Talk:Rachel Maddow

Photo

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

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

Openly Gay vs Openly Lesbian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benjiboi's Edit

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

---

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

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

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

---

Into this?

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News Program?

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

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

New source available

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

Stupakery

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

Canadian citizen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic/Roman Catholic

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

Bartender-in-training?

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

Senate race kerfluffle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Criticism?

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