Talk:Overton window

Commonweal

The Commonweal Institute external link keeps getting removed for "advocacy" while the Mackinac Institute external link remains - also advocacy. The Overton Window is about advocacy. Can someone explain?Dcourtneyjohnson (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The link in question, was apparently written by you (which means it needed to be scrutinized regarding WP:COI). Possibly that's what the editor who removed the link meant by "advocacy"?

I have no opinion on the link itself, at this time. (Possibly it is suitable for inclusion, or citation. I have no time to investigate, currently). The edit referenced below, added it back in. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

New material added by Mackinac Center staffer

Full disclosure: I am a staffer at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and a former colleague of Joseph P. Overton. Given an upsurge of interest in the “Overton Window” concept I have added some new material, clarifies the explanations, and separated formulations of the idea created by Overton from those of others created after his death. I have tried to avoid including any original research, and of course to keep it NPOV. Jack McHugh (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

diff for reference.

Thanks for your disclosure, and work here. Most of it seems good, but I'm unsure about the removal of this link: An Introduction to the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. Did it not add anything useful?

Also, I've replaced a SeeAlso link to Argument to moderation (which mentions the Overton window). Possibly it could be worked into the article more usefully.

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Quiddity. I believe the referenced article I removed may be included in the various items aggregated in the Mackinac Center page cited in "In Popular Culture and Elsewhere." But there's no particular reason it can't go back in as you suggest. — Jack McHugh (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Article needs an image

The article describes a graphic representation of a window, a "spectrum on a vertical axis with policies defined as “more free” at the top and “less free” at the bottom, where “free” is defined as less subject to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, it means..."

Seems like the article could really use an image or graphical representation of the concept. Has any ever been done? Someone willing to do a graphic for Wikipedia? I'm adding a {{reqimage}} tag. N2e (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I created an image, but if someone finds a better one, it might still be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoysite (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about the current image:

The arrow implies a change, but relative to what is not made any clearer by the diagram. The New Idea seems to become the Desired Idea, but without illustrating by what means. Also, it seems to assume change in the window, which according to the text was a corollary made later and by others. ENeville (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed this picture because it is confusing and conforms poorly with the definition of the subject. It is oriented horizontally, rather than vertically; and it is completely lacking an axis of principle (more/less free) relative to which the axis of political acceptability moves; and furthermore the axis of political acceptability is one-directional, rather than bi-directional, thus omitting the point about an idea potentially being outside the window in either direction politically. ENeville (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I created a new diagram, File:Overton Window diagram.svg, based on one posted at the Mackinac Center site at http://www.mackinac.org/12481. and a discussion at http://www.mackinac.org/11398. It conforms more closely to the concepts promoted by Joe Overton. The image is now linked in the article. — Quicksilver^{T @} 21:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Peculiar

It's reminiscent of a better established psychological theory (political psychology) called "affective intelligence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.171.170 (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jones

At 12:40PM on January 6th, 2011, Conservative conspiracy theory radio show host, Alex Jones, read the top two paragraphs of this very Wikipedia entry out loud on his radio show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.16.130 (talk • contribs)

moved from article.   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that it is not used consistently. For instance, the U.S. government promoted a "conspiracy theory" in the 9/11 Commission Report, namely that members of Al Qaeda conspired to carry out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but media outlets rarely call the U.S. government's version of events a "conspiracy theory" even though that's what it is (and please note I haven't said anything here about the government's theory being wrong, only that it *is* a conspiracy theory -- and Alex Jones doesn't believe in it. So on the subject of 9/11, as on a number of other subjects, he is no more of a "conspiracy theory" advocate than mainstream journalists). On an unrelated note, Alex Jones is probably better characterized as libertarian than conservative. Starchild (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Creation date

It would be helpful for some sort of date when this theory was created. TMLutas (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It probably evolved over time, rather than being created in an instant that could be pinpointed on a calendar, and almost certainly wasn't called the "Overton Window" when first proposed. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Putting window in quote-marks doesn't overcome the definition's circularity. Plainly, it's not a real window so what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Russell Brand

I removed the mention of Russell Brand's rant about this, which redefined the Overton window as some kind of Noam Chomsky-esque conspiracy, instead of just a description of what the public finds acceptable. This is a fringe view as far as I can see, so unless anyone can find any reliable sources for it (and no, the Trews is not a reliable source for this), it's staying out. I'm not opposed to the view that the media constrain discourse to mollify advertisers, proprietors, journalists or politicians - of course they do - but I don't think that's the same thing as the Overton window. Correct me if I'm wrong.--greenrd (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Article name

The concept is called "Overton Window" at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy site. Shouldn't the Wikipedia article follow the same capitalisation? — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theory

I do not see how characterizing fringe theory as fringe can be NPOV.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If this theory is so obviously "fringe" (i.e. a shorthand for "nonsense") to the point that it should be introduced as such in the lead, then you will of course have substantial sourcing to support such a viewpoint.

Putting "fringe" into the first sentence of a lead is a highly pejorative statement and is anything but NPOV. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Look at New Chronology (Fomenko), fringe is mentioned in the first sentence of the lede according to the consensus of RSs.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

according to the consensus of RSs

See the difference?

Besides which, when did RS (off-WP) ever agree to form a "consensus"? These words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the term "fringe" seems pejorative. I think "not widely known" would be fairer and less leading. Starchild (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What about "non-academic"?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not widely known" would seem to have become inaccurate in recent years though. This is a term that, encouraged by some excesses of the right-wing, has started to become much more widely used than when it was first coined.

As to "non-academic", then: Is that true? Are academics ignoring the term? Is it sourced? and most of all, Is it relevant? We use many terms that are current, in-use and sourced without them necessarily being "academic". Again, this is just throwing pejorative terms into a lead and hoping that some will stick. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any academic publication ever considering the concept, which pretty much excludes the opening "in ploitical theory" - political theory is, well, an academic discipline. Academics are indeed ignoring the concept. There are zero academic publications cited in the article. But if you insist I guess I will be able to publish a RS calling the Overton window "fringe".--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could get an opinion on this from, oh, the head of a big policy think tank? Someone like, maybe, Overton himself? As a concept, the same idea under other names goes back 150 years, from all political sides. I know of no credible viewpoint that states, "The Overton window is a fallacy.". This is a long way from being "fringe". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, let us not discuss fringe for the time being, let us discuss non-academic. Any sources it is academic? Overton can not be such source.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no academic sources for this concept (I've checked). However, it has been adopted by media pundits and commentators from all across the political spectrum, but the right-wing and the libertarians seem to be most fond of the phrase -- which isn't surprising considering the originator. It is not found in any political theory textbook I could locate, for example. jps (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

With your edits, I certainly like it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Google Scholar gives many hits for "Overton Window", not all of which are blogs or think tanks. I see that the term is used by some authors in reputable journals. Here's a short mention in a book review.] Here's another discussion with a citation that could be followed up on. This book has a promising longer discussion (and diagram) with several citations. peace, groupuscule (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term seems to percolate through to various locations, but as a political science theory, there isn't much in the literature indicating either rigorous testing nor verification. In all the citations I have seen, it has been cited as an example of an idea or meme that may be useful in understanding a point or an outcome. I have yet to see a serious academic work about the subject. The hits on Google Scholar are occasionally, troublingly, referring to the previous state of the Wikipedia article in defining the Overton Window as a subject in "political theory", so we need to do better than just look at incidental literature such as the ones you are citing if we are going to make stronger points that the incidental ones already in the article. jps (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Now it disappeared again, and the concept is presented as mainstream academic theory.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Overton window → Overton Window – The term is capitalized properly with both words as it is the proper name of the idea according to the sources in the article and basically everywhere one looks outside of Wikipedia. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC) jps (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Weak move, I have nothing against the move but English is not my native language.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose — it is not consistently capitalized in sources. The book should be capitalized, the concept should not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definitional Issues

I just want to note that the most important sentence of this article--the sentence that claims to define the "Overton Window"--is complete gibberish: "who in his description of his eponymous window claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within it, rather than on politicians' individual preferences." The proliferation of unclear pronouns ("it...it") leaves me with no sense of what the OW actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiculalinguae (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point, it looks like the sentence got mangled in a previous edit. I've done a very minor edit there, reverting part of the phrasing, which should improve it. Arfed (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research?

In the section on "Historical precedents," do we have a WP:RS to state that Hallin, Trollope, Frederick Douglass, and Christopher Buckley are related to the Overton window? Does Overton use them as examples? If not, the examples are merely one Wikipedia editor's observation, and WP:Original research, and must be removed. --Nbauman (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is original research that should be removed. There is no evidence that Overton or Lehman, who formalized the concept and named it, knew about the ideas put forward by these other thinkers. This is an article about the Overton Window, not a research paper about how it connects with ideas in the past. Without evidence that Overton or Lehman used these other thinkers to develop their concept, I think that this whole section should be removed. Unless I hear some good reason to keep it in, I'll remove it in a week. MKil (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)MKil

Joshua Treviño's "degrees of acceptance" are overly prominent in this article

The intro strongly ties Joshua Treviño's "degrees of acceptance" with the Overton Window. It presents Treviño's degrees as authoritative in reference to the Overton Window, and in my view, as inseparable from the Overton Window: see the image that shows the degrees of acceptance alongside the graphical depiction of the Window. I think this is true even given the caption beneath the image.

Is Treviño noteworthy enough, and considered an established expert in this subject, such that his degrees of acceptance is appropriate for such prominent placement at the top of the article? I don't believe so. Perhaps Treviño's thoughts could be demoted to a section, as one person's suggested labels for various points along the "More freedom ... Less freedom" line.

Best, 69.143.175.242 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Vox video on Overton window

user:Ymblanter, Vox (website) looks like a WP:RS. What's your problem with it? --Nbauman (talk)

I think most Wikipedia users do not accept it as a RS. Let us wait a bit, there are quite a few people who watch this page and can provide input.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that most Wikipedia users don't accept Vox as a RS? I couldn't find any discussion about Vox on the RS/Noticeboard. If you read the Vox (website) entry you will see that it was criticized by conservatives and praised by sources like David Carr of the NYT, The Economist, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. So whether you accept it or not seems to depend on whether you are a conservative. But even POV media are aceptable for WP:RS. So that's my evidence that it is a WP:RS.

I don't see many people active on this talk page (only 1 besides me in 2017). I don't know of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires us to "wait a bit." Given the evidence I've provided that it is a WP:RS, I think it's more reasonable to restore it and see whether anyone else objects. --Nbauman (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I will ask now at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

RSN might have been more appropriate, but Vox seems to not have that bad a reputation for fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid RSN is dead. I tried to get there opinions several times, every time I tried I got zero responses.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

For those of us coming from WP:FTN (and for anyone else participating), this discussion seems to be about the addition (or not) of this text as a new top-level section (titled Examples):

---

Examples

As a result of President Donald Trump's controversial positions during his first year in office, Vox has argued that the Overton window in American media has shifted to the right,[9] and that an increase of media debates between Trump supporters and anti-Trump conservatives has made the latter the new middle ground.[9]

9. "How Trump makes extreme things look normal". Vox. Retrieved 21 December 2017.

---

I don't see any intrinsic reliability issue with this source, but I would flag a concern with undue weight and general article structure. Starting a list of examples invites the creation of a never-ending laundry list (rather like the cruft that accumulated when we allowed "Trivia" sections in pop culture articles) of every single online mention of Overton from now until the heat death of the universe. Using as our sole example a very recent non-scholarly source with a very clear editorial slant, making qualitative assertions, and dealing with a very polarizing treasonous, groping, lying, tiny-handed *cough* figure is probably using a far too loaded example. We would be far better off to find scholarly (or at least more analytical) sources which use more robust data – e.g. opinion polling data compared over time – if we want to illustrate the concept to our readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the Vox article is a fringe view. A number of reliable sources have commented on the Overton Window's relation to Trump, including the Christian Science Monitor, National Review, The Economist etc. If anything, I would expand the paragraph to attribute these sources general opinion that Trump has shifted/affected/influenced the Overton Window regarding acceptable/normal/expected political behavior. - LuckyLouie (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't care about reliability, but I don't think it belongs. It may be an example of the usage of this term, and it may be an accurate usage, but I don't see a need or value in making this article a partisan football. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

user:Ymblanter, first you argued that Vox wasn't a WP:RS, and instead of following up that argument you are arguing that it's a fringe theory. Does this mean that you now agree that Vox is a WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not have a particular opinion myself, but I have seen material based entirely on Vox rejected based on the notion it is not reliable. Concerning fringe theory, if you go up this page, you see that I actually argued this way ago, and I facilitated rewriting the lead in such a way that it clearly shows the theory is not academic research. Anyway, it looks like there is currently no consensus for including this material (which can of course change if more users comment here).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you show me examples of where Vox was rejected because it was not reliable? --Nbauman (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I have seen it recently (last week?) on my watchlist, but can not immediately find it. If the page pops up on my watchlist again, I will post the diff here.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Vox was a finalist for several awards https://awards.journalists.org/organizations/vox/ by the Online News Association. This shows that professional journalists in the largest organization of digital journalists reviewed several of Vox's articles and thought they were good enough to be finalists. For example, Sarah Kliff got a reporting fellowship https://healthjournalism.org/blog/tag/errors/ from the Association of Health Care Journalists, and her work was recommended as a model for other medical journalists by Joanne Kenen, the health editor of Politico. Kliff's biography is here http://www.sarahkliff.com/biography/ and the news organizations that have picked up her stories are listed here http://www.sarahkliff.com/ Other editors at Vox have similar credentials. I think this shows that Vox is judged a reliable source by professional journalists in major publications, and its work is picked up by other publications, which meets the requirements of WP:RS. Agreed? --Nbauman (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I made some research, and, indeed, it looks like most users agree Vox is generally reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your intellectual integrity. --Nbauman (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/christopher-harper-vox-news-website-needs-to-take-/ --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the question of whether Vox is reliable, this edit gives an editorial opinion by Vox far too much WP:WEIGHT. Any claim that the Overton window has "shifted to the right" would need to be backed up by peer-reviewed academic research. Also, the implication that public opinion can be placed on a one-dimensional left/right line is an extremely dubious oversimplification. Why left/right? Why not libertarian/authoritarian or some other metric? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

No other article requires "peer-reviewed academic research," so why should this article be singled out among the millions of other articles? The only necessary standard is a reliable source. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 04:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, as far as I can see, this Wikipedia entry only cites one peer-reviewed article, on the Norwegian Immigration Debate. Is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can conclude that the Vox article meets WP:RS even though it's not peer-reviewed.
• On the Washington Times article, we have already agreed, based on Vox (website), that conservatives don't like Vox. However, media professionals, such as the judges in the Online News Association and the Association of Health Care Journalists do think Vox is reliable. For that matter, conservatives say the same about the New York Times and the Washington Post, which are WP:RS. So that's not a standard for WP:RS.
• The author of the Vox video says that the Overton window has shifted to the right. That's his opinion and he is a WP:RS. It's true that Overton himself, and the Mackinac Center, don't like to describe it as a left/right axis. The author of the Vox article disagrees, and he's a WP:RS. That's why. --Nbauman (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's not how sourcing on Wikipedia works. As it says in WP:RSOPINION, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." If you want to report that the author of the Vox video says that the Overton window has shifted to the right, Vox is reliable for that (although it still would have WP:WEIGHT problems). Vox is not reliable for a claim that the Overton window has shifted to the right (as opposed to a claim that Vox says that the Overton window has shifted to the right) because Vox has absolutely no way to measure any shifting of the Overton window and indeed has no evidence concerning what the public will tolerate. They haven't none any scientific polling. They have no magical meter that they can read. All Vox can do is give us an uninformed opinin on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering all the other reliable sources that could be cited for opinions on how Trump has variously affected the Overton Window [1], [2], [3], [4] the Vox article isn't a preferred source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Instead of going around and around in circles, is there anyone besides Nbauman who thinks that Nbauman's proposed edit should stand? If not, we can save some time. Ultimately, article talk pages are for discussing edits to their associated article, not just general chat about sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of Talk pages is to decide whether edits are in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Some editors said that Vox was not a WP:RS. We have to decide that question by the Wikipedia policy of consensus. WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines....

In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. [My emphasis]

The original objection was that Vox was not a WP:RS. I think we have reached consensus (not a vote) that Vox is a WP:RS. In any case, we haven't reached a consensus that it is not a WP:RS. Therefore, under Wikipedia policy, it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. It should be restored, and not deleted, according to Wikipedia policy. --Nbauman (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

No such consensus exists. Vox may be a RS for many things, but not for this claim, because Vox has no way of knowing whether the claim is true or false. As far as I can tell, you haven't convinced a single person. Please read WP:STICK and WP:1AM and follow the advice you find there. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Another important aspect of consensus is recognizing that you, Nbauman, don't get to personally decide which policies are and are not relevant, or get to choose your own personal interpretation of them, over the objections of other editors. Focusing on WP:RS (and a narrow piece of it, at that) is deliberately missing the problems raised by other editors above (e.g. my concerns about creating what amounts to a cruft-attracting WP:TRIVIA section, the issues with WP:WEIGHT, and the question of whether a particular Vox correspondent's opinion piece is the best way to illustrate a political science concept.)

Incidentally, the reference to "deletion discussions" in WP:CONSENSUS refers to Wikipedia's processes to (entirely) delete articles, categories, templates, redirects, images, and so forth from Wikipedia. See the process pages at WP:AfD, WP:CfD, WP:TfD, etc. I am surprised that an editor with your length of experience on Wikipedia (more than a decade now, which has included participation in several AfD discussions) would be unaware of this.

I am also surprised that an editor with your long tenure would know to find and quote that one bullet from WP:CONSENSUS while simultaneously remaining entirely unaware of the very next bullet point, which reads:

"In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. ..."

Ruleslawyering, and especially doing it badly, helps neither Wikipedia nor yourself. Ignoring clearly-stated concerns doesn't make them go away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

change

How does it change over time? Benjamin (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: see WP:NOTFORUM, talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. Not about the subject of the article. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 13:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, to rephrase: Does anyone know of any sources that address how the Overton window shifts over time? If so, I think that would be a worthy addition to this article. Benjamin (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Intellectual Dark Web

You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Overton Window, the Alt-Right, and Meme Warfare

Whatever the "accepted" definition is of the Overton Window, the most common use of it is seen online by the Alt-Right as a strategic component of "Meme Warfare". Meaning, I think the Article would be improved if some mention of these connections were made.Tym Whittier (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Hi Tym, are you still around? I've added some content to start with. I could have added a lot more, but right now I'm just strapped for time. I totally agree with you, and I'm deeply disturbed that it's taken 2 years for someone to heed your call. Having more info about the alt-right's twisted interpretation of this concept here could have nourished a lot of starving brains. Hunan201p (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This credibility of this article would be significantly improved by removing the Alt-Right reference or including a Radical-Left example. As this article addresses the Overton Window in politics, we have copious examples of left politicians engaged in strategic meme warfare to left-shift the window; including media support to silence those opposed. In fact, the evolution of the media into a click-for-cash industry has led to a sort of every-man cheap propaganda engine to be exploited for Overton Window shifting social influence. Frankly, right-leaning principles are generally intended to secure the window in place; while left-leaning principles are aimed at change, "progress" and transformation that often require profound shifts. Ironically, the use of the Alt-Right example appears to be a left attempt at Overton window shifting. --Chesterguy69 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The Alley of Opinion

There are similar concepts referring to the "limits of acceptance" in the media (which have become more and more powerful to frame the climate of politics). Of course "PC-ness" is vaguely similar, but there are more clearly defined words too. In 2013, Swedish political analyst Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson coined the word åsiktskorridoren ("the alley/corridor of /accepted/ opinions" and defined it as "the spectrum of opinions within which you can speak and write in public without soon incurring a psychiatric diagnose from some other participants". He was aiming to describe the narrow margins of acceptability and the risks of public ostracism in Swedish media (and by extension, the stagnation of political debate). Of course the term became controversial at once, with many people in the public media vehemently denying that such a thing existed. :)

Article at Swedish WP: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85siktskorridor

Just as with the Overton window, this kind of "alley" no doubt exists in many countries, more or less obviously - the difference is in where the limits are, from one country to another (and Ekengren also stressed that some of the demarcations change over time, but often without anyone openly admitting that the change happened). 192.121.232.253 (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Overton window has shifted

The Far Right Is Growing Stronger—and Has a Plan for 2024 "' Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly true. Thanks for sharing this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

When did this all come about?

This article would be greatly improved by the addition of dates; one gets no idea -- even to the decade -- of when these ideas were developed. Does Overton anticipate Foucault's notion of the epistème or does he follow in its wake? 2603:8000:FC03:140C:7523:7822:879:3DA (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Anchoring tactic"

I've heard the term "anchoring tactic" used to describe the following political tactic:

• Firstly, propose a ridiculously extreme policy, triggering outrage from others
• Secondly, roll that back to a slightly less extreme policy (which is the policy that was actually intended from the start)

This allows the second policy slide past with little or no opposition, as it is presented as a concession to reasonableness, rather than the aggressive move it really is.

Is there a better term for this? Is this appropriate material for this article? Or does it belong elsewhere, such as in the anchoring effect article, or perhaps in its own article? — The Anome (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)