Talk:Kim Komando

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Old and/or Irrelevant conversations have been archived here: Talk:Kim Komando/archive01

[edit] "Bibliography" -> "Published Works" or "Writings"

The term "bibliography" is ambiguous as a title for the section listing Komando's published works. It is not immediately clear if she is the author of the books, or if she is a subject of the books. Please clarify. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.12.44 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Ok, makes sense. I switched it to "Published Works". ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Komando" origins

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable--a birth certificate and an expert source on genealogy are needed to verify the claim about her last name. Otherwise, the claim merely belongs in a "trivia" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.11.244 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

The statement "X claims Y is Z" is very different then "Y is Z". Your demanding a source for the second statement when we actually aren't printing that. Kim could claim her last name is from Martian ancestor and we could truthfully and verifiably say "Kim claims her name is from Mars". Do understand the distinction that is being drawn here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. As the statement is now, I still think it belongs in a trivia section. It sounds trifling. It really isn't significant where her last name comes from. Plenty of people have Russian last names. I look at "A" rated biographies, and I don't see those sorts of autobiographical comments in the main section. The reference link provided is filled with self-promotional topics. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion --"Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links) or biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." Let's be clear that www.kimkomando.com is not Komando's personal website. It is ostensibly a commercial website for the Kim Komando Radio Show. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.67.11.178 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Fair enough... I'll concede the point that it's a fairly trivial bit of fact and I wouldn't relay be opposed to removal on that grounds. Then again, I'm sure the question gets asked alot (I was wondering...) so it I think we would better serve our readers to leave it in the article somewhere.
The website is commercial, yes, but that in no-way removes it as a reliable primary source for Kim's own statements. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with OP. If there's going to be precedence for quoting tidbits off her radioshow website, it's going to open up a whole can of worms. And I think this page has been down that road before (e.g. the Surius Radio and Howard Stern quibble or Komando's comments about Wikipedia). If the reader is really interested in her private comments regarding her name and her radio show, there is a link to her show's website in the maintext itself, and in the general references. There's no need to be quoting her website multiple times. J.S. does make an interesting point: she could have claimed her name has martian origins, and that would be still be a valid primary source. But, then again, why are these particular comments about her name included at all? The surname "Komando" is a standard and popular name in Germany and eastern European nations, and is certainly not unique even in the Americas. I agree: the reference note is pointing to a highly commercialized page on her radioshow website. I vote that this comment be removed or moved to an approciate section.
I'm not opposed to removing it on the ground of it's trivialness... however, I bet this question comes up all the time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for removing audience rating assertion

Here is the text of the assertion:

"Accordig[sic] to a talk radio industry publication, the program is considered the most-listened to weekend syndicated talk radio show. [1]"

Why it has been removed:
1) The source reference link is not correctly cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. It says Kim Komando is the source, then directs the browser to the talkers.com page. This is a violation of the talkers.com terms of use, and therefore, must be removed immediately.
2) The more appropriate place for this assertion is on The_Kim_Komando_Show Wikipedia page.
3) This list of statistics is not substantial authority on the topic. The footnotes clearly say these statistics are very rough estimates.
4) The list makes no claim about Komando's show being the "most-listened to" or a "weekend show." It is only by inference by the reader that this claim is made.
5) Serious doubts about the validity of this list: a) Don Imus is still listed, b) why is the distinction given to Komando's show over Brinker's when the statistics are indistinguishable?, c) Art Bell's weekend show isn't even listed here, d) do these statistics include Komando's *daily* Computer Minutes?
6) Weasel wording. "is considered" is on the list of avoidable weasel words. Her show could be *considered* to be all sorts of things.

Response
  1. - talkers.com's TOS is irrelevant to wikipedia. For the rest of it the article's citation can be improved to fix this problem.
  2. - I can accept this point, but it doesn't mean it can't be mentioned here in the context of mentioning her accomplishments.
  3. - Industry magazines are considered reliable sources. Thats why we cite the source.
  4. - Fair enough.
  5. - The stats are part of a magazine article, and as such, are not updated daily. Either way this entire point is irrelevant.
  6. - It's not a weasel word because the source making the consideration is referenced.
So, in closing, even with my objections to your various points I support the removal of the sentence. I'll see what I can do about creating a better worded sentence using this source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I still object to the distinction about the top weekend-only rating. The source listing does not make this distinction. The reader is led to infer this conclusion. IN FACT, the Brinker Show and the Komando show are statistically indistinguishable, if you look at the margin of error. The source list does not even distinguish what qualifies as a weekend-only show. You are, therefore, adding original research. About the weasel wording: The talkers.com list makes NO CONSIDERATIONS at all. A consideration is a view or an opinion based on reflection. Humans make considerations. That's why it's weasel wording. Finally, the cume statistic should be placed in the first paragraph that deals primarily with her radio show.




Gee, had no idea posting information about one of the most listened to women radio talk show hosts would generate such controversy. Komando's like No. 3, and the biggest on the weekend. She doesn't do politics, which is rare. Thought someone might care about that accomplishment.

Regarding that list of biggest hosts, the Talkers Magazine list hasn't been updated. It list Imus, who recently was forced off the air. G. Gordon Liddy, I believe, doesn't have such a big show anymore. So it's likely Komando may move up.

Anyway, I put the original claim to large listenership on the Kim Komando Radio Show page, which I at the time didn't realize existed as a separate entity. Don1962 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Don1962

Don1962, thanks for adding this insight. I was concerned that the original wording claimed much more than what the talkers.com statistics actually represent. The error bars are significant, and there's been a lot of criticism about the ratings method itself due to newer, but ignored, distribution channels like podcasts, internet streaming, and satellite. Her show is indeed quite popular on the weekends, but making a superlative statement when comparing apples to oranges seems inappropriate. Do you feel satisfied with the current wording?
    • Biography

How about some more information, i.e., place of birth, parents, education? T.E. Goodwin 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)