Talk:Rachel Maddow/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Notes

Inaccurate statements

I'm not exactly right-wing (I'm probably left of centre for the UK) and I think the US far right behave pretty damn badly, but come on. She was wrong about her claims about the NYT and Bush and about Palin and they are reasonable criticisms to be in the article. Why do they keep getting removed/neutered when there is a reliable source to back them up? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely she has said many inaccurate things - comes with the territory of broadcasting on a daily basis. Is there a reason this are significant? This is the crux of the undue weight concern. Especially the Palin part about zero support ... what's the significance? It just sounds like she was being hyperbolic. de Bivort 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm happy for the Palin point to go, but the NYT thing seems like a significant slip-up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is still original research and I have reverted it because it basically violates WP:BLP. You have taken factual inaccuracies that Maddow has made and used them to create a narrative that somehow demonstrates how she is "distinguished from the right". The sources cited do not use these broadcasting errors to making any claims about her political preferences, but the addition to the article does exactly that. You need to find a representative reliable source that specifically draws these conclusions in order to express them in the article. I suggest you find what you are looking for and then submit a proposal for inclusion here so it can be discussed properly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't put in the comment about "distinguished from the right" that was why I raised it on the talk page as I didn't think that was acceptable and I didn't want to edit-war, see the proposal below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal

However, Maddow has made several inaccurate statements against Obama opponents. For example:"President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency." even though in reality he gave several.[1]

Several problems. 1) Why does this matter? Is there reason to think it was deliberate, which in my view might make it notable. Isn't the idea that she has never made a mistake while broadcasting a complete strawman? 2) "several" would need a citation. 3) Why is this an inaccurate statement about "Obama opponents" rather than about Bush himself? de Bivort 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well she should have done her research. And several can be backed up by: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rachel-maddow/, or we could give the Palin thing as an example as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the proposed text is a negative narrative. It starts with the word "however", which sets up a contrast with the previous statement and thus conflates the two without having a reference to corroborate it. It then invokes the term "Obama opponents", yet the single cited example (Bush) is not even an opponent. "Even though" is another example of words that fit the narrative you are trying to create. This is fundamentally your creation, and not the work of a reliable source. I'm strongly opposed to its inclusion. Like Debivort, I cannot even see the point of including it even if it were accurate and cited because it seems extremely insignificant. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that this is pretty small potatoes. And while Maddow has been checked by Politifacts four times, Limbaugh has twelve entries, with three rated "pants on fire," the lowest possible rating. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so I am opposed, though not strongly so. Academic38 (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I added them to add balance. They are no more original work then any other section. The page violates WP:NPOV by being overly positive. Scjessey seems intent on creating a rose colored picture of a neutral commentator. Yes Maddow is only at four, while Limbaugh is at 12, but Maddow has had her show for two years and Limbaugh has had his for 20. She should have a controvesry section, and if you don't like the inaccurate statements on Bush and Palin, there is her recent Rand Paul interview and her "vibrating six inches off her seat". Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity have those sections. It's almost like you don't want her to have one out of bias. -- WWJBD (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You cannot compare Limbaugh and Maddow in any equation, never mind this one. Please try to stick to the subject at hand, and not divulge into a comparison between two people who couldn't be more different personally and professionally. That said, I am strongly against adding the references and statements that one user is so adimant to add in the article. What the user stated in the article and what he presented as references are completely different. The user violates WP:NPOV by putting a personal bias and spin in the sentencing; something that is absent in the reference he/she gave. Users must provide reputable sources in articles, but must also be diligent in providing wording that directly reflects what is in the sources. Otherwise, it is just a personal creation and nothing of substance. BalticPat22Patrick 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
A neutral article is not made by automatically including a criticism or controversy or whatever section. All additions need to be evaluated in terms of their notability, source quality, and representative weight in the article. At this point you have a single source for each error she broadcast. If they are truly notable, I bet you can find a second. de Bivort 15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Notable events will be covered by a significant number of reliable sources. WWJBD456 is also throwing out some bad faith in the comment above, whilst completely ignoring Wikipedia's BLP policies and guidelines on criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the oldest Politifact research on Limbaugh is from April 2009, so the fact that he's been on the air for 20 years is irrelevant. Over the last 15 months, his record is far worse than Maddow's. Academic38 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not even a comparison, Academic38. Maddow is a reputable journalist and reporter, with extensive knowledge on military foreign policy and the IAVA. What does Limbaugh do? Criticize and undermine the administration with thoughtless fallacies and false statements, all the while preaching of his "illegitimacy" to lead. That said, I believe making a "Criticism" section (one that doesn't include reputable and notable info and sources) will not only damage the credibility of the article, but be a haven for those who wish to add information unncessessary for it. I've seen it many times, before and this will not be any different. BalticPat22Patrick 20:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Television in Personal Life

Why on earth are there two sentences about her plans for owning a television in the Personal Life section? Its about as insignificant as you get. I'm new to this page and somewhat new to Wikipedia, so I've refrained from deleting them. But as far as I can tell they should go. RampagingCarrot (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken -I'm with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 09bil98z24 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unusual enough for the star of a television program to not own a television as to have been covered repeatedly in major reliable third-party sources. It's a telling part of her biography and her style as a television host. - Dravecky (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of context

This quote:

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."[8]

Is out of context. She's using it sarcastically in the source, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.225.200 (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not out of context. She was making a point that Republicans in the Eisenhower era had a similar platform to the Democratic platform of today. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Excelled in academics and athletics

I have removed this as unsourced. Can we rather add specific accomplishments if notable enough for inclusion? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ps, here is the article to read. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That source describes both her academic and athletic prowess, noting she was a competitive three-sport athlete in high school. We can discuss exact wording but it's far from unsourced. As such, I have restored the deleted text and accompanying reference. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Described as competive, who played 3 sports, means what exactly, excelled? Again, maybe add specific accomplishments if notable enough, but no need for non specific peacockery.--Threeafterthree (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not "peacockery", background. Please stop removing sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not what the citation says. If you want to add that she was a competive high school athlete and played 3 sports, that s fine. Not sure how notable that is, but that would match the source better. This is not a fan page. Why would you push this? --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic Heritage

Anyone know her heritage? Maddow plus Catholic could equal Polish or Phillipino, does anyone have any citations? 98.245.150.162 (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No controversy section?

Why is there no controversy section? I can think of at least one incident where Maddow made up facts or failed to verify them before using them on her show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.169.77 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversy sections are actually discouraged on Wikipedia, and we are encouraged to merge any controversy sections into the article, as appropriate. If you know of a notable controversy and have reliable sources regarding this, please place in the appropriate section of the article or list here on the talk page for discussion if you are unsure how to proceed. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need a controversy section but it clearly needs a views and opinions section 68.188.25.170 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


An incorrect sentence

The sentence below is grammatically incorrect:

The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired Maddow, who was then working on her doctoral dissertation, to do yard work at her home.

I suggest that it be rewritten as two sentences:

The couple met in 1999, when Mikula hired Maddow to do yard work at her home. Maddow was working on her doctoral dissertation at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.3.120 (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

openly gay vs. openly lesbian vs. openly homosexual

Hi,

I come here from another article where the status quo described Rachel Maddow as "openly gay" and a user changed it to be "openly lesbian". I suggest the term should be "openly homosexual" because her gender does not matter to a lede sentence in this article:

Maddow is the first openly gay anchor to be hired to host a prime-time news program in the United States.

As previous discussion pointed out, Maddow is the first openly homosexual person, male or female, hosting a prime-time news program in the United States.

Any guidance from editors here about what we can do to improve the accuracy with terms over there?

Should I take this up one level and open a general discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies or Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd take it up a level. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the meaning of 'gay' in this context is 'homosexual'. But the word itself can be confusing to most people (usually straight or non native English speakers) as it is usually used to refer to gay men despite it actually being a synonym of homosexual. In my opinion, I say stick to the greatest common denominator (not 'lesbian') and the least ambiguous of the terms (not 'gay') - thus 'homosexual' is the right word for it. --Obsidi♠nSoul 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If not this sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Google hits are a poor research tool, but when they show clear differences they can be useful:

It looks like "openly gay" is clearly the more common term to describe Maddow.   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with using these terms to mean the same thing for everyone. An encyclopedia should be cut and dry but human behavior very rarely is. "Openly lesbian" is, just, not...the best (see the Lesbian article to address this. "Openly gay" for expressing the idea that Maddow is involved in same-sex romantic relationships and not closeted about it is the best term. "Openly homosexual" is a dated phrase. --Moni3 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As always, we should use the same terminology that is found in the preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I weakly favor the "openly homosexual". We are a global encyclopedia, many are reading English as a second language or are unfamiliar with American slang. - Haymaker (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The term "gay" has been used widely for 40 years on both sides of the Atlantic. It is even a borrow word in other languages, such as French and Spanish: fr:Gay (homosexualité) & es:Gay. I'm not sure about other topics where we intentionally used less common words in case they might be more familiar to readers with poor English skills. Can you point to any?   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I can speak for my country. The term 'Gay' here in Philippine English means effeminate homosexual men, exclusively, and is treated as the direct equivalent of our native terms Bakla/Bayot (again terms used exclusively for effeminate gay men not for masculine gay men or bisexuals). On a similar note, 'Tomboy' here is used to mean solely for masculine lesbians, the word 'Lesbian' is rarely used for homosexual women (and if it is, the hispanic form is used Lesbiana), and the word 'Gay' is never used to describe homosexual women. I expect similar usage in other countries. I think we can also all fairly agree that in colloquial usage even among native anglophones, 'gay' is used more frequently to refer solely to gay men (I know my straight native english-speaking friends use it as such, heh). It's technically slang as well and might be inappropriate.--Obsidi♠nSoul 01:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The Philippines is large country with many English speakers. If there's any evidence that Maddow is known more as "openly lesbian" than "openly gay", or any other statistic, that'd be helpful. On a similar note, it's worth remembering that more people speak English in India than in the UK, Canada and Australia combined. I doubt that many of them have hear of Maddow, though.   Will Beback  talk  12:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I doubt many people have even heard of her here either. It's not a case of what people call her, it's a case of how they will interpret the phrase 'openly gay' if they do encounter it used for Maddow (first reaction would probably be 'she's an MTF? But that's not possible. The article must be wrong!', heh).
So let's backtrack to where it all started, at the link Kevinkor2 posted at the beginning of this discussion (I was actually aware of it too beforehand, as I have both articles are on my watchlist):
An Eastern European editor edited the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill article to exchange 'openly gay' with 'openly lesbian' in a sentence pertaining to Maddow, stating emphatically in the revision comments section that she is lesbian, not gay. Diff of his/her change here
That is my point :P The understanding and usage of 'gay' outside of the US, Canada, and the UK, (and perhaps Aus/NZ as well) is different. This applies to both English speaking non-western countries (India, Philippines, Singapore) and non-English speaking countries. In the interest of globalizing the article I support the use of 'homosexual' rather than the other two terms. It's the least ambiguous of the three and the most inclusive. 'Homosexual' also has the added advantage of being the accepted scientific term for same-sex attraction in human sexuality). Do note however, that personally I don't mind any of the three words being used really. And I won't protest any revision to the previous usage of 'gay'. :P But all of us here already know the meaning of the word in its contextual usage, what about the rest?Obsidi♠nSoul 14:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, we go with what the sources say. It doesn't matter which term is most appropriate with respect to international understanding. Sources use the term "gay" more than any other version, so we should go with "gay" and hyperlink it to lesbian to avoid confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does actually. Either term is not actually controversial. They are synonyms, they have the same meaning in English. The only difference is their meaning in global usage. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus --Obsidi♠nSoul 21:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What's our source for the non-English connotation of "gay"?   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? :P Gay#Gay community vs. LGBT community. In fact the entire article itself. --Obsidi♠nSoul 21:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be so dense, but I don't know what text in there you're pointing to. I don't see anything there about the global usage of "gay" versus "homosexual". Could you quote the relevant lines here?   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that the understanding of gay, lesbian, or homosexual is different in other cultures, even in the western English-speaking cultures, the terms have different meanings from one person to the next. "Lesbian" has even more baggage because it's used by men to make a woman more sexualized than necessary. We're discussing standard uses of language in English-speaking countries here. In this case, "gay" is the most appropriate term to identify Maddow as open about her same-sex relationships. --Moni3 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that a subject's one preferences matter when describing preferences, in this interview with a British newspaper the subject calls herself "lesbian" once and "gay" at least four times.[1]   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Er. The number of times she uses a term does not exactly mean she prefers one term over the other, unless she says so outright.
Not usage in other countries, but the confusion over its actual meaning. My point is its usage as a term inclusive of lesbians is relatively recent (before homosexuality was recognized, the usage of 'gay' was a whole other story of course). I'm a bit busy to go googling every single instance of the meaning of 'gay' in other countries right now, if you can please do. I already made my contribution with my country's usage. Maybe we could ask editors from other countries? A thing to remember is that a lot of languages, unlike most of English, is gender structured. e.g. you use Doctora for a female doctor in spanish, and Doctor for a male doctor or as a general catchall term for a doctor of an unknown gender or plural forms with both genders. Similarly the words maricon, bakla, etc. in such languages are never used to refer to females, but they are assumed to be the direct equivalent of the english word 'gay' which does not have the same gender restriction. Hence the confusion.
And is it safe to assume we're all males here? Anyone else think we should invite a female viewpoint as well?
If any of you think 'homosexual' is pejorative. I think you should add it to the discussion as well. And one last thing I have to ask, why is everyone pretending that it has always referred to men and women? It didn't. It might be politically correct now for both male and female, but it was previously used to refer solely to homosexual men and it still is used predominantly to refer to men. A lot of english speakers still make the careful distinction of Gay AND Lesbian, a very blatant proof of that exists right on this page - LGBT. It's not GBT, it's LGBT. :P On that note, sorry, I must leave the discussion for now, have things to do.--Obsidi♠nSoul 23:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this an academic exercise or are we discussing something concrete like returning "openly gay" to this and the Uganda article? --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I presume that if we can find a consensus here we'd change the label in the other article. I still haven't seen any actual sources that indicates Maddow calls herself or is most widely known as being "openly homosexual", or that the term "openly gay" would cause confusion to English-speakers outside of the US.   Will Beback  talk  06:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • sigh* Like the instigator of this discussion I actually don't care what she is described as (I didn't even change the original edit which started this from 'openly gay' to 'openly lesbian'). First poster asked for opinions and viewpoints, I gave mine.--Obsidi♠nSoul 06:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to edit it back to "openly gay". It's the most widely used term, and there's no evidnce that other terms are preferable. Thanks to everyone who contributed here.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(: accepted as first poster. :) --Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

jewish ancestry

Why is her own admission of having jewish ancestry not "specific" enough to warrant its own category?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2010/01/30/oy-tracey-ullman-tells-rachel-maddow-she-wanted-avoid-looking-too-hebr

The1cambo (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)the1cambo

If current scientific thinking, we're all "distantly" of African ancestry but it would not be appropriate to tag every American biography as "African-American" on that basis. Without a clear understanding of just how distant this ancestry might be, a single offhand word in a conversation with a comedian, as relayed by a blog, is not the solid evidence required for such a claim. - Dravecky (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Article resource

Good article about Maddow's background pre-RMS and on how the RMS works: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rachel-maddows-quiet-war-20120627 –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

first openly gay anchor of a prime-time news program in the United States?

I know Andy Humm has been a openly gay prime-time news anchor since 1985. Unless Rachel started being an anchor when she was 12, he would predate her. 24.193.103.6 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what "prime time news show" Mr. Humm anchors. His article mentions Gay USA, but that program is only available on public-access channels, on a couple of very small local channels, and online as a webcast. It should be obvious why Maddow is the first, but maybe we could say "of a prime-time national news program" or something. Personally I don't think the hedge is necessary; IMO it would be a real stretch to call Mr. Humm the "anchor of a prime time news program". --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maddow Married?

I'm reading the article, but cannot find a souce saying Maddow married her girlfriend. So isn't the use of the word Partner incorrect? --Zero Serenity (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "partner" is the word which is usually used when the couple is not married. If they were married, the term would be "spouse" or "wife". --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "partner" can be used in all such circumstances. See Partner. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
In any case, it is certainly correct in its usage in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Scott Brown incident

An editor removed the paragraph about Scott Brown's claim that Maddow was going to run against him for senator. I reverted and said in my edit summary that I would add more sources. But actually, more sources aren't needed. The existing four sources for that paragraph (CBS News, Huffington Post, Boston Herald and Boston Globe) are more than enough to show the incident received significant independent coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage of a political infighting between two people is no indication of significance to biography of either of these people. It may or may not fit to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, but on Rachel Maddow bio article, this paragraph seems to me a clear example of WP:RECENT. I tend to refrain from edit warring, and there are plenty of editors watching this page - let's ask others to make a decision. Mhym (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Basically we are in the "discuss" phase of WP:BRD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Mhym. This is clearly a case of WP:RECENT vs WP:NTEMP, but I fall on the side of recentism. de Bivort 20:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, WP:NTEMP doesn't apply because it regards the notability of topics as standalone articles (and the oft-cited WP:WEIGHT regards the notability of viewpoints.) Since this is a reported news event, we can be guided by WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. ..." This speculation on Brown's part was apparently a transient news event (2.5 years ago) that has not been shown to have had enduring relevance, so I don't think it should be included. Rostz (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Your policy understanding matches my intuition then. de Bivort 03:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I still think it was a high-enough profile contretemps with enduring coverage (it came back into the press when Warren announced her run in 2012) to warrant a short paragraph, without as much fussy detail. To paraphrase myself from March 2010 (check the talk archive):
"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 denied these rumors, both on her show and in a full-page Boston Globe ad, while Brown persisted. Ultimately, Elizabeth Warren, not Maddow, was the successful Democratic challenger for Brown's seat."
This cuts down the fluff while still informing readers and enhancing the completeness of the article. - Dravecky (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I just don't get it. What exactly does this media mini-story tell us about Maddow? That she did not run for Senator? That some former Senator spread misleading rumors around her? Um, every election cycle, dozens of people are rumored to consider Presidential run, with numerous newspaper stories encouraging them to run. Occasionally they are clairvoyant. But so what? I agree with WP:NOT#NEWS being best guide on this, even more appropriate than WP:RECENT. Mhym (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but IMO the incident helps to define Maddow. It shows what a boogieman she is to the right, how powerful and/or charismatic and/or threatening she appears to them. Here you had, not a former senator, but an actual sitting senator, using her as the scary potential candidate, the dangerous threat, the foil who could best rally his supporters to give him money - even though his claim appeared to be based on nothing but his belief that his supporters would perceive her as a strong and serious opponent should she run. That's pretty remarkable. I can't think of another newscaster or media personality who has been given that kind of treatment by a sitting U.S. senator. It did get national publicity, and as Dravecky points out, it wasn't immediately forgotten; it came back into the news two years later. In fact, it still crops up in a Google News search in the past 30 days: [2] --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This is mostly WP:OR and WP:POV. When something to this effect appears in a WP:RS, we can reconsider. As for "I can't think of another newscaster or media personality", try Rush Limbaugh - one senator literally wrote a book about him, and the sitting president is not a fan either. Mhym (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Did any politician ever try to raise money by claiming that Rush Limbaugh was going to run against them? --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, and the details of this are irrelevant. A large number of politicians solicit money by presenting various celebrities which you correctly describe as "boogieman". For example, Limbaugh was called the leader of the Republican Party, and his name is habitually used in fundraising. This is totally bipartisan, and Republicans use Maddow, Bill Moyers and other for the same purpose. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this practice on either side. I just don't see anything notable in this story that can withstand the test of time, and the burden of proof is not on me here. Mhym (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Ms. Maddow's name is regularly mispronounced. For example, when she was on The Daily Show last Thursday, Jon Stewart, who knows her, has interviewed her before, and who was prepped for the interview repeatedly pronounced it, "Mad-Dow", even after she had pronounced it "mad-d'oh". While WP has the proper pronunciation, I worry that most people don't know how to read the International Phonetic Alphabet and, thus, won't get the correct information. I attempted to remedy this by adding an admittedly rough approximation of a phonetic rendering. This isn't WP's SOP but seems the best way to convey the information. Perhaps others can improve the setup, location, or rendering -- "pronounced like "meadow" without the 'e'"? -- but it seems like something should be done. Czrisher (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Might "mad-doe" be clearer than "mad-d'oh"? (Although I suspect she would get kind of a kick out of the d'oh version, it might not mean much to non-Americans.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason at all to have anything other than the IPA guide. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Czrisher that the IPA pronunciation guide is completely unhelpful to many/most readers, and it would be nice to put in something that people can actually read. Looking at WP:PRONUNCIATION I see that additional pronunciation guides (in addition to IPA) are not forbidden. For English, other systems may be used in addition to the IPA, and other templates are required for other languages. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not the appropriate approach. The correct approach is for someone to create an audio recording of a person saying "Rachel Maddow" per the IPA guide. For additional information, you could have a "sounds like" prompt. For example, you could have "sounds like shadow" or something similar. But arguing over phonetic spellings is precisely why we use IPA in the first place. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually "sounds like shadow" or "rhymes with shadow" is a great suggestion - better than either Czrisher's or mine. OK if we add it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, I also like Scjessey's proposal to reference the word "shadow" more than my attempt. For audio -- useful in addition to but not instead of -- the only person who would seem a proper source would be Ms. Maddow herself. Fortunately, a cut from any of her regular mentions on her show -- her self-introduction or reference to the show itself -- would surely be fair use if anyone has the technological abilities to procure one. Czrisher (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems we have consensus; I have added "rhymes with shadow" to the article. BTW I was wrong to undo Scjessey's deletion of Czrisher's version. I failed to recognize that deletion as the "R" of BRD. My apologies. MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have added a spoken pronunciation audio file for the surname. Don't worry about the BRD faux pas, MelanieN. I've made that same mistake myself several times over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"The shadow knows." :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.192.26 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

As of April 17, 2009, all children of persons born in Canada (with few exceptions) were recognized as Canadian citizens. [2] It does not matter if or when the parent naturalized as a citizen of another country (e.g. the United States). Rachel Maddow's mother was born Canada, making Rachel a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen. She will remain a Canadian citizen unless and until she officially renounces that citizenship with the Canadian government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I read the rule as requiring that the person in question be born after 2009. de Bivort 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with de Bivort here, it appears pretty clear. From the page the Alphazip's comment linked to, in the "You may already be a citizen if…" section: "you were born outside Canada after April 17, 2009, but one parent was born in Canada or naturalized in Canada.". Caidh (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I question this entire line of thinking. Is this a slippery slope someone is encouraging you to pursue? Rachel Maddow's mother was born in Canada, so she is somehow foreign and thus her opinions are subject to being discredited as un-american. Is this the line of thinking? From whom? How many natural born American citizens have foreign blood in their lineage. I would hazard to say one hundred percent. That means you too, unless you are a freak case from the Native American community, your ancestors came from somewhere else. As did mine. But what does that have to do with anything here, or more importantly, since it is her profession, the American political beliefs she espouses? Trackinfo (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This user made no such implication. I suggest you assume good faith. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
For Wikipedia purposes, this issue only belongs in Maddow's article if it receives significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If and when it does, it can be appropriately noted in the article. Until then, it is Original Research or POV or both. It does not belong in the article and we should not waste any time over it on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source Trackinfo (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. It's interesting, and I believe the source qualifies as reliable. Parts of this article could possibly be used to expand the "early life" paragraph. But the article says nothing about whether Maddow has or could claim to have dual US-Canadian citizenship, which was the issue raised here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, if her mother had attained U.S. citizenship before her birth, as a naturalized citizen that would require her to renounce HER Canadian citizenship. If her mother no longer had Canadian citizenship, then there would be no claim Rachel could make, if she wished to make it, which there has been no indication presented anywhere that she does. Trackinfo (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Under Canadian law, even if Maddow's mother ceased to be a Canadian citizen (by naturalizing in the U.S. before 15 February 1977) her citizenship would have been restored as of 17 April 2009, and her children would have gained Canadian citizenship retroactive to their dates of birth. Those persons who have looked at the Canadian government link and state that it only refers to children born after 2009, clearly don't know how to how to use the site! Question 1: Where born? OUTSIDE CANADA, 2: Ever granted citizenship? NO, 3: Birth date? BETWEEN 1947 & 1977 AND A PARENT WAS A CANADIAN CITIZEN (NOTE: If you were born outside Canada to a parent who became a citizen under the new rules which came into effect on April 17, 2009, indicate that you were born to a Canadian parent.), 4: Parent born in Canada? YES, RESULT: ***CANADIAN CITIZEN***. (By the way...I am a Canadian citizen, complete with passport, having been born in the U.S. to a Canadian-born parent *way* before Rachel Maddow and certainly many decades before 2009! Except for the years of our birth, we're in exactly the same situation.) The people who are trying to deny that Maddow is a Canadian citizen remind me of those who deny that Ted Cruz is Canadian, even though he was born in Calgary, Alberta! They say he's not Canadian because he doesn't want to be. Well, whether Cruz or Rachel Maddow want to be Canadian or not, they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphazip (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Why is this even being discussed? It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and it is really only a technicality issue. Maddow is an American born in America, first and foremost. Everything else is irrelevant, especially comments about Ted fucking Cruz. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I heard Rachel mention the Canadian citizenship law on her own show! Isn't that significant coverage from a reliable source? However, Rachel mistakenly thought that the law made only her brother a Canadian citizen, not her. Her thinking was that because her brother was born before their mother became a U.S. citizen, he inherited and she did not. In actuality, the law restored Canadian citizenship to anyone who lost it (including Rachel's mother) and gave it to those persons' children...ALL of their children. Transcript from Rachel's show: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30307589/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/. Here's the "Waking Up Canadian" informational video (referred to by Rachel) that was put out by the Canadian government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDeDQpIQFD0
You really need to quit beating this dead horse. She said something in passing on her show; you believe she is wrong and you are right; none of it is going to get into the article until Independent Reliable Sources decide that it is important enough for them to be talking about it. (Same logic applies to the query below, which we have all been ignoring and which I will finally reply to.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Height

Could an established editor please add her documented height (5 ft 11 in (1.80 m)[3]) to the infobox?

We don't normally include things like a person's height, weight, etc. unless Independent Reliable Sources give that information significant coverage, so that it is an important part of their public persona. So, no, we will not be adding her height to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Logical conclusion to the Senate speculation

I will admit that while I have plenty of edits and history on the Wikipedia, I don't consider myself a power editor in the least. As part of the Scott Brown speculation that Maddow was going to run for Senate, had deleted the paragraph that talked about the conclusion of the matter. I did this for several reasons.

  1. I think it's bad enough this content exists in the article (clearly WP:RECENT), so any de-emphasis I thought was welcome. I can accept the point has been asked and answered on this talk page already, however.
  2. There already exists a link to the 2012 Massachusetts Senate race. The point of links in Wikipedia articles is, if someone is interested in learning more about a subject, they can click the link and see it.
  3. It's duplicative content to what exists on 2012 Massachusetts Senate's page.
  4. Most importantly, this point has zero bearing on understanding Maddow as a public figure.

Am I crazy here? I'm not looking to start an edit war, so I'm interested in your opinions.

JakeZ (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One sentence that concludes the subject paragraph has to be of more use than a link to a whole separate article for any reader. If they want depth, they click the link. If they want the ending, it's right there in a few words. - Dravecky (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to second that it feels like we're giving too much to this silly idea invented by Brown. Keeping it slim or removing it would be my notion. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It deserves some coverage, because it got a lot of coverage from independent reliable sources. But I agree that the current coverage is excessive. What would you think about eliminating most of all of the quotes from Maddow and Brown? We can tell the story factually without needing he-said-she-said. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with trimming the quotations, especially Maddow's over-long one. - Dravecky (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I have just whipped out my editing scalpel and cut that paragraph down significantly. - Dravecky (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Nice surgery job, Doctor Dravecky. I don't even see a scar. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Location of radio station WRSI

WRSI is located in Greenfield, MA (not Northampton, MA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.68.2 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Was that also true in 2002-2004? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Which image? Why not both?

There was a bit of an edit war recently over what picture of her to use in the infobox. Prhartcom added a photo of her, full length, jeans and plaid shirt, no makeup, standing in front of some kind of display. Zero Serenity and I both prefer the old photo, a head shot in which she is smiling, made up (at least a little bit), and talking into a microphone. Both images show in some sense the "real Rachel". Neither is "poor quality" as claimed in the edit summaries. I propose that we keep the head shot in the infobox, and put the other one somewhere else in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion, MelanieN, and I like how you refer to the images as the "real Rachel". I for one find the older image quite unflattering, which is the reason I went in search of a newer and better free image of her, and I picked the newer image—not only is it more recent of course, but I like her cool-looking pose. I hope others agree; I would be sad if other editors truly enjoy looking at the old image, but I will of course bow to whatever turns out to be consensus. Of course we can crop the new picture closer to her face if we'd like; let me know if that should be the case. I did find other free images of her, but none that I believe are any better (I suppose there is a reason they are free). Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In the new picture she looks like she's blinking. Also, in just about every BLP I rarely see a full body shot, those tend to go elsewhere in an article. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the headshot. Neither photos are that good. But the headshot is in focus. One can not really discern Maddow's facial features in the full length image even zoomed-in view. Personally, I prefer less makeup, but that's minor. Jim1138 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, here's all the free pictures of her on Flickr: (here). Prhartcom (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a quick survey of what kind of picture we have in the infobox of some comparable TV personalities: Ed Schultz: 2007, head-to-waist, at an event. Chris Hayes: 2012, head-to-waist, at an event. Lawrence O'Donnel: 2009, head shot. Rush Limbaugh: 2009, head shot. Glenn Beck: 2011, head shot. Gretchen Carlson: 2006, head shot. Michelle Malkin, 2008, head shot. It looks to me as if a head shot (often carefully posed, and often several years old) is the most common type of infobox image for people in this category. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Well of course we have the crop button on our editing software, so we can achieve a head shot. Did you guys see anything you liked from the search result link I posted above? Hey, maybe this one? (here). Prhartcom (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I still like the one we have (which appears to be cropped from one of the pictures in your list). I would love to put this into the article about her show. --MelanieN (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

The URL being referenced in Footnote 16 and 21: "Rachel Maddow on Being Outed by Her College Newspaper". The Daily Beast. March 12, 2012. Retrieved March 16, 2012. is a dead link. This should be changed to the current link that can be found at this URL: http://www.newsweek.com/rachel-maddow-being-outed-her-college-newspaper-63645 DavidPinNJ (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Not done: Instead of replacing the link I pulled one from the Internet archives and used that. The link should work now. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

In the introduction, the author states that Maddow has received a doctorate level degree in politics. However the fact sheet on the right side of the page indicates that she received a doctorate degree in philosophy. 69.15.44.114 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Maddow has a Doctorate of Philosophy in Political Science. The doctorate is in political science, but the correct nomenclature for that qualification at Oxford is D.Phil. This is more fully explained in a later section of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Political Commentator

For internal consistency, I propose that 'liberal' be added in front of 'political commentator' as that is the style used in Sean Hannity's article. In the same section, it has Maddow explicitly stating that she is a liberal. I will make this edit for now, I hope there are no reversions without reason. 71.178.61.16 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was reverted, and you should not add it again without consensus. Maddow herself makes her philosophy clear when she says she is a liberal in the same way that the Republican party of Dwight Eisenhower was liberal. That full statement is needed to describe her political orientation. We have that statement in the article, but it can't be condensed to a single word. And nobody cares how Sean Hannity's article is done; he is not Rachel Maddow. If he can condense his political philosophy down to a single word, fine for him. Maddow can't. --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hannity's conservatism is unsourced but can be deduced from other sourced material in the article. What's important here is verifiability and perception, not self-description. 71.178.61.16 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You added it again. You must NOT edit war. You must wait until consensus develops here on the talk page. Simply posting your own opinion is not consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates under verifiability and NPOV. This isn't my opinion, it's consistent with other articles like it and the article itself. 71.178.61.16 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, you have had enough time now to read the WP:3RR warning I put on your talk page. And I have had time to transfer your comment from my user page to my talk page where it belongs. (Please learn the difference between a user page (which no one other than the user should edit) and a user talk page (where comments from others belong).) Now to the point: I am not the one edit warring; you are. You have added this same edit four times. It has been reverted by three different people. I am going to revert it a second time, because you do NOT have consensus to add it, and Wikipedia operates by consensus - not by your conviction that you are right. I am going to delete it a second time. If you add it a fifth time, you will be in blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy, and I will make sure that you get blocked to stop your disruption. You are convinced that this should be there; but you need to convince others before you add it again. That's consensus and that's how Wikipedia operates. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Just poking my nose in this as I saw the edit war. I haven't previously been involved and I certainly don't condone the IP's forcing the change in repeatedly, but I don't think it's necessarily as simple as taking Rachel's statement that her views are too nuanced to condense into a single word. Of course it would be wrong to mis-characterise her views by oversimplifying them, but it seems clear that the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are typically used to describe a political leaning to the left or the right. Clearly most people's real views are not actually totally binary like that and are indeed nuanced (socially liberal but fiscally conservative, etc), but that doesn't mean we don't can't use either of those words to characterise someone's fundamental beliefs either. I don't see the problem, given what I know of Rachel Maddow, to characterise her as a liberal, and then go on to elaborate exactly how she is a liberal, and where there are exceptions and caveats, to expand on them too. The opening paragraph serves to summarise the subject. It cannot explain all the nuances, but it is remit of us to at least attempt to define her beliefs in that paragraph. Just my two cents. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, DIliff. And thanks for your suggestion that we should characterize her as a liberal, and then go on to elaborate exactly how she is a liberal. I agree completely - and in fact, that is exactly what the second paragraph of the lead does. So it shouldn't be necessary to also say "liberal", without qualification, in the lead sentence. And in fact no real argument has been advanced for doing so, except that Hannity's lead sentence says "conservative." To which I can only reply that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument.
Something you may not realize (since you say realise and I say realize); yes, she is undoubtedly left of center, but 'left leaning" is not automatically synonymous with "liberal" in the U.S. Many American lefties prefer to be called "progressive". The Republicans over the last few decades have made "liberal" into a dirty word, an epithet. In fact, without abandoning AGF too far, I suspect that the reason the IP (and Pretendus before them) want to tag her as "liberal" in the lead sentence is because is they think it makes her look bad. (BTW when Maddow says she is a liberal like Eisenhower, she is partly being ironic; she is calling attention to how far the Republican Party has moved to the right - so much so that Eisenhower, a moderate Republican in his day, could nowadays be regarded as liberal.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Just noting that the Washington Post describes her as a staunch liberal, and the NY Times as Fox’s Liberal Evil Twin, and the Los Angeles Times referred to her as a liberal spark plug, so the picture which emerges is a firm and oily entity that can deliver an electric shock.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and the good humor. Just to note that the "Fox's Liberal Evil Twin" description referred to MSNBC, not to Maddow. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
She is on at the same time as Hannity, and is constantly compared to him. I think it is fair to give them the same treatment with ideological descriptors. 38.104.236.242 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Then I agree with you, as long as her 'affiliation' is addressed in the lead somewhere, then I don't think it has to be the opening sentence by any means. And yes, well spotted, I'm not American, but have a reasonable understanding of politics and the political climate over the pond. :-) Socialism is an even dirtier word, from what I gather, to be thrown in the same steaming pile as Communism. Never mind that every modern country has some form of socialism and that doesn't make us dirty Commies. The only difference on socialism between the US and Europe is the degree to which it has been implemented. But if you were to hear many right-leaning Americans, the very word itself is toxic and un-American. ;-) Anyway, I digress. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Rachel is a democrat. She has nothing really to do with liberalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.188.153 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?

I'm not a fan of those sections.....but in the interest of fairness: You look at the bio of just about any conservative commentator on wiki and there is a criticism section. Why is it omitted with this person? Nick Gillespie has a great on-air confrontation with her (about her partisanship) to name one instance. She's been criticized by others as well. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33: Possibly most of those conservative criticism sections should be deleted and the material incorporated into the remainder of the articles. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. Especially, note the opinions therein of Jimbo Wales. --Shortsword (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any legitimate criticism one can make against Maddow anyway. We can't just invent criticism to create some sort of false balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I can think of several. I've named one instance, and Jon Stewart (not exactly a right-winger) has criticized her before as well. All that being said however, I see Shortsword's point on this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The proper way to handle the issue is as Shortsword said, to integrate that material on the conservative's bios into more appropriate sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


How to add quote and internet source

Hey all, in the first paragraph Maddow claims to be a liberal of the Eisenhower Era Republican party genre. Interestingly enough, I found the 1956 Republican party platform and it doesn't look very "liberal" at all. I have the website but I have no idea how to properly cite it in the text and can't seem to "sign" my change using the four "~" characters. 09:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)" correctly, sadly, even after 30 minutes of reading all about footnotes here on Wikipedia. Someone please help? Or feel free to make the addition yourself if that's easier... 

"which stressed small government, strong military and low taxes."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838

To leave this part out gives the impression that Maddow is claiming the platform of the Republic party during the Eisenhower era more closely resembles a present day liberal view than it does a conservative one. I see no evidence in the platform to support this claim. Your thoughts?

Sirvice626 (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to make this addition because it would be original research. The comment by Maddow is probably designed to point out that Eisenhower-era Republicans were not at all like modern day Republicans and instead resembled modern day Democrats; however, we cannot be sure of Maddow's intent so we must let readers decide without Wikipedia trying to interpret her meaning for them. This article makes a similar argument to Maddow, in case you are interested. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. However, how would this addition constitute "original research" when in fact it is attributable to a reliable source? The Republican party platform from the Einsenhower era is not only easily accessible and verifiable as demonstrated by the source link, it is also a a matter of public record. I'm not stating my opinion, I'm summarizing points from the platform. Feel free to do the same. As to what she meant, I agree it is up to the reader's to interpret that however, just as you pointed out, Maddow seems to suggest Eisenhower era Republicans are more like present day Democrats. Based on the party platform cited, I see no evidence to support this. Instead, either Maddow is misinformed as to what the Eisenhower Era Republican party platform was or she is making a joke. Sirvice626 (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, no citation for how her views compare is necessary in my opinion since she making a self identification of her views and it is a direct quotation from her. As for a joke, it definitely is not. If you look at that platform it has statements (which are 100% nothing like the current republican party and are definitely like Maddow's views).
Republican Party Platform of 1956

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people. ... We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations. ... Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act.

I could go on but these are just a few examples in the document. There's enough there that demonstrate her point - the part of eisenhower has moved far to the right and abandoned much of what they had in their own platform.Caidh (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
@Sirvice626 - It would be original research because you would be presenting a primary source and then using your own language to compare it to what Maddow said. Completely inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention SS, unemployment or housing. Those are good quotes and likely seem in line with a liberal's perspective. However, there are parts of the platform that most definitely do NOT look liberal and it is these passages that caught my attention because they are contrary to her claim. I mentioned small government ""The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere" and "In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative", strong military, "We shall maintain our powerful military strength as a deterrent to aggression and as a guardian of the peace. We shall maintain it ready, balanced and technologically advanced for these objectives only", low taxes "Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families." Considering "strong" is a synonym for "powerful," I used it. If you'd feel more comfortable with "conservative government, powerful military and reduced taxes" I'm fine with that too. Finally, I agree Maddow is not joking, but misinformed or perhaps "selectively informed". Sirvice626 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As long as you don't change the article with this original research of yours, you can agree with anything you please. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
That line caught my eye as well. Considering the views of the era on homosexuality (including the GOP, which had a whispering campaign about Adlai Stevenson's sexuality, not to mention Ike signing Executive Order 10450), it definitely struck me as odd.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Conservative government, powerful military and reduced taxes" are quotes from the Eisenhower Era Republican party platform. How would that constitute original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirvice626 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it comes down to a few things as to why it should be left in the article as is. This is a statement of her beliefs. The fact that she said it is not in doubt. There is no reason to challenge that she doesn't believe what she said (unless there is some reliable source that proves she was lying or joking). So unless there is any such source, we have to assume she believes what she said (which did not claim 100% agreement but did say "almost total agreement"). There are many things you can point out in the platform which sync up with her beliefs more than they do with the current Republican party platform. I don't see any evidence that Maddow is against a powerful military. If anything she is very pro-military and against misuse of that military power (those are not contradictions). Taxes also are FAR reduced from what they were in the Eisenhower administration (top marginal rate was still 90% at the end of his administration). This is why the 'reliable source' to change it is needed. One person changing the article based on their own interpretation of the source is not valid. Likewise if I went in and editorialized and said after the quote in question "and looking at the platform, you can see that she agrees with the platform more than the current republican party". I can believe that statement but cannot place that in the article since I'm making original research when I do so. So... long rambling answer aside, I think the article needs to stay as is.Caidh (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
It's more straightforward than that. By using a primary source to manufacture a narrative to say that Maddow is somehow "wrong" about the Eisenhower era Republican party platform (even though she is right) would be a textbook example of synthesis. That's a Double-Plus Ungood. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the inpute Caidh. My interest in the addition has little to do with whether Maddow is serious or not. Earlier, I was simply pointing out that there appeared to be some significant disparity between her being a liberal and some of the key points of the Eisenhower Era party platform. I thought you did a great job of pointing out some elements of the party platform that WOULD be considered liberal. Nevertheless, there are elements of the Eisenhower era platform that are completely consistent with today's Republican platform both of which would not likely be considered liberal. It was these that I thought should be pointed out so as to demonstrate some inconsistencies in Maddow's underlying claim (that Eisenshower Era Republican platform was "liberal" and that today's party platform is far to the right). While I see some evidence of this in some areas (the quote you selected was a good representation), there are definite and significant exceptions (military, taxes, conservative goverment, etc). Those points are not a matter of personal interpretation. They are quoted directly from the Eisenhower Era Republican party platform. However, Maddow's quote seems to suggest otherwise. Schessey, please refrain from posting on this dialog. You continue to claim "original research" when I've demonstrated otherwise through direct quotes. This strikes me as unproductive and akin to "name calling". 71.84.254.109 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow at Bay Windows

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Xb2u7Zjzc32:, can you please explain what this list is and why you placed it here? Knope7 (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Article talk pages should not be dumping grounds for links. Userfy ASAP, because this is going to be deleted shortly. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

I endorse this reversion by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and agree that it was a BLP violation. Using the {{in use}} template is a poor excuse for adding some significant, poorly-sourced and dubious content. Atsme (talk · contribs) is strongly encouraged to engage in talk page discussion to win support for significant edits or structural changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Not quite how it works, but thanks for your input. See Sean Hannity which shows what NPOV looks like. Atsme📞📧 14:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's how it works. I'm not sure which version of Wikipedia you think allows poor sourcing and inappropriate edits simply by using the {{in use}} template, but it's not the one the rest of us are on. And your reference to Sean Hannity simply because you like it has no relevance to this issue. Get consensus for your edits, with or without the "in use" tag. Sundayclose (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's exactly how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, really? WaPo is poor sourcing? It's a left leaning publication. Uhm, are you saying anything but left leaning publications are poor sourcing? Wow, this whole ordeal is beginning to smell alot like bias to me. Sources are RS regardless of their political leanings. Perhaps you should refresh your memory about what constitutes "poor sourcing'. What I'm seeing here is WP:DONTLIKE, and that is a poor reason for preventing inclusion of information that was published in RS. According to several RS, Maddow's conspiracy theories as the reason her ratings soared. Sorry, but that is notable and it belongs in the article. My edits were wrongfully reverted while the Inuse template was in place and sources and information was still being cited. It appears to be time to call-in an uninvolved admin. Atsme📞📧 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
An opinion piece in a BLP (in its lede no less!) is poor sourcing. Perhaps you should refresh your memory what BLFP means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I typed "Rachel Maddow" into google. I got two kinds of hits. Hits for more or less reliable sources calling... Hannity a conspiracy theorist and mentioning Maddow in passing. And hits for... conspiracy sites like zerohedge or even more ridiculous garbage calling Rachel Maddow a "conspiracy theorist". Please stop trying to insert far-right talking points into biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. There's other sites on the internet for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, feel free seek an admin's opinion, but unless there's a policy violation an admin's opinion has no more weight than any editor's opinion. And there clearly is no policy violation. The rules of WP:RS and WP:CON still apply. Your edits have been challenged now by three editors, particularly your use of {{in use}} template as a defense for leaving challenged material in an article. You need a consensus here to move forward. Sundayclose (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
A good point. Conspiracy sites need nourishment, too. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strongly one way or the other, but I see a pretty similar standard for the "conspiracy theorist" branding on Sean Hannity used to justify the label for Rachel Maddow. It should be probably be included on this page as well to maintain consistency. What I do feel is problematic is the wording about "widespread scandals" surrounding the Trump administration. WP:V does not guarantee inclusion, and we generally try to stay away from labeling controversies as "scandals," particularly with poor sourcing from entertainment websites. This is the reasoning for the title of Hillary Clinton email controversy and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations instead of "scandals," despite RS that choose to use that particular word. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Where does it say "scandals"? I would also be inclined to replace it with "controversies" even if the source says "scandals". --MelanieN (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"In mid-May 2017, amid multiple scandals surrounding the Trump administration..." I changed to neutral language here, but was reverted here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Hannity and Maddow articles, because multiple reliable sources support that characterization for Hannity, whereas the only sources offered to support it for Maddow were a couple of op-ed pieces. In addition, one of the op-eds was from the National Review which is an admittedly partisan source. (There is a difference between mainstream news sources that are politically neutral even though some commentators accuse them of "leaning left" or "leaning right", and admittedly partisan outlets like the National Review or MSNBC. That's right, we wouldn't cite Maddow as a source to characterize another person any more than we would cite Hannity.) There is simply not reliable sourcing to include this characterization at this article. If we need to relitigate the Hannity article per WP:OTHERSTUFF, here is something I posted but then deleted on that talk page. (It was in response to an accusation of "liberal bias"; I removed it because it was part of a thread from a blocked sock): Your rejection of respected mainstream sources isn't really worth refuting, but I'll give it a shot. If you prefer British sources (since presumably they aren't tainted by American politics), you might like The Guardian. If you prefer reliably business-friendly coverage (hardly liberal) try Forbes. Or CNN Money. Or, if you want a REALLY reliably conservative-leaning publication, how about The Wall Street Journal? --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Scandals

I'm starting a separate section about use of the word "scandals" (three times) in this article. The relevant paragraph is

In mid-May 2017, amid multiple scandals surrounding the Trump administration, MSNBC topped the news ratings over CNN and Fox News. For the week of May 15, The Rachel Maddow Show was the No. 1 non-sports program on cable for the first time.[44] She has been called "America's wonkiest anchor" who "cut through the chaos of the Trump administration – and became the most trusted name in the news."[43] About these scandals, Maddow has argued that they "are the most serious scandals that any president has ever faced."[43]:38

Even though the source says "scandals" I don't think we should say it in Wikipedia's voice. We can leave it in the quote in Maddow's voice. I would propose

In mid-May 2017, amid multiple controversies surrounding the Trump administration, MSNBC topped the news ratings over CNN and Fox News. For the week of May 15, The Rachel Maddow Show was the No. 1 non-sports program on cable for the first time.[44] She has been called "America's wonkiest anchor" who "cut through the chaos of the Trump administration – and became the most trusted name in the news."[43] Maddow has argued that these issues "are the most serious scandals that any president has ever faced."[43]:38

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good overall. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's much more neutral, thanks MelanieN. Further to that, I don't know about only including sources fawning over her program. It may not be fair to label her as a "conspiracy theorist," but she has certainly been called a conspiracy theorist, the "liberal Glenn Beck"[3], and has faced calls for advertisers to drop her due to her conspiracy theories[4].

The problem is that it's NOT Maddow calling them "scandals" in the first instance where the word is used, it's the sources - in this case Variety and Rolling Stone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because they call them scandals doesn't mean we have to. They can be sensational in a way we cannot. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That's true. But a LOT of sources refer to these as scandals (and honestly, under any other president the fact these are "scandals" wouldn't even be controversial).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and now it's coming out? Perhaps if you had not interfered with my edits, this information would have already been included. I am still deliberating on what actions I should take next, if any. Atsme📞📧 23:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? Your comment is incomprehensible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Atsme, sounds interesting. Let us know how the deliberation turns out. SPECIFICO talk 00:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

While it is true the sources use "scandals", I wholeheartedly support MelanieN's treatment of this issue. It's enough the we have the Maddow quote. Let's not use "scandals" in Wikipedia's voice. "Controversies" is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rachel Maddow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Scandals 2

Since there was no reaction I put this under a separate heading. The same thing as above is valid for the following:

"Regarding the Trump-Russia scandal, Maddow said".

I had changed it to connections which to me sounded more neutral, but this was reverted by Jim1138. Now I already know that Wikipedia is rather left leaning but shouldn't it at least try to use normal terms? What 'rv source' is I do not know actually. Reliable Verified? If you think it is reliable does not make it a neutral source, using neutral vocabulary, in my humble opinion. You can have reliable sources, properly investigated, but still have a strong moral opinion about something not everyone agrees with. Wikipedia itself calls it: Trump Russia interference, investigation, dossier and disclosure. AntonHogervorst (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for calling my attention to this. Back in July (see above) we had consensus to replace the word "scandals" in two places, leaving it only in the direct quote from Maddow.

In mid-May 2017, amid multiple controversies surrounding the Trump administration, MSNBC topped the news ratings over CNN and Fox News. For the week of May 15, The Rachel Maddow Show was the No. 1 non-sports program on cable for the first time.[44] She has been called "America's wonkiest anchor" who "cut through the chaos of the Trump administration – and became the most trusted name in the news."[43] Maddow has argued that these issues "are the most serious scandals that any president has ever faced."[43]:38</blockquote.

That change was implemented, but I didn't stay on top of it and didn't realize it had been reverted (without any further discussion or consensus) back to saying "scandals" three times in that paragraph - twice in Wikipedia's voice. I have restored the version that had consensus back then. And we can have a new discussion here, to see if we really do want to say "scandals" three times in that paragraph. Pinging previous discussants and current editors: @Muboshgu, Volunteer Marek, Atsme, SPECIFICO, Scjessey, AntonHogervorst, and Jim1138: MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Support maintaining previous consensus of one use of the word 'scandal'. Three times is a bit much. Jim1138 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - scandal implies that it occurred and at this point in time, they are still just allegations under investigation. Surely there must be something Maddow said that is factual; therefore, quotable. I got my hand slapped for citing sources that cited allegations. I don't see how this situation is any different. Oh, and to say "MSNBC topped the news ratings over CNN and Fox News" is false and misleading. (see my comment in Discussion section below) Atsme📞📧 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I am with you. That would not surprise anyone I guess. I think it would become 'scandal' like the Watergate scandal, if it would lead to the resignation of Trump like it has led to the resignation of Nixon. At this moment we are still far away from seeing that happening. AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Resignation is not a requisite component of a scandal. Besides, others in the Trump administration have resigned over scandals. Knope7 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Support I am surprised nobody has presented the wiktionary definitions of a scandal:
  • An incident or event that disgraces or damages the reputation of the persons or organization involved. quotations ▼
    • Their affair was reported as a scandal by most tabloids.
  • Damage to one's reputation. quotations ▼
    • The incident brought considerable scandal to his family.
  • Widespread moral outrage, indignation, as over an offence to decency.
    • When their behaviour was made public it caused a great scandal.
  • (theology) Religious discredit; an act or behaviour which brings a religion into discredit.
  • (theology) Something which hinders acceptance of religious ideas or behaviour; a stumbling-block or offense.
  • Defamatory talk; gossip, slander. quotations ▼
    • According to village scandal, they weren't even married.

It sure looks like there is no time delineation, but several apply. I think it is an appropriate term. Trackinfo (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use another synonym for collusion, avoiding repetition, there are more neutral words you can use. Like said, Wikipedia itself calls it: Trump Russia interference, investigation, dossier and disclosure. AntonHogervorst (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support MelanieN's restoration. Trump and his administration consist almost entirely of scandals and little else, but we don't use Wikipedia's voice to say so. The quote from Maddow is sufficient and appropriate. Moreover, it is absolutely true that MSNBC topped the ratings during this period, and for this specific reason, and it is important to mention Maddow's influence on that detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Just because it's published doesn't mean it belongs. You might want to do a quick review of BLP policy after reading Trackinfo's definition which clearly includes: "Damage to one's reputation" - exactly what policy tells us to avoid. Atsme📞📧 21:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding the ratings trivia, MSNBC's primetime lead has always been tenuous, so why would anyone care if they led the weekday prime time slot in overall viewers and adults 25-54 for the first time in the network's history, and were still 2nd to TNT's NBA Playoffs? There are 52 weeks/yr. and our encyclopedia is focusing on MSNBC's tenuous quarterly ratings because it's flattering to Maddow? Sorry, but to have risen in the Nielsen ratings from the bottom of the totem pole to #1 for a week or even a quarter is not encyclopedic material, especially considering the variables in ratings wars. Network execs & advertisers care about ratings, viewers don't, and I seriously doubt our readers care, either. It was a small, unremarkable lead with avg 2.44 million viewers, Fox with 2.4 million, and CNN with 1.6 million. Some believe the allegations surrounding Trump's presidency helped spike all cable news ratings while others believe the MSNBC-Maddow spike was caused by Fox's termination of Megyn Kelly and Bill O'Reilly who dominated that primetime slot for years. Loyal viewers were boycotting Fox News for a brief period but the network maintained their lead in overall weekday ratings. If the material must be included, (and I don't think it should be per WP:NOTNEWS, single event) then state the actual facts cited to RS instead of providing our readers with misinformation. According to Politico regarding the overall ratings "for the 63rd straight quarter, Fox News was still the most watched cable news network, even with a schedule that has been in flux since the departures of Megyn Kelly in January and Bill O’Reilly in April, when he was forced out amid allegations of sexual harassment." Drop the ratings trivia, all the promo material and focus on encyclopedic information that belongs in this BLP. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. As you said, it was the first time in the network's history. That is significant. Stating her ratings increased is informative to giving readers a sense of her success relative to her own history and relative to other programs. Her show has been on the air for 9 years and it currently occupies 4 paragraphs of this article. I don't think it's too much to mention that her ratings rose. If we started recording her ratings for every single week she was on the air, then that would be unencyclopedic, specifically violating WP:NOTADIARY. We are not near that situation at this time. Knope7 (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Which makes it pure promotion, not encyclopedic. Furthermore, it is stated inaccurately in the article and that has to be changed. I was hoping MelanieN would take the initiative in an effort to avoid potential editing disruption. Our job is to get the article right, and that does not include adding false and misleading information. Atsme📞📧 21:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

Her last name is "Maddow", not "Maddox", as erroneously stated here. 192.173.66.161 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done By Zero Serenity. Sakura CarteletTalk 20:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

@Zero Serenity: @Sakura Cartelet:

FROM:

== Writing ==<br> Maddow wrote ''[[Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power]]'' (2012) about the role of the military in postwar American politics.

TO:

== Writing ==<br> Maddow wrote ''[[Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power]]'' (2012) about America's drift into a state of perpetual war, from the [[Vietnam War]] to the [[Operation Desert Storm]], [[Iraq War]] and [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/105954/drift-by-rachel-maddow/9780307460998/|title=Drift by Rachel Maddow|author=|date=|website=PenguinRandomhouse.com|accessdate=10 November 2018}}</ref>

69.181.23.220 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done {{ISBN}} should link to a list of sources. Avoid direct links to sellers if an ISBN is available. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID #15. The :ISBN 978-0-307-46098-1 appears to work correctly and should give one access to hundreds of sources. The link to the Wikipedia article would be the place to give further information on the book. Jim1138 talk 09:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?

Should we also label her a conspiracy theorist? she meets the definition according to the Cambridge dictionary https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theorist. We are all about open and honesty here right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.75.225 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless it can be verified by reliable sources that she personally identifies as a conspiracy theorist, we probably shouldn't identify her as one either. Doing so would be a likely violation of WP:BLP.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What reliable source would you like? A source that told the nation that Iraq had a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq? A source that told the nation that Qaddafi was about to cause a humanitarian crisis in Libya? A source that repeatedly told us that Assad was gassing his own people? 1985 called and wants their Izvestia, Pravda, Politburo, and KGB back - seems as the United States "borrowed" them without authorization sometime around 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting you make this point because I was thinking about this the other day myself: Sean Hannity's page talks endlessly about the conspiracy theories he has promoted......but Rachel Maddow has been chasing this Russian thing for years (doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to connect this to the head guy).....and CTs aren't mentioned in her bio. I've kind of resigned to the fact that wiki does have a lot of double standards (and guard dogs per page) and let it go at that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, well, "this Russian thing" is not a conspiracy theory. The Mueller Report, according to the Barr letter, confirms that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. So, by claiming that they didn't, you're the conspiracy theorist. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Well the part Maddow has been pushing for years is the part about Trump being involved in this collusion.....and that's the part that Mueller report could find no evidence for. Every time I've watched her show since this came out, it's still every desperate angle to make the connection. So no, I'm not the conspiracy theorist....she is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Barr's letter does not say "no evidence" anywhere. It basically says that Mueller's team came to the conclusion that the Trump campaign did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government. Obviously there's some evidence, because Trump publicly called for Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails, which they did. And the indictment of Roger Stone is also a factor. So Muboshgu is absolutely correct. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be ridiculous to label Rachel Maddow a conspiracy theorist. Her show is opinion journalism, in which facts are discussed, and conclusions drawn. The format is fact-based by design. By definition, conspiracy theorists don't deal in facts.
Also, the idea that the Trump campaign is somehow exonerated of conspiring with Russia in 2016 is also ridiculous. Sure, Trump's attorney general says that Mueller says that Trump is off the hook, but even if you believe Barr's second hand characterization, what's been revealed publicly makes it clear that the Trump campaign DID interact with Russian oligarchs and members of the Russian government during the campaign. Sessions met with Kislyak and lied about it. Flynn was on the phone with Kislyak and lied about it. Carter Page met with Arkady Dvorkovich and lied about it. Roger Stone interacted with Guccifer 2.0 and Assange, and lied about it. Rob Goldstone set up a meeting via Trump Jr. between several top Trump campaign people and several Russians who either were in the government or represented it. The explicit purpose of the meeting was to exchange illegally obtained Clinton campaign emails for an agreement to drop the Magnitsky Act sanctions. That meeting took place. And the Trump people denied it until they were caught. Then they denied the purpose until it came out publicly and they had to admit it. They did not say no, they did not notify federal or state or local law enforcement agencies. And we know it happened because Trump Jr. had to post his own emails to his own Twitter account to preempt the news media, which was getting ready to make the emails public.
Who lies about an event and engages in "rolling disclosure"? Guilty people. That's not a "conspiracy theory", those are stone cold facts. And that's not even counting all the Mueller indictments and guilty pleas, or the information that's known to investigators but hasn't yet been made public.
Billmckern (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
At the end of the day, she has still been endlessly speculating about high up this goes. It's funny you say he is not "exonerated", because that is exactly what she says. Trump must be guilty and she is looking to take whatever angle she can to imply that. If that isn't a conspiracy theorist....I'd like to know what is. (As someone who has argued with JFK CTers, I can tell you that is exactly what they do: look for the facts that support what they believe, and dismiss the rest.) To be clear, I don't give a rip about the Russian deal either way. (I'm certainly not a Trump supporter.) My point has to do with consistency across wiki (which likely won't be resolved here). If everyone who promotes a he/she-must-be-guilty-of-what-I-suspect in the name of politics theory is a CTer.....then it should be consistent. it currently isn't. Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: I'll tell you why I disagree. A JFK CT or an Alex Jones fan or a "where's the birth certificate?" bleater or a "the moon landings were faked" guy doesn't "look for facts that support what they believe". They make things up to support their theories, and reject actual facts that contradict them.
Billmckern (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but that isn’t true. You can (for example) read Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgement. He doesn’t really lie about anything. But it isn’t what he tells you, it’s what he doesn’t tell you. He (for example) completely omits the fight at the Texas Theatre. He (also) emphasizes the people that wouldn’t ID LHO, while thinking up every excuse he can for the people that did. That’s a CTer. Some do lie…..but others just stack the deck in chasing what they believe must be true.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

There are many sources discussing her dedication, and fascination with the Russiagate xenophobic, racist, conspiracy theory. There is no logical or fair reason why discussion of this shouldn't have a section on this page. Off the top of my head, many left wing/progressive individuals such as Kyle Kulinski and Sam Seder, Michael Tracey, Glenn Greenwald, etc, have all called her out as being unhinged on this topic, on their respective twitter accounts. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 2601:982:4200:A6C:D91E:234B:7A3:797B (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "President Bush did give the New York Times interviews". Politifact. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
  2. ^ http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules/index.asp
  3. ^ Garofoli, Joe (2008-09-11). Bay Area's Maddow is cable talk's newest star. SFGate, 11 September 2008. Retrieved on 2014-02-05 from http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Bay-Area-s-Maddow-is-cable-talk-s-newest-star-3195294.php#page-2.
  4. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2019/03/trump-russia-collapse-collusion-narrative-190330063518669.html
  5. ^ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266
  6. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rachel-maddow-the-lefts-powerhouse-on-cable-doubles-down-on-the-collusion-angle/2019/03/26/bd8701d0-4f36-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.e1822f509cf5
  7. ^ https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html
  8. ^ https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/30/rachel-maddow-did-the-left-no-favors-with-trump-coverage/
  9. ^ https://nypost.com/2019/03/29/the-sad-surprise-end-to-rachel-maddows-spy-thriller/
Opinion pieces, you mean. That first link is written by Rich Lowry. The same Rich Lowry who saw "starbursts" through the screen when Sarah Palin was on the tee vee. He's hardly unbiased. The others also look to be opinion pieces. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article[5]: "Some journalists and political commentators described Maddow as a conspiracy theorist."[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Paskin, Willa (March 29, 2019). "Rachel Maddow's Conspiracy Brain". Slate.
  2. ^ Hannity, Sean (March 26, 2019). "Sean Hannity: Rachel Maddow and her mainstream media colleagues should be apologizing to the American people". Fox News.
  3. ^ Joyella, Mark (April 1, 2019). "MSNBC Jumps Gun To Claim Q1 Ratings Win For Rachel Maddow". Forbes.
  4. ^ Bunch, Sonny (March 15, 2017). "Rachel Maddow takes conspiracy theorizing mainstream with Trump tax 'scoop'". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ Barkan, Ross (March 28, 2019). "Will Rachel Maddow face a reckoning over her Trump-Russia coverage?". The Guardian.
  6. ^ Flood, Brian (October 22, 2017). "Rachel Maddow called out by fellow liberals for pushing anti-Trump conspiracy". Fox News.
Thoughts? — Tobby72 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Tobby72, "some people say" (and similar wordings) violates WP:WEASEL. Sean Hannity is not a WP:RS. I clicked the Forbes link and it doesn't include the word "conspiracy", so that fails WP:V. The Slate piece appears to be an opinion piece, and not solid enough for calling RM a "conspiracy theorist". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, you certainly can't say "journalists and". None of the sources you cited are journalists; they are all political commentators. We would never quote Sean Hannity or Fox News as a source of information about Maddow (for that matter, we would never quote Maddow or MSNBC as as source of information about Hannity either). The only one of these pieces that looks even slightly neutral - i.e., they may not have written from an already-firmly set right-wing perspective - is the one from The Guardian. And that's not enough. I suppose you could say something like "her enemies accuse her of..." but that would not be neutral either. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the sources cited appears to be the Washington Post and (speaking of Sean Hannity) that is one of the sources cited on his page calling him a conspiracy theorist. Seems good enough to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: As I wrote yesterday in a note reverting an edit, there's a HUGE difference between opinion journalism -- "I think Trump's a bad president. Here are the facts that support my argument. Here's what I think they mean. Don't you agree?" -- and conspiracy theories -- "Did you know there's a Democrat Party pedophile ring in the basement of Comet Ping Pong?" "Many people say the moon landings were faked." "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster. That's what I'm hearing.".
An opinion journalist combines facts and informed commentary to provide context to events. A conspiracy theorist ignores facts or makes them up, depending on the need. For example, it's an absolute fact that there is no basement at Comet Ping Pong. Therefore, anyone who continues pushing that story is a conspiracy theorist. But a conspiracy theorist will dismiss the fact that there's no basement -- "That's your opinion." "That's what THEY want you to think." You get the idea.
Billmckern (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
As I have noted elsewhere, I really don't care if she's labeled one or not. My point has more to do with some of the double standards we see here. And she just isn't arguing that "Trump's a bad president", she is endlessly speculating about this Russia thing. He must be guilty of something (in her mind). That's pretty much a text book CTer.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: The Russian government did attack the US election. The Trump campaign did benefit. Mueller says there was no provable, intentional attempt between those two entities to coordinate their efforts, but Mueller also says that yes Russia attacked the election and yes the Trump campaign benefited. In addition, Mueller has over numerous indictments and guilty pleas, including Trump's campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, and chief foreign policy advisor/National Security Advisor. A conspiracy theory wouldn't have that much meat on its bones.
Billmckern (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
CTs have run with less. Her mental gymnastics and innuendo have all tried to make out Trump directly colluding with Russia on this. That remains unproven. She believes it because Trump is a political opponent. (That's another hallmark of CTers.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rja13ww33: Respectfully, you're wrong. I don't see any point to continuing this discussion.
Billmckern (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
No I’m 100% right. You think she would have spent 2 years chasing this if Hillary Clinton was President? Come on. But all I'd like to see is some consistency between the various articles (aside from the ideological biases).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. No matter the winner in 2016, the Russians still meddled in our elections and that merits investigation and future preventative efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
No it's not an opinion. Can you name a liberal Democrat she's poured this sort of effort into? Didn't think so. And no one is saying it isn't worthy of investigation.....but the fact is: she's gone beyond that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, can you name a liberal Democrat who benefited from foreign interference in our elections? Didn't think so. She's been doing her job. It's your opinion she wouldn't have covered this if Hillary won, and there's no way to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I said "name a liberal Democrat she's poured this sort of effort into". Note the word "effort". Not this specific theory....but ANY theory. Can't do it can you? That's the point. That's what CTers do.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, I won't try to because (a) I don't respond to strawman arguments, and (b) I'm not going to comb through her archives. You're clearly as opinionated as she is, only the other way. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually, ideologically, I'm probably closer to her side than I am a right-winger (like Hannity). But I'm also objective. It doesn't take too much effort to see the double standards on some of these pages. But that's the way wiki is in many cases.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, I agree with you. It's pretty obvious a double standard is at play. Muboshgu wrote: "can you name a liberal Democrat who benefited from foreign interference in our elections?" How about Bill Clinton? Rachel Maddow is educated and interested in politics, I'm sure she knows about Chinagate, but she doesn't care. She's more interested in spreading conspiracy theories against political opponents.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: @Rja13ww33: "I say this glass on the table is half full. Here are the reasons why." - Opinion journalism. "There is no such thing as a table, that's just a myth perpetrated by the liberal elites at Big Furniture to trick you into buying their products for your house." - Conspiracy theory. It's really not that hard unless you are positively determined not to see it.
Billmckern (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
What you still don’t seem to get here is: I don’t have an axe to grind either way on this (politically). All I am asking for is consistency from page to page.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Billmckern, please stop this false dichotomy that it is impossible for anyone who's primarily an opinion journalist to also dabble in conspiracy theories. The caricature you're presenting seems to accomplish nothing other than demonstrating that Rachel Maddow is much more responsible than Alex Jones. This is of course true but so what? There are degrees of conspiracy mindsets. I've met several CTs who, instead of disparaging school shooting victims, take on the much more tasteful practice of "punching up" against Putin and Trump. I.e. by emphasizing certain facts selectively over others and mixing them with a dose of conjecture and rhetoric. Is Rachel Maddow one of these people? Maybe, but it doesn't actually matter from a policy standpoint. Wikipedia reports the viewpoints written in reliable sources. So far we have two calling Maddow a conspiracy theorist: The Guardian and The Washington Post. If you want to put this to bed, I would make sure you can find a much larger number of reliable sources that say the opposite. Arguing that this characterization is not WP:DUE weight seems to be the best argument you've got. Connor Behan (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Connor Behan: We get it. You don't like Rachel Maddow. Moving on...
Billmckern (talk)

Coverage of alleged Russian collusion with the 2016 campaign of Donald Trump

This is a topic to which Maddow has devoted a lot of time and energy covering, and during that time, saw her ratings peak at an all-time high for her show. However, the topic is not treated on the page, despite her coverage being documented and characterized in sources compatible with WP:RS. I have reviewed this archived talk thread and want to avoid a similar political discussion. Instead, I'd like to focus on just what the RS have to say about the topic. Since this concerns an all-time career-high for the subject, I believe it belongs in the biography -- certainly under the article's section on The Rachel Maddow Show, and possibly in the biographical lead as it is significant information. I've included a sample of a summary of what RS have said about this, with citations and some formatting for discussion. Quotes have been given in-text attribution and citation links. Thank you all.

Among prime-time TV personalities, Maddow has been prime-time TV’s primary and most tenacious a vocal proponent of the conspiracy angle regarding collusion between Russia and the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[1] She dedicated a significant amount of programming time to the topic for over two years, during which time she saw her ratings reach an all-time high.[2][3][4] Maddow’s coverage of this topic has been criticized by fellow journalists, with Rolling Stone contributing editor Matt Taibbi calling it “...a trick to dance around normal journalistic procedures,”[5] and has led Slate’s television critic Willa Paskin to conclude that Maddow’s audience was “...being served an alt-reality...”.[6] (See Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections for information about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.)

Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/rachel-maddow-the-lefts-powerhouse-on-cable-doubles-down-on-the-collusion-angle/2019/03/26/bd8701d0-4f36-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html
  2. ^ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
  3. ^ https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/rachel-maddow-is-lost-in-her-cold-war-conspiracies.html
  4. ^ https://observer.com/2019/05/trump-russia-conspiracy-nord-stream-2-pipeline/
  5. ^ https://www.vox.com/2019/3/31/18286902/trump-mueller-report-russia-matt-taibb
  6. ^ https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html
Since the previous discussions that I recall led off with trying to label Maddow a "conspiracy theorist", this is a much better start. She did devote a lot of airtime to Russian collusion and we should mention it. I disagree with "primary and most tenacious" since that is subjective. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I can see where that does seem subjective. The only reason I left that in wikivoice in my proposal is that the phrase appears exactly in the source. I'm not particularly opposed to changing that though. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Using that exact phrase without quoting would be plagiarism, though. We should either paraphrase the sentiment or use quotation marks. Nblund talk 21:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Good call regarding palgiarism. I have modified the example above to be a paraphrase. Does anyone have any thoughts? Thanks. Ihuntrocks (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

John Crandon was the first openly gay Rhodes Scholar

This wikipedia page currently says "This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship." I don't think that is correct. The NYT has corrected this claim here: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/pageoneplus/corrections-june-23-2013.html?searchResultPosition=9 and here: http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/packages/html/magazine/2013/innovations-issue/?module=inline#/?part=rachelmaddow . John Crandon received the Rhodes Scholarship in 1990.

 Done, thanks for the alert. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Head image could be better

A screenshot of a youtube compressed frame looks terrible and the last good faceup we have is from 2008. Anyone have alternatives? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rachel_Maddow/Archive_2&oldid=1137110845"