Talk:Rachel Maddow

Why isn't maddows outspoken advocacy of vaccines relevant?

The content can be appropriately calibrated and balanced but I don't understand why we can't include this topic in her bio. This was a core part of her show content and identity during 2021. If it's not under "political views" then what I another suggestion for where it would belong? Helpingtoclarify (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on the page and this talk page edit are both disingenuous. Firstly, I kept mention of her advocating for the COVID vaccine on the page where it belongs, in the TRMS section. You may not have noticed that. Secondly, your edit summary on that edit and your post above references the advocacy of the COVID vaccine, but conveniently leaves out the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH violation you committed in bringing up her erroneous statement about the vaccine preventing infection and the Fortune source that I do not think mentions her (it's paywalled). How is that DUE for her bio? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

These are her direct quote. I don't believe she ever corrected or retracted it (which would also be relevant if I am not correct on that). Why is that not relevant to her or her show? Her opinions on this topic were central to her relevance in 2021. She was repeatedly very plain spoken in her views. This is not controversial.

We can just leave the quotes on their own as to not synthesize sources.

My prior edit:

She also noted specifically that a "vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else." 199.167.54.229 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it an accident that you edited logged out? She's on TV alot. She has lots of direct quotes. We don't add quotes sourced to a WP:PRIMARY doc like a transcript. It has no WP:DUE weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Honest mistake on not being logged in...

Happy to run this through a consensus but you don't let that happen, you unilaterally undo everything, consistently. Nobody else comments. A consensus of one...

Here is another source on the same matter but considers both sides. Using the same quote from Maddow (a very high profile statement she made that was broadly picked up) the journal concludes she made a statement on vaccines that was not backed up by the science. See page 5

https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2023/06/09/jme-2022-108825.full.pdf

Proposed compromise as addition, based on this source.

Some of her statements suggested that people that were vaccinated could not transmit the virus, despite this not being supported by research, at the time it was made. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The statements are probabilistic and are true and statistically verified. The contrapositive view you appear to be presenting does not change the overall public health question or the validity of exhortations to get vaccinated. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In 2021 she was outspoken on this topic and the sources show she stepped beyond what was supported by the data, at the time, on the topic. I don't understand why this isn't relevant in her advocacy of vaccines. This is part of what she is known for. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a problem, since competence is required here. I've told you why and you aren't listening. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that article negates the abundantly sourced text stating that she was an advocate of vaccination and voiced it on her tv show. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Maddow Russia-Trump comments

Need consensus here. Based on WP:DUE if we are going to cover her statements on Trump-Russia it only makes sense to include the criticism she faced in focusing on the matter. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And the addition appears to be reliably sourced.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

NUMEROUS reliable sources. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

A WP:CITEBOMB of WP:PRIMARY sources (that's what those opinion pieces are) does not mean we have to include it. It means you're misusing those sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It can all be consolidated with this one source (see link below). This is a topic (trump Russia) that is central to Maddow's notariety and the pushback on her rhetoric is relevant. That cannot be denied. We can play source ping pong here but this needs to go in, otherwise it is not balanced @Muboshgu https://www.cjr.org/public_editor/msnbc-maddow-russia.php Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They argue that Maddow’s obsessive coverage of Trump and Russia is irresponsibly sensationalist. That it panders to a crowd of disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters , who are eager to blame the Russians for her loss in 2016. That's something we can use. You see how that's more useful than writing "She has faced criticism"? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that such a cast of characters is a significant body of opinion, nor that "pander" is a fair representation of what they wrote or Maddow did. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Then this source works, it's broader. It presents it very balanced. It does include this quote from Maddow, which speaks for itself:

"I’m happy to admit that I’m obsessed with Russia" Helpingtoclarify (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC

That is her on-air self-deprecating persona. She also went on and on about how she is scared of needles and fainted after getting an injection and so forth. That was a preamble typical of the character she uses to present her on-air content and is at most a media mannerism about which you might be able to find sufficient RS to propose inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You are circular. There are many RS which happen to be opinion pieces which propose the opinion that “maddow is obsessed with Russia”. Then SHE SAYS IT HERSELF and you come up with an explanation with your personal interpretation of her comments and then you say we need a source that interprets her comments. Her comments are her comments. Let’s just put it in as a quote and note that she said it and cite the source. Absolutely laughable circularity. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Please take some time to give a close read to V, NPOV, BLP and PRIMARY WP: pages, which will clarify this, I hope. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally see nothing wrong with what was added. But if a direct quote would be better....that is fine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess I am really missing something here.....how exactly are the sources associated with this edit [1] PRIMARY? Who among these sources is "directly involved" or a "insider" (to quote from policy [2])? Criticism doesn't make something PRIMARY. Also, how is it OR to draw a fairly reasonable conclusion from multiple RSs? Somebody has got some splainin' to do (as Desi Arnaz would say).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Check out Footnote D on WP:PRIMARY (emphasis added): Further examples of primary sources include: archeological artifacts; census results; video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, etc.; investigative reports; trial/litigation in any country (including material – which relates to either the trial or to any of the parties involved in the trial – published/authored by any involved party, before, during or after the trial); editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings; tomb plaques and gravestones; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Even if you want to say all of these sources fall into the "editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces" (something I would question), PRIMARY still does prohibit PRIMARY source use in articles. Note the fact the policy also says "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. They caution against "interpretation" and so on....but as I have said before: a direct quote would solve that issue. If we have criticism via RS, it should be included.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It is true that they are not explicitly forbidden. But PRIMARY notes that we should Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. WP:BLPPRIMARY says to Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. This is why I'm far more open to the CJR piece above, which is secondary, than the easily misused opeds and columns. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

So if you are ok with the CJR piece, than how about a restoration of the statement (i.e. "She has faced criticism for overplaying the alleged collusion between Trump and Russian officials.") with that as a source? (Since it clearly notes exactly that.) If not, what would you suggest? Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That text cited to that reference would insinuate a counterfactual nanrrative. Not NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How about a direct quote from the source? Something like Maddow has been criticized by some for "obsessive coverage of Trump and Russia" that they regard as "irresponsibly sensationalist".Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add youtube video of conspiracy theorist mocking Rachel Maddow. Not done. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't know how to make the link. But on YouTube, The Young Turks have a montage of how many times Maddow says "Russia", during the time Trump was US president. Not sure 'how' we could add this to the page, but at least it's a fun watch. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC) We don't add random YouTube videos. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

entire article

not fair or balanced, obviously written by a liberal and comments censored by a liberal 70.40.86.81 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)