valerie Plame was not undercover. So please stop inserting your personal views into discussions about article improvements. Tvoz/talk 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA "leak" case and Russert

After reading Russert's pdf'd statement asserting his refusal to comply with a prosecutorial subpoena (i.e. testify), it occurs to me that there's no mention how he avoided the consequences of this action.

In other words, has anyone run across how he avoided a contempt citation for refusing to testify?

Unlike a few states, California and New York, for example, there is no Federal Journalist's Shield Law; i.e. a statute allowing reporters to refuse to disclose the names of sources.

It should be remembered that a former NY Times reporter was cited for contempt by the District Court for doing exactly what Russert did. I believe she briefly served jail time in an attempt to compel her testimony.

Be interesting to know why the disparate treatment. PainMan (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps his judge was more enlightened than the one that put Judith Miller in jail. I'm going to try to find some sourcing on what happened with Russert regarding this. Tvoz/talk 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Enlightenment" has nothing to do with it. There's no Federal journalist shield law. Journalists ordered to testify either do it or go to jail. Period. The inference to be drawn is that the judge decided that Russert had no material information and that a contempt citation was unwarranted. PainMan (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gridiron Club membership

I wanted to add this, but since my only source is a broadcast journalist, I don't know how to properly reference it.

I heard NBC's Tom Brokaw state to Today Show host Matt Lauer that Tim Russert's respect among print journalists was so great, that Russert became the first broadcast journalist admitted to the Gridiron Club, the venerable Washington, D.C. members-only club comprised of Washington newspaper bureau chiefs.

The Wikipedia article on the Gridiron Club mentions Russert's membership, though.

I think that this is a significant enough milestone both in Russert's career and in the media culture to warrant inclusion in the Tim Russert page. CrashRiley (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He was the first TV journalist so admitted and thus it should be included in his bio. PainMan (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Springsteen tribute

Bruce Springsteen is neither a journalist nor a political figure of any stature or weight.

Therefore, posting a statement by him is both irrelevant and out of place. PainMan (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Springsteen statement is relevant. It shows the breadth of Russert's influence. Kingturtle (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Russert's impact was broad and deep, extending from the traditional politicos, to sports teams, and yes, even to rock musicians. The Springsteen tribute should stay. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a statement from Springsteen is notable and should remain in the article - especially since we talk elsewhere in the piece about Russert's connection to Springsteen. Tvoz/talk 19:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Springteen's tribute should stay. Media coverage recently has made it clear that Russert was a life-long fan of Springsteen and a regular attendee at his shows ever since booking him for under three grand as a college student. Springsteen's tribute is more notable than McCain's or Obama's because Springsteen was important to Russert. –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the Springsteen tribute should stay. Both the tribute, and their longstanding relationship, was mentioned several times on the Today Show today. Max Weinberg (Springsteen's and Conan O'Brien's drummer) was also mentioned. The connection is clear, and should remain. --Art Smart (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but... The fact that Russert was a life-long Springsteen fan is not notable. The fact that he went to Springsteen concerts is not notable. Even the fact that he booked him to play at his college is not notable. Bruce played tons of college shows back in the early 70s and lots of college kids were involved in booking him. So what. However, the tribute that Bruce gave to Russert in the days after his death is the only notable part of the relationship. Let's keep it in perspective. --Crunch (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that a celebrity like Russert had many other celebrity friends outside of politics. Nothing any of them has to say is relevant so why should a quote by Springsteen be included? (Except that the editor who added is obviously a fan.)

Case not made. Springsteen paragraph reverted.

He's merely a a musician (a massively overrated and under-talented musician whose biggest contribution to entertainment was the boost he gave to Courtney Cox's career). And record sales mean nothing in this context. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche, "Fifty million [people] can be as wrong as one."

Springsteen is not a:

• Journalist
• Political pundit
• Political figure

Therefore there is no relevant reason to include a quote from him. PainMan (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• No one has to make a "case" for you. Consensus rules in this case. The Springsteen information stays. Please stop reverting against consensus. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct - consensus seems to be to include this. And someone edited other people's talk comments - please don't do that. I don't recall putting anything into boldface. Tvoz/talk 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to agree with PainMan, I have to agree with him here: The fact that a major journalist was a fan of a moderately famous musician, and the fact that there was some tenuous connection between two fairly famous people in different fields, is trivia. Tim Russert did not routinely start his show with that musician's music, nor did he say "go Springsteen!" at the end of his show. Even the section on Russert's connection to the Buffalo Bills seems inflated beyond its true importance. It's trivia on the scale of a mouse hiccup in a typhoon, compared to the political and journalistic areas where Tim Russert's opinion and actions mattered. I will even go so far as to say that the several paragraphs about Russert's association with the Catholic church are nearly trivial, unless someone can prove to me that he was secretly moonlighting as a bishop ;-) or using his position as a journalist to promote Catholicism. It's silly that Russert's professional contributions and importance as a journalist are given so little coverage compared to this journalist's musical taste, religious preference, and favorite sports teams. Which would you rather read about: his involvement in the Plame Affair, or his favorite flavor of icecream? Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to be sure I'm not misunderstanding: Springsteen is a "moderately famous musician"? Ok, if you say so. Actually this article is a biography of a notable individual, and as such we're supposed to be writing about the whole person, not just one aspect such as his involvement in the Plame affair. That's why we go into his Catholicism which apparently was a significant influence on him, that's why we talk about where he went to school, that's why we discuss his sports and (one) musical interest: they all have been commented on by third party sources as being significant in his life. I for one would certainly welcome more material being added about his professional accomplishments and importance as a journalist - feel free to research and add. But I would not want to see these other aspects of the man removed. Doesn't matter, by the way, what I or you or any one of us would rather read about - it matters that the piece be comprehensive and balanced. Tvoz/talk 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[out] Once again, an editor has gone against the clear consensus here and removed Springsteen and added Limbaugh, with excessive verbiage about Limbaugh resulting in undue weight given him, no pun intended. I have reinstated Springsteen and retained mention of Limbaugh along with Cronkite, Bernstein and Quinn, which placement will no doubt irritate some, but that's where it belongs if anywhere - he's just another "journalist" making a comment, but I think it's somewhat notable that he, a conservative, would comment positively about anyone from NBC, the devil's network if you believe O'Reilly. I am willing to include Limbaugh only in that limited way, and find it outrageous that Springsteen has been repeatedly deleted against consensus. So I hope this will satisfy. Tvoz/talk 07:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A future event announced in an article?

I removed the following section:

A public wake is scheduled for June 17 at St. Albans School in Washington, following by a private funeral mass and burial on the morning of June 18. A private memorial service will take place on the afternoon of June 18 at the Kennedy Center and is scheduled to be televised live on MSNBC.

This event should, imo, only be entered into the article after it has occurred. This is, after all, wikipedia and not wikinews.

It can surely wait until tomorrow to be entered. PainMan (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not "newsy" to report when the memorial mass is scheduled to be held. It's one thing that makes this project better than paper-based 'pedias: it's FAR more responsive to events as they happen. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It absolutely is news to put a future invent into an encyclopedia article. It simply doesn't belong there.

Nowhere in the Britannica on-line article on Russert is there any mention of this future event. (Russert, Tim." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 16 June 2008 [2]; tho' I'm a member; if you aren't you may not be able to access the entire article, short though it is--three paragraphs.

Concision is not something wikipedia's known for. PainMan (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm the one who entered it and I was going to enter it in WikiNews, but I confess, I was watching the US Open and got distracted. Thanks for staying on top of this. --Crunch (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, harmony. An example many should draw a lesson from.

The info should be included after tomorrow. I hope you revert it then. PainMan (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbaugh a "friend"?

I looked, but couldn't find any sources to back up the "friend" wording. It's apparent that Limbaugh respected the man, but he doesn't even mention "friendship" in his statement. Springsteen was a friend, as was Brokaw, which the sources back up. But I'm not sure about wording Limbaugh as a "friend." S. Dean Jameson (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you invite someone (and his son) to spend the night/weekend at your house if he weren't a friend? Limbaugh has no need, or desire, to curry favor with a Drive-by like Russert. Friendship is strongly implied (in the statement) even if the word itself is not used. PainMan (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We go with what is sourced, not what you think is implied. Was he a friend of Limbaugh's? Probably. Source it, and it stays. Don't source it, and it doesn't. I have no problem with it at all, except that it's unsourced. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

An invitation from Limbaugh to a prominent journalist does not imply a friendship, any more than a hooker propositioning me in a bar implies that I routinely sleep with her. The only "implication" here is that Limbaugh, not a smooth social operator, felt comfortable enough to make an invitation that would have widened his circle of acquaintances in what he thinks is his profession. This can be characterized as an attempt at social climbing more easily than it fits the description of "notable friendship". Once again, PainMan, your lack of objectivity is showing like a basketball trying to hide behind a pebble.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia article in the news

"Remembering Russert: The Wikipedia Question". Quote:

But before NBC or Drudge or any other outlet, there was Wikipedia. Businessweek's Jon Fine writes about a Wikipedia edit made at 3:01pmET to Tim Russert's page, adding the date of death and describing his work in the past tense (Fine reported the time to be 2:01pmET, but because GMT doesn't switch for daylight savings, there is currently a four hour difference with EST).

The edit raises questions over who jumped the gun in reporting the news, albeit via Wikipedia. One commenter writes: "That IP address belongs to Internet Broadcasting Systems — the company that runs (for now) the websites of NBC's O&O's."

Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the very early reports of his death could (and probably should) have been reverted, since they were totally unsourced. In this case they turned out to be true, but a common hoaxing technique is to use a Wikipedia article to falsely claim that a celebrity just died. --Rividian (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok this story is now getting legs, the New York Times is covering it: "Link by Link Delaying News in the Era of the Internet". We still have nothing about it on Wikipedia, ironically enough. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How important of a biographical detail is it? Yes, it's in the news today, but in five years' time, will it be considered an important aspect of the coverage of Russert's death? Wikipedia:Recentism goes into more detail about the issue involved here. I suppose, yes, that it's "ironic" that an event involving Wikipedia isn't mentioned in its Wikipedia article, but we do have to be careful not to over-state our own importantance when writing articles. Warren -talk- 12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a part of the story of his death. If in five years time editors want to remove it they can, Wikipedia is not static or set in stone, by design we can't predict what will seem important in 5 years. If his death had been announced early on another forum (for example on a blog somewhere), and there were subsequent news stories about it in the New York Times, I guarantee we would be mentioning it in the article. It is only because it happened on Wikipedia that it is not passing the sniff test. Why is that? Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The story is now expanding. The Wikipedia updater has been fired from his job. "Wikipedia Updater Fired For Scooping NBC on Tim Russert's Death". I suspect Wikipedia will be the last place to mention this story. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh well it looks like this is in fact being covered on Wikipedia elsewhere [3]. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I've edited your link because the heading of the section to which it pointed was changed and thus the link needed updating. --anon. 162.83.150.162 (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As one user on a blog said: "I'm kinda surprised that NBC hasn't edited out the reference to this incident". I do think we need to be careful that vested interests don't try to edit this story out of Wikipedia. It's already been deleted once (probably in good faith, but who knows?). We should stick with the core rules on this one: Verifiable Source. If in the future, when the story has blow over and editors look back and consider it trivial they can remove it then, it doesn't hurt to have it for now. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! Just imagine the chaos wikipedia will go through when Abe Vigoda finally kicks the bucket,... I think the Fark.com servers will probably explode then, too,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this information about the wikipedia editing in this article? Isn't there sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to reference it with? The role wikipedia played in the reporting of this news seems very notable to me.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is still following this story, it now appears the NBC employee was not fired for outing Tim's death on Wikipedia early. Article here. None of this appears to be covered anywhere on Wikipedia (except on this talk page). Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Speaking of journalistic standards:

1. No "NBC employee" was alleged to be involved, but an employee of an NBC contractor, entirely a different thing in several relevant senses.
2. FYI, i share the result of the research i did to clarify: the IBS employee who was "not fired" was not fired but rather suspended; apparently we can rule out their being fired for a different reason. (And for that matter we can rule out the possibility that their firing, had been planned before the incident, but was rescinded bcz of the incident. Hmm, the military actually does that sort of thing: i think your discharge can be delayed in order to keep you eligible for trial under UCMJ.)
3. Take alleyinsider.com (Silicon Alley Insider) off your list of reliable sources, since they snarkily blame NYT for misleading them or us, when what NYT said was presumably precisely accurate: "NBC News said it was told the employee was fired." --Jerzy•t 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
   

Son Luke's name

Tim Russert said he named his son Luke after Saint Luke the Evangelist, who wrote, “To whom much is given, much is expected.”

- this is a quote from MSNBC/Today Show article from June 16. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25186698/

Please make the change regarding the origination of Luke's name. Mags777 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what Tim said is that St Luke is his son's namesake, which can mean "named after" or can mean "has the same name as". The NFL source seems rather certain that he was named after the Bison's player, but not clear what he bases this statement on. My guess is that both informed the naming - I think we should either remove it completely or put both into a footnote and out of the text, which I tried in the last edit. Tvoz/talk 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Disability?

I could swear that Russert used to have a show where they showed that he was sitting in a wheelchair. And I always assumed that he was handicapped but that they chose not to show the wheelchair again in future shows. I can find no mention of him being in a wheelchair. Am I somehow mistaking him for someone else? Did he only briefly use a wheelchair due to an accident or surgery? --67.180.188.95 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

When he was subpoenaed in February 2007 during the CIA leak incident he was on crutches reportedly because of a broken ankle. I don't remember a wheelchair. --Crunch (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of John Hockenberry who is in a wheelchair and at one time was a correspondent for NBC's Dateline. Tvoz/talk 05:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary information on McCain/Obama

Added information that McCain and Obama are their parties (presumptive) presidential nominees. Without that information, they appear to be just ordinary senators and thus comments from almost any Senator would have sufficed.

As nominees however, their status is elevated above their 98 colleagues. It seems silly to have to point this out, but apparently it has to be. PainMan (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, but are we giving them too much importance, relative to the importance of the other guests Russert has had over the years? Consider that Dick Cheney was interviewed by MSNBC and provided some good comments. Tony Blair had good things to say, too. The problem we'll face here is that there are so many people who have made statements -- Walter Cronkite, Mario Cuomo, David Paterson, Arnold Schwarzenegger, on and on and on. There's no easy answer, unfortunately. Warren -talk- 07:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Significant paring down of "tributes" section

I have boldly pared down the tributes section, and created a stand-alone article for them. They were really beginnning to clutter the page. Now, text of such tributes can be confined to the main article for them. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If the tributes are just quotations then maybe Wikiquotes would be the right place for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

They're not just quotes, but some are actual tributes, like Stewart did on the Daily Show. I feel like a separate article would be best for right now. S. Dean Jameson (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of them are just quotes, though. Warren -talk- 00:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content fork and the stuff in this article was word per word the same as the Tributes article. Since some people want to move it, move it all, not create a content fork. Either that or move it all back. Presumptive (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a content fork, it's a well-known pattern in Wikipedia where you cut down the length of an article by moving a long section to its own article and replace it with a summary section i the main article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I nominated Tim Russert tributes for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes‎). It might sound more like "cut and merge + delete the separate article", but you can make your own conclusions. -- tariqabjotu 07:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey?

In the introductory paragraph, one sentences says, "Russert was noted for his coverage of presidential elections and for his presentation of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey on the NBC Nightly News during the 2008 U.S. presidential election." Is this correct? I'm not sure if "survey" is supposed to be the name of the presidential primary debate or something else. Mackan79 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Health conditions

I suppose one of the surprising things about Russert's death is his relative youth and the unexpectedness of it. I've now seen several news articles/features about coronary heart disease and sudden heart attacks with Russert's death being talked about. I know info at this point is rather sketchy/unofficial, but I think that there should be some discussion in the death section about the factors which lead up to his death. (I came to this page because of a quote in an ABC News article [4] by a cardiologist: "Tim Russert was too fat for too long and this promoted his premature heart disease" - He didn't seem all fat to me, and I was wondering how "fat" he really was.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

He was 58, working hard in a stressful job, and clearly overweight. Heart failure is one of the leading causes of death. If there's a surprise here, it can only be seen with a microscope.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Diabetes II

The Russert Effect: Docs Report Surge

• "Though not in top condition, the dynamic host of NBC's "Meet the Press" was managing his health well. Russert, 58, had recently had a satisfactory stress test, and his doctor reported that he was not diabetic and that his cholesterol levels were appropriate."
• "According to Russert's personal physician, Dr. Michael Newman, Russert did not have diabetes and his LDL was 68"
  

I realize that sources can be found that say he had diabetes, but it's not clear where they came up with that information. This abc news article specifically mentions twice that his own physician said that he did not have diabetes. If there's conflicting info, I prefer the statement that's been attributed to someone who should know. It should at least be made clear that there's conflicting reports if it goes back in the article. --Onorem♠Dil 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Your source trumps my source. This sort of back and forth is one of Wikipedia's strengths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.180.131.16 (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of weak journalism

I refer not to Mr. Russert's journalism but to many others who wrote about him. I thought reporters were supposed to get facts. Reviewing all the numerous articles about his death, several seem to claim he exercised a lot and ate healthy. But there is no detail, as if the reporters are too respectful, fearful or ignorant to get into it. How many of the articles stated his height and weight at time of death? Apparently zero. How many of them listed his dietary habits? Apparently zero. If he did exercise, when did he start; what did he do? If they don't want to know these details then they should not be writing as if they were educating all of us about his life, death, and heart disease. Finally, where is the list of medications he was taking? To the reporters generally I would say, "Thanks for nothing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim as an honorary degree from The College of Saint Rose in Albany, NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.98.48 (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Career timeline

I did some work on the Timeline section, including renaming it Career Timeline, however I still think it adds little to the overall article. It's an incomplete summary of Russert's career does little to add to the content of the article. I suggest deleting it. --Crunch (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA leak question

i just have a question. according to the article libby claimed that russert was the first to tell him about plame. i may be wrong, i followed closely but i did not ready the libby grand jury testimony. i do not think that libby said russert was the first. libby just said that russert told him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.255.238 (talk)

This comment was added to the article along with a change from "...Russert was the first to tell him..." to "...Russert told him". I don't have time to look through the sources at th moment, so I left the change in and brought the question here in the meantime. The current version may turn out to be not as accurate, but I don't think it'd be considered incorrect. --Onorem♠Dil 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph overtly partisan II

During the trial, another witness, former Cheney communications director Cathie Martin, testified that she "suggested we put the vice president on Meet the Press, which was a tactic we often used. It's our best format, allowing the administration to "control the message."

I saw the discussion above concerning this sentence, and in my opinion, this sentence is misplaced. First of all, the section concerns Russert's testimony in the trial, not Cathie Martin's. Furthermore, to state that Cheney believed Meet the Press was the best program for "controlling his message" seems to be an attempt to impugn Russert's integrity, whereas I believe it reflects more on the format of the program, not the host. I'm sure you could find any politician who could name the news program he or she thinks is easiest for him or her to "control the message." In short, this statement seems to be slightly off topic, negatively affects the readability of the section, and is more appropriate for the Meet the Press article rather than the Russert article. CH52584 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

TGEiC's removal of agreed-upon merged text

The text should not be removed, simply because people are "mourning." I recommend that if the above editor continues to do so, after he's been warned multiple times to stop, that he be blocked for tendentious editing. S. Dean Jameson 21:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unwatching this. We worked hard to reach a compromise in merging the "Reaction" article's text to this article, and now it's being summarily removed. I won't edit war for it's inclusion, but I won't sit and watch our work be eviscerated either. Good luck to everyone. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 22:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference section a tad askew?

Um, the references section seems to be totally whacked. The formatting got messed up somehow and I don't have the time to fix it. Does anybody else know what is wrong with it? Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 01:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond scope

I have removed a section of unrelated text under the subheading "Reaction" in the death section that is not a reaction to his death. Content regarding criticisms of Russert's professional life belongs elsewhere. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Favorite beer? House price?

What is the relevance of noting a reporter's favorite beer? Or how much his house is worth? If someone can come up with a convincing rationale, I'd like to read it.

Otherwise it's just tabloid-type gossip and not encyclopedic content.

I'll wait to see if a valid rationale appears. If not, I think these two items should be removed for the above-stated reason. PainMan (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Something weird this way went

I don't know if I did it or not, but the References section is seriously hosed up. I tried undoing my revert(s) but it made no difference. After close scanning I can't see what the issue is.

Whatever happened, if I did it, it was entirely unintentional.

The first time I did a preview, all seemed well. When I hit "Save Page" things went all hay-wire.

And I honestly don't know how to "fix" it. PainMan (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User:Onorem beat to to the fix. It wasn't you, though. It was this diff. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 06:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I thought I had hashed the page up and couldn't figure out what/how I'd done. I'd added the exact same paragraph(s) before without anything like that happening. I didn't just want anyone charging me with vandalism.
PainMan (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a "revision", and fairly cryptic; the more informative diff relative to the revn preceding it does a better job of exposing the removal of a </ref> tag, and thus the predictably troublesome creation of an unbalanced markup construct.
--Jerzy•t 19:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaction section supports American dictatorships

The reaction section supports a movement that leads to American dictatorships. In the U.S., there is too much emphasis on Presidents. Presidents on money. Presidents and presidential candidates treated like rock stars. In some countries, inventors and poets are on money.

This subtle POV extends to us editing WP. There is a large paragraph on tributes by Presidents. This subtle POV has to stop. We need to balance this with others lest we support America's decline into presidential dictatorship.

Be aware and try to be balanced. HRCC (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A colleague rv'd the preceding hdg & msg, saying

RVT what appears to be the work of a troll...

I don't think the case is that clear, and even if the intent is as assessed, the harm done is negligible, so erring on the side of caution is IMO more talk rather than less: let it stand.
--Jerzy•t 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah? But what's your point? My view is that what Presidents & ex-Prexies say is usually important evidence, even tho we're stuck with another 3.5 months of Presidential dictatorship, but that's neither here nor there either. Your on-topic content amounts to

  We need to balance this with others

So tell us which opinions of inventors and poets you want to add, or shut up and go write your blog.
--Jerzy•t 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is his "successor"?

I say it's David Gregory. Brokaw was "temporary" and everyone knew it. He never had his name on the broadcast. However, I want to hear other people's take on this. --Levineps (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Debates

I complied a list through some research, if anyone has anymore they know of... please add it.--Levineps (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

introduction needs addition

The lead paragraph should have a 1 sentence mention of how he was worshipped and remembered just after his death, including a congressional resolution.

However, if I say he received an exceptional number of condolences, that's really my opinion (even though few would disagree). What's the best way to word it? User F203 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if worshipped is the right terminology. I'm not advocating inclusion without some sourcing, but I'd suggest something like:

Russert's death resulted in an outpouring of condolences, including a resolution in the United States Congress, and NBC ran several specials honoring Russert's contributions to journalism."

A basic outline, but I think we need some reliable sources to accurately construct a version for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds nice.

Russert's death resulted in an outpouring of condolences, including a resolution in the United States Congress, and NBC ran several specials honoring Russert's contributions to journalism including devoting an entire evening news broadcast to Russert."

All can be supported by RS except "outpouring of condolences". Are there any sources that use that term? If they do, we are still being biased by allowing others' opinion and text to shape ours. After all, outpouring is a value judgment, even though most agree that it did happen. User F203 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Death reaction section far too long

We should cut out most of it. It doesn't matter which networks did what about him, and it clutters up and adds unnecessary weight and length to the section. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and cut out most of the reaction section, leaving the essential bits in. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, his death obviously being a significant event of his life, shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead section? -- œ^™ 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How did Russert avoid Military Service while an undergraduate from 1968 to 1972?

There was one enormous event going on in the world from 1968 to 1972, the years Russert was an undergrad, and that was the Vietnam War. Millions of Americans were drafted. Thus, a complete biography must examine how a person in college from 1968 to 1972 managed to avoid being drafted. Perhaps Russert had a physical impairment all along, or perhaps he got a safe lottery number. However, Russert made much of his father's military service, but curiously never mentioned his own lack of service. A serious biography cannot just ignore THE big issue of Russert's youth, which was Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just skimmed the relevant passages here and it seems he got a pretty standard college deferment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life?

Tim Russert was pro-life? I did a search on the google and couldn't find his exact stance on it but I think it's rather possible. Just curious to know.85.242.238.59 (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)