Talk:Rachel Maddow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Richard who?!?

'Richard Corliss, a film critic for Time magazine, described her as "one of the sharpest political commentators around."'

Does the solitary opinion of a single individual belong in the opening paragraph of this bio? Furthermore, does the opinion of a virtual nobody belong anywhere on the page? Let along a nobody film critic commenting on radio?!? Ynot4tony (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Education

The phrase "She is gay, and" is not appropriate content for the Education section. Even if one argues that her own orientation motivates her advocacy, it would be out of place. The other items in this section state an action or position but do not suggest a specific motivation; it would be a silly read if they did. Changing unless there is an argument to the contrary. (Steve in MI) 76.226.14.180 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll go you one better than that: What does the topic of "Education" have to do with the following, still-in-place, quotation?

Her political activism has focused on AIDS and prisoners' rights, especially the prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS in prisons. She is an outspoken advocate for gay and progressive issues.

I would also like to ask, why are these claims not only unsupported by any citations, but still focusing (imho, unnaturally) on this living person's sexual orientation, and (again I acknowledge freely, the following is based on my own perceptions, but nonetheless it represents my strong conviction in the matter...) on the unarticulated notions that "political activism", possibly "AIDS" and "HIV", "outspoken advocate", "gay" and "progressive" all appear unduly to represent not neutral but pejorative associations. I believe this exemplifies what is sometimes called "code language," i.e., meant to communicate on a substantially emotional level, to a certain select polarity or constituency within the Wikipedia user community, rather than to the community as a whole. Please note, I confess I cannot prove what I am myself feeling and hence alleging about this language, and if I am mistaken about it, I am truly sorry and apologize. But if am correct — which I will leave it to others to judge, and which perhaps only the author of the quoted sentence can really know — I wish to know, not just for the sake of this Maddow article, but in the interest of promoting fairness throughout Wikipedia: Does the sort of quasi-"subtle" or -"cryptic" political or personal coloring of statements, such as I think I perceive here, really belong, anywhere, in Wikipedia? DevilInTheDetails (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the sentences in question. They are unsourced and frankly, I'm not even sure that they were entirely accurate. Now that this information is challenged, it must be sourced in order to be re-added. Henrymrx (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Getting good sources is key. SamanthaG (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

first openly gay Rhodes Scholar (at time of election)

It is commendable that Maddow was open about her sexual orientation to her Rhodes selection committee, but I would love to see some footnoting or references on this assertion. Was Maddow in fact the first Rhodes Scholar to list a gay or gay-affiliated group on her Rhodes application? (And if so, is that "coming out"?) I know there were Rhodes Scholars before her who were openly gay while in Oxford; whether they were fully open to their respective committees at the time of their election is a different question, however.

Please know I'm by no means proposing an alternative candidate; Maddow may well be the first to have discussed her gay activism with the committee. Precisely because this is an important milestone, I would love to get some better information and establish the record. Sandover 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

at one point it had the proper wording ("out during the selection process"), but it was changed by someone who obviously doesn't care about being that clear. if her contention is that she listed a gay group on her application and was therefore "out", it seems she is just playing into the bad stereotype that only gays associate with gays, but i was under the impression she was specifically out. — unsigned comment from 68.162.171.54 on 03:56, 19 August 2006

I don't think that's Maddow's contention at all; I'm just trying to find some clarity on this issue, including confirmation that Maddow was "out during the selection process" and that previous Rhodes Scholars weren't. I've revised the copy accordingly. Sandover 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the footnoted article, it is the journalist and not RM who claims that she was the first openly gay rhodes scholar. It could be changed to this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/television.rachel.maddow -- and the text modified to "According to The Guardian, Maddow's publicity materials claims that she was the first openly gay Rhodes scholar." IF it even needs to go in, which I'm far from thinking it should be. What she claims is irrelevent: even if she did claim it there's no proof, so it's POV (admittedly the subject's). Plus, I'm pretty sure it's untrue. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.40.235 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've altered it to "RM claims..." - it is a fact that she claims it, (according to the secondary sources), but the claim should not be presented by wikipedia as a fact in and of itself, since it cannot be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.40.235 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New Profile at The American Prospect

This is a long article profiling Rachel's accomplishments: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=channel_changer_08 Methinks it should be referenced somehow, but I don't have enough experience to do it myself. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Partner" vs. "homosexual partner"

This regards editor 76.28.44.176's complaint that "partner" does not suffice to describe Maddow's relationship with Susan Mikula. On the contrary, the article's references to the two as a "couple" and the mention of Maddow's homosexuality render such clarification unnecessary. There is harm in belaboring the point; it suggests that there is something particularly noteworthy about the fact that the two are homosexual (and generally, this suggests that there is something wrong with homosexuality), when in fact all that is noteworthy is that the two are in a romantic relationship. I hope this clarifies the situation for editor 76.28.44.176. Dunkelweizen (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as to the complaint in editing summaries that "There is nothing in the article that discusses her sexuality." the article quite clearly states that Ms. Maddow is "openly gay" which is honestly noteworthy only in the context used in the article. It's not general practice to list the sexual preferences of biographical subjects, unless they are noteworthy in some way. - Dravecky (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both above commentaries. The only thing I wanted to add is that generally the right expression is "life partner" not "homosexual partner" - because the lives of gay people do not revolve around sex. Пипумбрик (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Politics?

It seems that the entries for such commentators/hosts as Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann all have entries indicating their political ideology or leanings. How about a section for Rachel Maddow's political views?

According to an article on The Nation she is "a liberal in the purest, almost mineral sense of the word." [1]

Associated Press writer David Bauder refers to the Olbermann/Maddow shows as a "liberal two-hour block" [2]

Wperdue (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)wperdue

Rachel Maddow "of Jewish ancestry"?

I've not been able to find any confirmation of this in anything like a reliable source, and I looked fairly extensively. It's not mentioned on the "unofficial fan site" of hers. And I'm not sure that it means anything. What does "of Jewish ancestry" mean? How far back? It was added yesterday, without any source. I'm taking it out, and the associated category as well. --Abd (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

According to Newsweek she was raised Catholic, but no indication of her "ancestry" as you put it. Tvoz/talk 00:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the picture

The old one was poorly lit and had red eye. Not very flattering. I think the new one is much better. Please let me know if there's any disagreement. — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 21:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be no disagreement. This picture is far superior. - Dravecky (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Category creep

Please stop adding barely-relevant categories to this article. The most recent one is Category:Canadian Americans, with the explanation that it is appropriate because she is the descendant of someone who emigrated from Canada - poor justification. Such loose guidelines would potentially involve dozens or even hundreds of categories being added to biographies. Also, please don't edit war categories. Establish a consensus for inclusion on this talk page before adding. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that one editor, without apparent discussion, "refined" the category description of Category:Canadian Americans, Category:French Americans, and many others to the uselessly broad non-description you see now. - Dravecky (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. How extremely unhelpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The attachment of the category doesn't make sense and I agree with both of you. She was born in the United States, and is therefore not a Canadian American. She doesn't identify as being a Canadian American either. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DPhil

User:Dravecky's edit summary said that the INCREDIBLY CLUMSY AND INACCURATE phrase "abbreviated D.Phil. by the college" is preferred "due to earlier discussion". I can see no such discussion on this page, so I thought I'd start one. The "by the college" phrase is misleading, since it is the entire University of Oxford that follows this practise, not just Lincoln College. "By the University" would be accurate but ultimately redundant. Note that in a Google search for "DPhil" on :en, none of the results used anything resembling the clumsy wording used here; the only one I spotted even mentioning a Ph.D was an old revision of Aloysius Pendergast (here), referring to the fact that the fictional character tended to use PhD to refer to his degree rather than DPhil. Stannered (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's abbreviated Ph.D. or D.Phil, including this seems trivial. The main point is that she earned a Doctor of Philosophy. Is it important to go into such detail about how it's abbreviated by Oxford? --Crunch (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess here but I think it goes to verifiability as one may need to know to look for D.Phil instead of the more tradition search items. This has been worked over many edits but it does seems a bit trivial. -- Banjeboi 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a DPhil not a PhD because it's from Oxford. However, it's just a superfluous bit of information. People know what a Doctorate of Philosophy is, and they don't need to know that this woman's specific one is styled DPhil in post-nominals. That this is the practice of Oxford is the subject for [topic], and indeed it is discussed there. The only possible viable way to indicate that this woman should be referred to as Rachel Maddow DPhil would be to put that as post-nominals in the first line after her name. As it is, it just looks stupid and someone trying to be clever about what they know of the peculiarities of Oxford's degrees. Locuteh (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawkish

This was added in the past by someone else[3]; tagged for citeneeded[4], and I added a cite[5]ad which I found at the NYT but which may not be the profile to which the original author referred. It was removed as Synth by Scjessey; I believe a reworking of the paragraph is called for but not the removal. IOW, it is not synth so much as poor phrasing, or else I found the wrong ref. As it is now, it reads "A New York Times profile indicated that she is more "hawkish" than people expect." and the ref states:

But Ms. Maddow said that it would be a mistake to paint her broadly as pro-Obama and anti-McCain. "I’m not that much of a typecastable liberal," she said over lunch. "I am not a fan of either candidate."

She said, for example, that she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s plan to withdraw one to two combat brigades a month from Iraq. "I wouldn’t want to be serving in the last brigade left," she said. "I almost think the best way would be to set a date by which you will leave, and let the Pentagon figure out the smartest way to do it."

Which leads to yet another element of Ms. Maddow’s portfolio: the daughter of an Air Force captain who served stateside during the Vietnam War, she is an admitted defense-policy wonk. "I’m a national security liberal, which I tell people because it’s meant to sound absurd," she said. "I’m all about counterterrorism. I’m all about the G.I. Bill."

It is clear that "people expect" as well as "hawkish" are not supported by the ref; but IMO this is worth including, that she has an interest in foreign policy; that she's "all about counterterrorism" - which is not precisely "hawkish". Suggestions for phrasing, anyone? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And now this was put on my talk page:

I have reverted your last edit to Rachel Maddow again. The source you provided does not describe Maddow as "hawkish", and being a BLP such characterizations must have high quality and accurate sourcing before they can be added. Please don't edit war over it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. I actually know that. In fact, I said it myself. Did you read the article Talk page post, above? Did you read the notice at the top of MY talk page? Did you read WP:TPG, in which it is made clear you should discuss edits on the talk page of an article? Do you, in fact, bother to read or edit, or do you simply revert whatever you don't like? I look forward to your considered REPLY to my post on the article talk page (that would be here). KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey is right, though. Proper care must be applied on BLP articles. If the source doesn't explicitly and expansively describe her as "hawkish" (and even if it did, it sure doesn't sound like the right term to describe Maddow -- i.e. it's cherry-picking), then we don't, either. Warren -talk- 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you, I am quite aware of that. I am asking for assistance in phrasing. Kindly take the time to read my first post, above. How should this be phrased? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in there that supports "hawkish." Indeed, "national security liberal" could be taken as the opposite, IMO. Why don't you just say she's a "foreign policy wonk" if you can find a source that uses those words; alternatively, I think saying "she's interested in foreign policy" is supportable based on the quotes above. Just my two cents. Academic38 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, I have already said that nothing supports the word Hawkish. Please see my original post above. Why are you all so confused about this? I didn't write the damn thing, and I'm not arguing to keep it. I saw an uncited statement, went looking for a source, the closest I could find did not support the statement but did have content which was similar which I feel should be integrated. That's where we are now. So please stop telling me what I have already said myself. I will, for those of you still having problems, re-post my initial post on this:

  This was added in the past by someone else[6]; tagged for citeneeded[7], and I added a cite[8]ad which I found at the NYT but which may not be the profile to which the original author referred. It was removed as Synth by Scjessey; I believe a reworking of the paragraph is called for but not the removal. IOW, it is not synth so much as poor phrasing, or else I found the wrong ref. As it is now, it reads "A New York Times profile indicated that she is more "hawkish" than people expect." and the ref states: But Ms. Maddow said that it would be a mistake to paint her broadly as pro-Obama and anti-McCain. "I’m not that much of a typecastable liberal," she said over lunch. "I am not a fan of either candidate."She said, for example, that she disagreed with Mr. Obama’s plan to withdraw one to two combat brigades a month from Iraq. "I wouldn’t want to be serving in the last brigade left," she said. "I almost think the best way would be to set a date by which you will leave, and let the Pentagon figure out the smartest way to do it." Which leads to yet another element of Ms. Maddow’s portfolio: the daughter of an Air Force captain who served stateside during the Vietnam War, she is an admitted defense-policy wonk. "I’m a national security liberal, which I tell people because it’s meant to sound absurd," she said. "I’m all about counterterrorism. I’m all about the G.I. Bill." It is clear that "people expect" as well as "hawkish" are not supported by the ref; but IMO this is worth including, that she has an interest in foreign policy; that she's "all about counterterrorism" - which is not precisely "hawkish". Suggestions for phrasing, anyone? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  I hope it is clear now. If anyone has an idea how to incorporate that content into the article (that means, can you write a sentence with that content) then please do so. If anyone wants to tell me the cite I found does not support Hawkish or Some people, I already know that, have said that myself (before anyone else said it!), and am not arguing that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no way you can infer she is "hawkish" (or another word that means the same thing) from her comments in that piece, so restoring it was a clear WP:BLP violation that you followed up with a stupid comment on my talk page. It appears you have misunderstood what Maddow was getting at with her words, so that is why you are having trouble finding a source (or trying to make your interpretation fit the existing source). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How about something along these lines? The New York Times described Maddow as "an admitted defense policy wonk"; Maddow describes herself as a "national security liberal". She opposed Barack Obama's proposed timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and has said that she is "all about counterterrorism". Kelly ^hi! 19:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen Kelly's suggestion just above when I posted my edit on the page - it's along the same lines, but not intended as a response to Kelly's, and I'm open to tweaking. As for the exchange above - it's safe to say that Killer Chihuahua doesn't need to be lectured on the meaning of BLP, and I also agree with everyone including her that "hawkish" is not supported, and it's quite clear that her posting of the comment opening this thread was precisely to seek help in phrasing this section. I don't know, and am not going to research, what went on on user talk about this - but I think this discussion ought to be dialed down. Tvoz/talk 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the edit that you made - it may be appropriate to include Maddow's self-description though. My proposal, on second thought, wasn't nuanced enough - Maddow apparently supports withdrawal, just not Obama's proposed method. Agreed that Puppy knows BLP backwards and forwards. Kelly ^hi! 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me - "national security liberal" has a nice ring to it, and captures something that is often missed by kneejerk wingnuts. Tvoz/talk 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that label, too - kind of how us "wingnuts" sometimes refer to the neocons as "big-government conservatives" due to their profligate spending habits. The diversity of the American politosphere can be fascinating. Kelly ^hi! 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Wingnuts" come on both sides of course! Tvoz/talk 20:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, exactly. I'm actually not sure what the difference would be between a "national security liberal" and a "neocon" aside from the fact that one supports Democrats and the other Republicans. But I'm straying off-topic here...with respect to you - Kelly ^hi! 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the first line of a joke. "Whats the difference... " I find myself waiting for the punchline. (No! if you think of one don't post it! We have enough drama here!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wonderful - thanks, Kelly and Tvoz. Looks like you two have things well in hand - KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Much better than simply reverting the BLP-vio. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Citizen?

Is Rachel Maddow an American or Canadian citizen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.34.25 (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, where was she born? The article lists her as American. Maybe add the fact tag to her nationality in the lead if there are not sources. Thank you, --Tom 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

She was born in the United States. Her mother is from Canada but she's American. According to the referenced used for her high school (first sentence of Education section), she is "A native Californian". NcSchu_(Talk) 16:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we know where in Cali she was born? --Tom 16:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Same place she went to High School, Castro Valley. As per http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=29923. NcSchu_(Talk) 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added it to the personal section. --Tom 17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Progressive vs liberal

To Warren amd pthers who keep misinforming the oublic, Madow's own entry cites two sources that she is a liberal. Why is it that now liberals are abandoning that word for progressive? There are two contrasting viewpoints - liberal vs conservative - and she is a LIBERAL, by her own admission. She is certainly not conservative, and since she does not mind being called a liberal, her political philosophy is in line with liberalism therefor she is a liberal. Why do you keep deleting liberal from her, chris matthews and keith o;berman's pages when this accurately describes their political philosophy????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.112.222 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so vitally important to identify political leanings before profession? Which is more important to describing a person's notability? Warren -talk- 19:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that there's no need for this to be in the lead sentence. We had a similar discussion about the use of the word "conservative" in the lead sentence of Michelle Malkin and decided to leave it out. Notable viewpoints or positions can be covered further down in the biography. I'm not understanding the need to pigeonhole people ideologically in the first sentence. Kelly ^hi! 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is particularly important because "liberal" and "conservative" have been known to be used as pejoratives (particularly the former), and neither are nuanced enough to accurately describe most people anyway. As for Malkin, the term "wack-job" would be more appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Was an insult directed at Malkin really appropriate in this context? Kelly ^hi! 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to insult Malkin. No amount of derogatory filth I could come up with would do her justice. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't relevant to the discussion; keep it to relevant discussion about the article only, please. NcSchu_(Talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this view, though I look at it from a more universal perspective -- a word like "conservative" when used as a prefix to a profession is an adjective that describes how they go about their chosen line of work. It'd be like putting "left-handed" as a prefix to "bass player" when describing Paul McCartney, or "angry" as a prefix to "comic" when describing Lewis Black. Important detail, sure... but not equal to, or more important than the profession itself. Warren -talk- 20:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If people identify themselves as being of a particular political party then apparently they don't care about be labeled. In all other cases we should not apply labels to the lede. This appears to be the latter case, as I don't think Maddow has ever called herself anything other than 'progressive'. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't establish notability based on self-identity, though. If I were to say, "I'm a big flaming hippie liberal" in an interview with a notable reporter, we wouldn't start a Wikipedia article on me with, "Warren is a big flaming hippie liberal Wikipedian." ... Maybe it'd go somewhere later in the lead if it's really important somehow, like if it's relevant to why I might have a Wikipedia article about me at all. If, on the other hand, I were an elected member of parliament with the New Democratic Party in Canada, (who are in many ways the natural home of big flaming hippie liberals in Canada), we could write "Warren is a Canadian politician, a member of the New Democratic Party, and a Member of Parliament representing the riding of Jimwales, Ontario." ... by stating that I'm a member of a specific party, my political leanings are conveyed fairly clearly -- but that's not the point. We say it because my officially registered party affiliation is a key part of being an elected politician in Canada. If I wasn't a politician, it'd be pointless to say in the lead sentence that I'm a member of the NDP. Warren -talk- 00:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there some contention for having liberal political commentator included? Maybe there should be citations? --Jone allen (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [9], [10], [11], [12].

It looks like this has been reverted without comment here, too bad. --Jone allen (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit was undone with a proper edit summary referring to this long-settled discussion. There is no need to rehash this discussion every time an editor decides to ignore consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

long-settled discussion, consensus? What a load of horse crap, especially from an admin. --Jone allen (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dravecky is quite correct. There is a long-standing consensus to not include such a qualifier in the lead of the article, and your derogatory statement toward another contributor is wholly inappropriate. Characterizations like this are best left out of the lead when it comes to biographies of living persons, particularly when the term "liberal" is used as a pejorative by some people. Maddow's political views are covered in the body of the article where they can be described and properly referenced. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

long-standing consensus? More horse crap I see. Also, please save us the "wholly inappropriate" crap since you are one to talk. --Jone allen (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please learn to assume good faith and cease your personal attacks against other editors you evidently disagree with. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling Maddow a liberal is neither controversial nor insulting. And in fact it is what she is known for. She is in fact the very first cable news host hired specifically to run a liberal commentary program. There are other liberals like Olbermann, but he was not hired for that purpose , he was hired as a broadcaster and over time his show became a liberal commentary show. Other examples of liberals (I'll stay with MSNBC) like Chris Mathews were also not hired specifically to perform liberal commentary, they were hired as moderators or centrist news presenters. Whereas there have been many conservatives hired specifically to host a conservative opinion show, she was the first liberal - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.175.129 (talk • contribs)

All of that is academic because it is just your personal opinion. You would need to produce reliable sources to backup your statements. As has already been said above, there is a consensus for not using the term "liberal" in the introductory paragraph for several reasons, and any proposed change of that would need to be discussed here first. "Liberal" is often used as a pejorative by conservative-leaning people, so in the case of a biography of a living person it is better to either exclude the term or make sure cast-iron sourcing exists that can confirm, for example, a self-identification using the term. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, she was on Meet the Press this morning and said, "I am a liberal" three separate times. Is that good enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.243.229 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. It is not me you need to satisfy, but Wikipedia's rules and methods. First you need to produce a reliable source that (ideally) says something like "Maddow describes herself as 'liberal'", and then you would need to decide how best to add the information and build a consensus for your addition on this talk page. That is the normal process. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So she's not a reliable source as to whether she's a liberal. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the term, "Spends to much time on the Internet"? 68.47.243.229 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, type 'Maddow describes herself as liberal' in any search engine and you can take your pick of reliable sources, such as 'The Guardian,' 'Newsmax,' and her own web site (oh, sorry - we don't consider her to be a reliable source about herself).68.47.243.229 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to biographies of living persons, the best sources are secondary sources that write about the subject. For something of this nature (a qualifier that is used by some as a pejorative), this high standard is particularly important. If you can find a specific source that meets this standard, by all means propose what changes you are looking for and attempt to build a consensus to implement it. That's a much better approach than making veiled ad hominem attacks about "[spending] to_[sic] much time on the Internet" against good faith editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.babwnews.com/article.php?id=1244&action - she describes herself as “a national security liberal”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/television.rachel.maddow - There she established herself as a 'smiling but obstinate liberal', as she has put it.

http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/msnbc_rachel_maddow/2008/08/21/123989.html - She describes herself as “a national security liberal . . . all about counterterrorism.”

Need more? 68.47.243.229 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how the process works, even though I believe I have explained it several times above. Having found some reliable sources (although you can exclude "Newsmax" from that list), you should consider what text you want to add and then propose that on this talk page. Some debate will no doubt ensue, and then a consensus for either including or excluding the proposed change will form. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The TV machine

I know there was once a reference for the statement that Maddow had obtained a television for Mikula to watch her show but the best I can find on very short notice is this statement in the October 2008 New York Times article: "Even so, Ms. Maddow said, she has finally committed to getting a set, primarily so that her companion can watch her program." If a better, more definite source can be found, I would encourage its use here. - Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this really important? Do we need to compile a list of household appliances she owns? How 'bout a radio? CsikosLo (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's notable because it's unusual not just for the population at large but because of the industry that has brought her to prominence. It's a detail that informs not only her character but also her professional career. - Dravecky (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is according to whom? Any citations? TIA --Tom 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure why this is important, but she stated today on the Jimmy Kimmel show that she still does not own a TV. Whoops, I am not signed in, am I?? (DFS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.19.109 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in Political Views

The Political Views section does not represent NPOV, but instead is a combination of flattering quotes about Maddow that allege that her views are beyond partisanship. However, not everyone agrees and so in order to represent a neutral viewpoint, I'm including an additional sentence to balance this section. Ejnogarb (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person, so in order to add material to the article you must first achieve a consensus for inclusion on this talk page. The additions you have proposed introduce a negative point of view, and have been sourced unreliably (an opinion blog). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

what is wrong with the quotation from the nation article that Ejnogarb wanted to add? Maybe remove that whole sentence from the lead if there is a dispute. --Tom 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "commentary" out of the lead for now. Does the first openly gay material needs its own paragraph you think? --Tom 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that commentary, which seemed poorly-written anyway. As for the quote mentioned above, it did not meet the standard of sourcing necessary for a BLP article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Scjessey, sorry I didn't clarify (actiually I think I did but maybe it wasn't clear). I was talking about the quotation Ejnogarb pulled from the Nation article and put into the lead section, not the salon one further into the article. I have to admitt I am not up to date on the different publications vs blogs and actually don't have much use for any of them myself. At this point, without the commentary in the lead, its a moot point anyways. Also, Ejnogarb seems to be a very new account so hopefully we all can work with him ect to be a productive and happy editor? I guess will see? Cheers, --Tom 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I had originally changed the lead because it was confusing, but I only replaced it with the direct quote from the source it cited. I think that an addition should be made to the section on political views that counters the claim that Maddow hasn't any partisanship. That particular section seems unbalanced and the wording seems more like praise than fact. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which part claims that Maddow hasn't any partisanship? That section seems to be a hodge podge of quotes from different sources and isn't really that coherent IMHO. Maybe include a rewrite of that section here including your material and let other editors comment? --Tom 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is always easier, particularly with BLPs, if editors put proposed changes on the talk page and invite discussion. This method is more likely to generate a quick consensus and prevent silly edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratings?

What are the current ratings of the Rachel Maddow show? 66.65.129.159 (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is Rachel Maddow's biography of a living person, so discussion about ratings is inappropriate here. Try The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series). -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to Keith Olbermann?

I see some guest hoast on Mark Levin's radio show has claimed Rachel Maddow is related to Keith Olbermann. If true, it would be worth mentioning. [13] --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from context that calling Maddow "Keith Olbermann’s nephew" was a weak attempt at an insult, not a shocking revelation of a genuine familial relationship. -Dravecky (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism

Maddow alludes to her atheism continually if occasionally on the show.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagine Reason (talk • contribs)

So? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant either; however, if you want to add it, you need to have proper references to support it. Please see WP:BLP. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is just as relevant as Obama's religion: fairly irrelevant, but something people might want to look up. Reference: RM Show, GOP Senators To Delay Confirmation Hearing (June 10th), she promises to send a 'Godless Huzzah' as a form of 'religious' blessing.150.237.85.247 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is far less relevant than a head of state whose religion was questioned during his campaign for office. The "Godless Huzzah" comment might have been a joke. She does joke on her show a fair amount. You'll need something much more substantial. An interview, maybe? And please don't ask other people to do the research for you. If you want it added, find a source yourself. I'm just pointing out that if you want it in there, it *MUST* comply with WP:BLP. Henrymrx (t·c) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • i continue to be mystified as to why Wikipedia articles generally refer to Catholics as "Roman" Catholics. My belief is that religious faiths and denominations have a right to self-identification. Although i have been baptized, i do not object to Baptists being the only denomination to call themselves "Baptists." If Anglicans wish to call themselves "Anglican Catholics," that too is their choice. However, it is not their right to decide what Catholics should call themselves, simply because they too wish to be called Catholics, anymore than Catholics should refuse to call Baptists by their self-chosen name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.132.80 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

      Wikipedia uses the terminology from reliable sources, whether or not it is right or wrong. Many Catholics refer to themselves as "Roman" Catholics anyway. This is especially true when a geographical area has more than one species of Catholicism. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone source a more professional photo of Rachel. Perhaps her interviewing a prominent guest? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.147.69 (talk • contribs)

Although that sounds like a good idea, I would think it would be extremely difficult to get a set-based image that is available for public use. Also, the existing image is a fair reflection of the subject in "normal life", whereas something from her TV show will likely show her in her studio clothing/makeup - pointedly different from her normal dress style. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's Edit

Could Benjiboi explain why he turned the following nicely edited section:

---

Maddow has received criticism from Michelangelo Signorile in a February 2009 issue of The Advocate magazine over her reluctance to tackle gay issues on her show and her indifference towards highlighting certain guests' anti-gay viewpoints.

“ Even after speaking with her in a sometimes difficult interview for both of us, I’m still not sure what’s keeping Rachel from treating this issue equally with other big issues -- why she continues to marginalize it by doing only obligatory, lackluster updates every now and then. ”

Maddow responded by stating that highlighting certain guests' anti-gay views on her show is simply not newsworthy and that "Activist is my previous life."

---

Into this?

---

Maddow was criticized by Michelangelo Signorile in a February 2009 issue of The Advocate for her reluctance to tackle gay issues on her show and her indifference towards highlighting certain guests' anti-gay viewpoints. He states, "I’m still not sure what’s keeping Rachel from treating this issue equally with other big issues -- why she continues to marginalize it by doing only obligatory, lackluster updates every now and then." Maddow states that highlighting certain guests' anti-gay views on her show is simply not newsworthy and that "Activist is my previous life."

---

That hardly looks like an improvement. It is possible to update tags without destroying the layout of the text. MrDestructo (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboy, I have restored the previous layout as it's much cleaner and easier to read (I hope you weren't trying to diminish its presence), but I did include your tag inclusions and some of your wording changes. Thank you for your assistance on that. Note that styling, wording and even source material is identical to that on Matt Drudge's criticism page as I was striving for conformity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDestructo (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Benjiboy, but I could provide some of my own observations and objections about the above proposed content (both versions) for your consideration.

• Introducing a headered criticism section like that is usually reserved for significant criticisms that are widely repeated through many sources over a prolonged period. The content you propose doesn't even come close, and in my opinion (see below) isn't really that notable.
• The content you propose is more suitable for the The Rachel Maddow Show (TV series) article, and not her personal bio, since the criticism is basically that she isn't using her TV program to showcase more LBGT issues.
• You chose to use the "cquote" markup, which highlights the critics' comment in the article, while Benjiboy used simple inline quotes like all the other quotes in the article. You implied Benjiboy was "trying to diminish its presence"; I would suggest you were trying to overemphasize its presence.
• You used the wording, "for her reluctance to tackle gay issues...", which incorrectly presents as fact an opinion of the critic. Chosing to cover certain news stories does not equate to reluctance to cover other news stories.
• Maddow's response, as you have presented it, is incomplete and light-weight. From your same sources, the following leads me to believe you are trying to inflate this non-issue into an article-worthy criticism:

In an interview, Maddow said she didn't believe Signorile was being fair in his criticism of her. She pointed out that in the wake of Prop 8's passage, she increasingly has devoted shows to LGBT issues, including same-sex marriage, the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and hate crimes legislation. Following the November 4 election that saw many people elated with the election of Barack Obama and dismayed with the passage of Prop 8, Maddow began including LGBT topics on her show. On December 18, she devoted a majority of her hourlong show to Prop 8, interviewing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. A month later Maddow invited out lesbian comedian Kate Clinton onto her show discussing LGBT issues. March 3 saw Maddow devote a major portion of her show to LGBT individuals in the military with a discussion of DADT. Then on March 5, Maddow had San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera on to discuss that day's oral arguments before the California Supreme Court. Maddow has also regularly peppered her shows with queer cultural references and issues.

"I think that he came after me on that issue because he felt like – not out of spite – but because he thought that I deserved it and I thought that I didn't," Maddow said of Signorile, adding that she's had a "productive back and forth" with him.

Note to the online edition: Two days after this column went to press, and a week after my radio interviews with Pam Spaulding and Rachel Maddow, the controversy over Barack Obama's decision to have the evangelical reader Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration erupted. Rachel rose to the occasion, not only with thorough coverage of the story for days, but zeroing in on Warren's history of homophobia. I commend her on a job well done. -Signorile

All of the above indicates that the "criticism" was momentary, inconsequential, refuted; Maddow's response was inadequately expressed; and neither of your (MrDestructo or Benjiboy) versions should be in the article. My opinion: it definitely doesn't belong in this article, and probably doesn't contribute much to the Maddow Show article either. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you for the input. Feel free to improve upon her response, I would like it as impartial as possible (as impartial as a "Criticism" section can be). I purposefully kept it short to not overwhelm the article as a whole. MrDestructo (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the gist of my comments: If I edit this at all, it will be to completely remove the content you are trying to add. It is inappropriate for this article. Try The Rachel Maddow Show article, since that is what the criticism is about: the issues discussed there, and the opinions of the guests there. (IMO, it isn't notable enough for that article either.) I'm waiting a short time for other comments before I delete it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I understood you completely but I do feel you are incorrect for the reason that Signorile is an active and prominent member of the LGBT community who is criticizing a highly visible former activist for not doing enough to support the cause she is such a big part of through her most notable project, the Rachel Maddow Show. A criticism that her show, which is the most prominent activity in her life at the moment, is not being used to support gay rights as much as it could be. That alone is enough to garner notability. If it was a quote from Rush Limbaugh, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

Admittedly this was mainly to prove a point -- criticism of pundits on the left is not allowed on Wikipedia. Case in point, if you read the criticism section on Matt Drudge's page, you'll note a peculiar similarity to the one I placed here. Same source (with a hate slur in the first paragraph), same critic, same wording, even the same text layout, all to lay out accusations of his sexual preference. Accusations that have absolutely nothing to do with the most notable activity in his life -- The Drudge Report. The discussion went all the way up to Jimbo Wales, yet it remains. As the criticisms on both pages are so similar, that should add weight in favor of retaining it.

As I mentioned, earlier, it was written to be brief and to the point and not overly long as to overwhelm the article. I did not intend to turn this into another "Troopergate" hit piece. It is an honest criticism by a prominent member of a large community of which she is a highly visible former activist in regards to her current and most notable activity -- her national television show. If that is not enough to garner notability, let's just stop pretending that Wikipedia has any interest in impartiality. MrDestructo (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This entire section should be removed, per Xenophrenic's elaborate and compelling arguments. At the very least, this is the wrong article for this material because it simply isn't notable; furthermore, it does not appear to be a fair reflection of how reliable sources report the matter. Finally, it is completely inappropriate for you to use a BLP as a place to "prove a point" (and an invalid one, at that). If you want to engage in right-thinking, agenda-based editing I strongly suggest there are better places to do it than here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so that I get this straight, criticisms regarding left-leaning pundits must be placed on a completely different website? Can you please source that Wikipedia rule? Your viewpoint is immature, to put it kindly. MrDestructo (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And you need to assume good faith and cease personal attacks immediately. You clearly stated above that it was your intention to "prove a point". That is disruptive behavior that will surely lead to a block if it continues. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the merits of the included criticism section and not linking to random Wikipedia pages. WP:DISRUPT only applies to edits that don't improve the quality of an article. The criticism was a notable opinion of a prominent peer regarding her current national television program, not a random quote by a right wing pundit. No different than using the same source and critic that was reviewed by Wales himself. It would be a stretch to say it was a decrease in quality.

The purpose of his article was to criticize, not to praise. Arguing otherwise is a little silly also given the title of the article. (That's not a personal attack just in case you're wanting to link to that guideline again.)

Simply because your removal of the section did in fact prove a point doesn't make the content of the edit any less relevant. It was a highly researched and well sourced opinion of a prominent peer of Rachel Maddow. Is that an incorrect assessment? MrDestructo (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION is a good essay to start with. Any biography on Wikipedia which contains a "criticism" section is badly-written, as such things are like flypaper to cranks and inevitably end up as dumping grounds for any half-researched rant going. I'm not sure why you think that the same people who watch articles on Rachel Maddow are the ones watching articles on Rush Limbaugh in the first place; if you take issue with the way that biographies of conservatives are presented here then you should take that up with the maintainers of those articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree. However as long as they're allowed and in rampant use, there should be some amount of uniformity across Wikipedia, don't you agree? MrDestructo (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. We don't lower the quality of articles to meet poor standards set by others - we improve the others. Criticism sections suck, and I have yet to see a valid justification for a single one of them. Moreover, WP:DISRUPT does apply to you, because POINTy editing conflicts with "effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Again, you do not seem to have understood that the criticism you have so "highly researched" is a commentary on matters concerning The Rachel Maddow Show. It is not notable with respect to this BLP, so inclusion of it would be a WP:WEIGHT concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow is the creative head for The Rachel Maddow show. A criticism directed towards the show is the same as directing it towards the person, and vice versa. The stories, the direction, the political overtones are directed by a single person. You can't have The Rachel Maddow Show without Rachel Maddow. The same can't be said for NBC Nightly News or even The Daily Show. He was criticizing Rachel Maddow the person for not featuring more gay issues on her show. He wasn't talking to the entity know as "the show."

I'm seeing some progress, though Scjessey. We finally have a consensus! I'll place it on The Rachel Maddow Show page as both you and Xeno have both stated your favor for such. Three is better than one!

It's disingenuous (not a personal attack, please don't feign offense) to say that criticism sections are "contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia," when they are expressly allowed. I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the battle to rid them from Wikipedia completely, but until then let's strive for uniformity. MrDestructo (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. We do not cater to the lowest common denominator. If, as appears obvious, your intention here is to attempt to address perceived liberal bias in the relative qualities of WP's coverage of liberals and conservatives, then you would be far better off picking your favourite conservative celebrity and working to improve his or her article to Featured status. Getting into lame edit wars with editors who are disinclined to assume that you are acting in good faith is not a productive use of your time . Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were to have a favorite conservative celebrity, it's not possible there either. Matt Drudge's page was simply an example, but there are 4 archived talk pages of discussion about removing the criticism section, yet it remains. Unfortunately the same type of people who guard this page so fervently from having any criticism whatsoever are the same that guard that page from removing it.

Arguing that rampant bias of Wikipedia exists can be easily expressed by pointing out that the entire 50 year Cold War between the United States and Russia has been detailed in an article shorter than Sarah Palin's "Troopergate" incident. Or that George Bush's article had a "Criticisms" section up until the day that Barack Obama walked onto the stage. It's not even debatable.

But again, you're arguing against intentions over the actual content that was inserted. If you're going to remove a valid and notable incident from an article simply because you don't like the person's perceived intentions, who exactly is causing harm to Wikipedia? MrDestructo (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the section was removed because it was inappropriate. It violated WP:WEIGHT and went against the spirit of WP:CRIT. Valid it may have been, but notable it most certainly wasn't. In the context of Rachel Maddow's entire life (which this article seeks to describe), it is insignificant (hence the WEIGHT violation). In addition to that, it was added to make a WP:POINT - unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, and most especially with BLP-related edits. If you want to "right some great wrong", do what CC suggested. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I edited that rather pointy section to make it more NPOV. In hindsight I agree that the whole thing should be removed instead. -- Banjeboi 18:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Openly Gay vs Openly Lesbian

In the opening it says she's the first openly lesbian anchor to host a prime-time show, and then under education she's the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes Scholarship. Unless there's a reason to specify lesbian I think openly gay should be used for consistency. It should link to the openly gay redirect, not directly to closeted. GrrrlRomeo (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Openly gay" article it redirects to Closeted which covers the information. And lesbian should be the word used throughout the article. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it depends. Saying that she was the first openly gay Rhodes scholar is different than saying that she was the first openly lesbian Rhodes scholar. One covers gay people of both sexes and the other term is specific to females. Is she the first openly gay person to host a prime time show or is she the first openly gay female to host a prime time show? Was there an openly gay man who hosted one before her? Let's be precise. What do the sources actually say? Henrymrx (t·c) 02:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, on that path LGBT would likely be most accurate with a footnote to explain any quibbly wikilawyering. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though there is no article for openly gay the redirect exists and thus should be linked to the redirect openly gay and not directly to closeted. There is a reason why using two brackets around a phrase creates a link automatically, and there's no reason to try to get around it or intentionally avoid it. This is an article about a living person that frequently self-identifies as gay. There is no reason to avoid calling a gay woman gay. Yes, she is the first openly gay person, male or female, to host a prime time cable news show. I'm sure I can find a better source than the one used.GrrrlRomeo (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded snippy there. It's just that I made a good faith edit that I thought was relatively minor and Banjeboi changed it back without discussion or providing a reason. It goes beyond this article as there are many articles on Wikipedia that use the term gay for both men and women. And I have never seen an individual identified as LGBT--groups, communities, organizations, yes. I've cited more sources, and I couldn't find anything that refutes it. I did change the wording to clarify she was openly gay upon hiring. It's entirely possible that Cooper will come out publicly at some point and Suze Orman has come out. Although I don't think her show qualifies as a news program but financial advice. Either way, the hiring bit should avoid argument.GrrrlRomeo (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gay is male, lesbian is female. Thats why such groups are often callled 'the gay and lesbian alliance' or some such - to include both types. If you want a general term use 'homosexual', otherwise this person should be described as a lesbian. There is a move to call them all 'gay', but I think the distinction is useful, becasue it is promotets clarity. It tells you right away what you are dealing with. 65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

News Program?

Maybe this is nitpicky. But at the intro it reads: "Maddow is the first openly gay anchor to be hired to host a prime-time news program in the United States." Is it technically a "news program" or more of a "news commentary program"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.9.94 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While the show does feature commentary, but it is principally a news program and includes investigative reporting. As a constant watcher since the program came on the air, it has moved more strongly in the direction of displaying a liberal bias, something that Maddow tried to avoid in the early months. As I cannot think of another openly gay prime-time news anchor still, it seems a reasonable claim to make. K8 fan (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Applied at Fox News

Wouldn't this be an interesting tidbit to add? Maddow wanted a job at Fox. http://lezgetreal.com/2010/02/why-did-rachel-maddow-apply-for-a-job-at-fox-news/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.234.182 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There is only an 'unnamed source' at Fox news quoted. That would not pass WP:RS and should not be used. There is on the same article the later response by Maddow via Politico that she never personally applied but that her agent may have approached them. Either way, I don't think its noteworthy. Perhaps others disagree, if so, please chime in.Caidh (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

New source available

The Guardian has a new article about Rachel Maddow called "Rachel Maddow, voice of America" (Amanda Marcotte, October 11, 2009) in which she as described as "the best talkshow host in America." There is a wealth of other tidbits that might plausibly be culled from this piece, including a possible reason for the flagging ratings of her television show. If nobody else is interested, I'll probably take a look at this in the next couple of days and see if I can pick out anything useful. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupakery

Although perfectly true and properly sourced, I have removed the short paragraph about Maddow's position on the "Stupak Amendment". Apart from having nothing to do with her television career, it was not really a notable statement in the context of her entire life from a historical perspective (see WP:RECENT). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is not just about her "television career", but about her career in general. Her position on the Stupak Amendment was certainly notable to those of us who opposed the amendment. Are you a Stupak shill??

I think the information ought to go back in. 208.87.248.162 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Canadian citizen?

There has been a bit of back and forth over if Maddow is a Canadian citizen. Linking to the law about Canadian citizenship is NOT enough to verify citizenship since it includes way folks would NOT be considered citizens. If this "material" is to be included, it needs to have a reliable source about Maddow in perticular rather than a link to the Canadian law. TIA --Tom (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, has a/some talking head(s) made this some type of "issue" or is this good faith? TIA --Tom (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is just something I observed in passing while reading the article as being missing.

The link I've referenced states expressly that the Citizenship act extends Canadian citizenship to "people who:

   * were born outside Canada on or after January 1, 1947
   * are in the first generation born abroad and
   * were born to a Canadian citizen."

Even if there is no express statement that Rachel Maddow is an Canadian citizen, that applies equally to her United States citizenship. In both cases, her citizenship arises by operation of law in conjunction with her life circumstances. The same logic is used elsewhere in wikipedia to identify, e.g., Matthew Perry as Canadian. FYI: I don't mean this to insult Rachel Maddow. I'm actually a Newfoundlander myself - I'm fresh out of law school and I just happened to be studying the Citizenship Act when I read the article. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanisTO (talk • contribs) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is completely academic. You need a reliable source that states Maddow is a Canadian American, or that she describes herself as such. Classifying her as such because Canadian law says so is synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship is a matter of Canadian law and nothing else. It is not an identity-marker (there is no such thing as a Canadian "ethnicity"). Do you mean to say that no Wikipedia article can refer to a person as having a particular nationality unless there is another source which describes them as having that nationality? This is not synthesis in any substantive sense, and it is certainly no more synthesis than the (unreferenced) statement that Maddow is an American (which seems to be taken, properly, form the fact she was born in California). UrbanisTO (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification is not a salient detail with respect to citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian because Canadian law says so, unless and until she or he renounces her citizenship. I think some confusion may be caused by the fact that some nationalities (e.g., Italian, Indian) are also ethnicities. In such cases, the "national" modifier is often used in conjunction with "American" to indicate the ethnicity. Wit respect to ethnicity, I would agree that self-identification is the salient detail. UrbanisTO (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

UrbanisTO, For the sake of this argument, how do know she has not renounced her citizenship? You don't. That is why we depend on reliable sources and NOT the synthesis you have done as Scjessey has pointed out. For folks born in the US, we consider them US citizens unless there is some reason to dispute that fact and then a fact tag can be used to request a citation. --Tom (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As a compromise, let us at least apply your principal consistently. The linked source also does not state that Rachel Maddow self-identifies as an American citizen, or that she is an American citizen. Therefore, based on your principles, Wikipedia cannot call her an American on that ref.UrbanisTO (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is right or wrong, in a biography of a living person you cannot describe an individual as anything unless there is a reliable source that says it. That's an absolute, cannot-be-broken Wikipedia policy. Suppose Madeupistan suddenly declared that you were a citizen of their nation because their law said so. Would you want your bio describing you as a Madeupistani-Canadian? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've reverted your removal of cited content. There are references in the body of the article that describe her as "American", and those references need not be duplicated in the lede per WP:LEDE. Please seek consensus before any further edits to this article, or find yourself blocked for disruption for being pointy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

While not encyclopedic in nature, a Canadian friend of mine (born in the US to Canadian parents who then moved back to Canada) who went through a lot of immigration issues because of it indicated that Maddow's mother would have had to register her at birth with the Canadian government for citizenship. The friend is not a Canadian citizenship lawyer, so this is not set in stone. Either way, Maddow fully indentifies with being a US citizen and not a Canadian citizen (I know her father personally).--Fizbin (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fizbin. The relevant provision was implemented only a few months ago, so at the time your friend applied, she likely would not have been a citizen. The same would go for Maddow, based on her recent birthdate. Your friend's problem is precisely why Parliament passed legislation to make Citizenship automatic in such circumstances (you don't need to apply).UrbanisTO (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey - I'm feeling more than a little bullied here. I don't see the reference you're referring to in the article, and I'm not sure how we'll ever develop consensus on anything other than the status quo unless "Canadian" is exposed to public eyes for a while. Please quit sledgehammering me with inappropriate characterizations as disruption etc. Thanks.UrbanisTO (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are feeling bullied, but you are violating Wikipedia policy by falsely stating (with no reliable source) that she's a Canadian. I have reported you for edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey- this is getting outright silly! I don't have time to continue this, but we were having a discussion about WHETHER the source the ip person cited was reliable and adequate. It is rather high-handed under the circumstances for you to simply assert again that he/she lacked a reliable source rather than responding particularly to my elaborated argument as to why it IS a reliable source. In any case, the most recent revert was to remove the uncited word American for consistency (applying EXACTLY the same rule). Perhaps I'm missing here, but do you have some sort of seniority (an actual question) which gives edits or reverts you make more status than those made by others?00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

She is described in numerous reliable sources throughout this article as "American". She isn't described as a "Canadian" anywhere. Removal of inaccurate information ("Canadian") does not count toward 3RR because of the violation of WP:BLP. Removing "American" (when it is properly-referenced later in the article) is disruptive. Continuing this debate is tendentious. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey is correct here and UrbanisTO is enaged in WP:OR and POV pushing. Maddow is described by numerous reliable sources as American and by none as Canadian. At this point any attempt to introduce info about her being a Canadian citizen anywhere in the article would constitute WP:OR. Moreover, even if at some point in the future it does turn out that she has a dual citizenship as established directly by reliable sources, this would at best deserve some brief mention in the body of the article, but not in the lede. She was born in the U.S., grew up in the U.S. and worked her whole life in the U.S. and her U.S. citizenship is not in dispute. To classify her as "Canadian" in the lede would be entirely inappropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bartender-in-training?

So Rachel Maddow has a bunch of how-to videos for cocktails (here, here, and here), and the bio on her at the site says "She is a dedicated mixology hobbyist who has mixed cocktails for Martha Stewart and Jimmy Fallon." (here) Otebig (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Senate race kerfluffle

This is a minor incident which is covered at its current depth due to recentism more than any true importance. After the storm of publicity has passed, it would best be boiled down to two, maybe three, sentences without the extensive quotation. Um, unless of course she actually runs for the Senate and then, hey, it's not a violation of WP:UNDUE. Until then, however... - Dravecky (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

* Concur - adding anything beyond what's there now also crosses the lines of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. If relevance can be shown three months down the road, then rethink including it. --Alan (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Also, as time passes, the notability of the section can possibly be questioned. Is this going to happen every time she's in the media? There needs to be some sort of protocol in place. BalticPat22Patrick 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• This incident deserves a section, as it received national attention from the press. ~BLM Platinum (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to write a section on it without the text coming out WP:NPOV? I've been trying to think of one, and so far, no matter what I come up with, it's going to sound biased one way or the other. Give it a bit of time to get out of the immediate media spotlight, then add a short summary. That's my take, anyway. --Alan (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking along the lines of "Scott Brown, the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts, sent out fundraising letters in March 2010 predicated on rumors that Maddow was being asked by Democratic Party leaders to run for his seat in 2012. Maddow repeatedly denied these rumors, both on her show and in a full-page Boston Globe ad, while Brown persisted in his assertion (for several days/for several weeks/until end of Time itself)."

In a year or so, we could add, "Ultimately, (insert name here), not Maddow, was the Democratic challenger for Brown's seat with Maddow having never entered the race." Just a thought. - Dravecky (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic/Roman Catholic

This has to be the least exciting edit war ever. Can't we look for precedent on this question in other articles and settle it for good (e.g. on the Chris Matthews page he is listed as a Roman Catholic and it doesn't seem to have caused a problem)? de Bivort 06:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

it states that she is openly gay, and roman catholic. This is, by nature, not possible. Roman Catholics believe that homosexuality is a sin against God, and in order to do God's will and to follow as a Roman Catholic, she would be required to repent and give up her homosexuality. She may not be able to choose how she feels sexually, but she can control whether or not she sins willingly and knowingly without repentance or sorrow. Secondly, she lives with her partner without being married, performing such acts out of wedlock is also against the Roman Catholic ways and thus renders her exiled by her acts from the Church. This article needs revising as it contains an Oxymoron. I can call myself a doctor, I can call myself a NASA Engineer but if I don't perform the duties and have the certificates of the job it doesn't matter what I call myself, I simply am not those things. She is not a Roman Catholic, whether she claims to be or not. if she willingly is homosexual, she not only cannot be called Roman Catholic, but cannot be properly called Christian. 71.112.201.158 (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

...and if you wear a polyester-cotton blend, we all get to stone you to death! Seriously, when it comes to a person's religion for the purposes of a Wikipedia biography the only real issues are 1) what Maddow says she is and 2) what reliable sources say she is, even if they're relying on her own self-description. A medical doctor (in the US) has to have a degree and a state license; these are objective facts. There is not a special Wikipedia Council On Purity Of Religious Beliefs that gets to tell people they're not Catholic "enough" for our tastes. - Dravecky (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No Criticism?

I'm surprised that there isn't a criticism section, or something similar. Maddow takes a very partisan approach to almost all controversial issues. Looking at the wiki Rush Limbaugh page, I see a "Controversial Incidents" section. Looking at the Bill O'Reilly page, I see a "Controversy, criticism, and parody" section, as well as a "public perception" section. Glenn Beck has a public "perception section," and a "media controversies" section. Maddow is just as controversial as any of these commentators. Why the one-sidedness? --24.139.46.213 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, criticism sections are an example of poor writing. Any legitimate criticism should be woven into an article. Secondly, I utterly and completely reject your suggestion that Maddow is "just as controversial as any of these other commentators." Please produce reliable sources that demonstrate something controversial about Maddow, and then we can have a real conversation. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, you have highjacked this article, and have repeatedly shown that you will reject any criticism of Maddow (whether it is in a separate section or woven into an article). Secondly, she is equally as far from center as the ones I listed previously. You have highjacked this article, become disruptive, and refused any content that doesn't contribute to a favorable view of her. --24.139.46.213 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear anon IP user - all this posturing and conjectural talk about a criticism section will be moot until you find a reliable source(s) discussing a Maddow induced controversy. Go and find some, and bring it to the talk page / be bold and add it to the article. de Bivort 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of articles suggesting Maddow is controversial. This one at Salon links to several others. He recent tirade against Rand Paul certainly qualifies as controversial as many people thought she was unfairly bringing up a non-existent issue for the sake of helping the Democrat in that State. I was very surprised to not see that issue brought up here on her page, yet there is some nothing issue about Scott Brown that is given whole paragraphs. Strange article. JettaMann (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Tirade? That was not a tirade, that was a journalist trying to get an answer from a politician who danced around without answering for an entire interview. A journalist or even commentator trying to get an answer from a politician is not a relevant thing to put in that commentator's article. The Scott Brown issue is relevant since it is a politician making a person who consistently denied running for office, an apparent opponent in his campaign material. That being said, its one paragraph for the Scott Brown issue and I don't see that it will need to remain on the article for long (unless Brown continues using Maddow as he had).Caidh (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Also, being "far from the center" does not equate to being controversial. The right-wing individuals identified above have real, significant controversies in their lives/careers that have warranted documenting in Wikipedia. There is no comparison in Maddow's life/career. No prescription drug abuse, no racism, no lunatic conspiracy theories, no sexual harassment - nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, she is not like most leftists - maybe why she draws attention. It is news when a mainstream rightist does most of that (the main difference is when they go off the rails, the racism is not the anti-white kind).

Denying she is controversial is foolish. Those who deny it may agree with her, but that does not mean all do. If they did, a Senate candidate could not raise masses of money but just saying Maddow MIGHT run against him. However, her controversies and extremism should be woven into the article, as the above poster said. It will probably be removed by the people who seem to be camping out here, but it is up to WikiPedia's admins to stop that.65.89.68.24 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You would need to provide reliable sources for the alleged "controversies and extremism" and present your arguments for inclusion here. Personally, I think you'll have a hard time delivering any legitimate sources that support your allegations. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same couple editors chiming in rejecting any and all criticism of Maddow. She minted the epithet "teabagger", claimed that an Oklahoma congressman was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing (later apologizing), and claimed that Rush Limbaugh had supported James Earl Ray getting a Medal of Honor (again apologizing later). All three of these incidents were widely reported in mainstream, reliable sources. I realize that many editors on this page are sympathetic to her point of view, but this isn't the forum for advocacy. Most of the article is fine, but the refusal to include any criticisms or controversies is unacceptable (and does Wikipedia a disservice, too). 131.96.47.10 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you either 1) add a criticism section with references directly to the article, or 2) propose such a textual addition as a new section in this talk page - this section is pretty stale date-wise. de Bivort 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)