Talk:Rachel Maddow/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticism of Rachel Maddow's Coverage of the Russian Collusion Story/ Mueller Investigation

There is a startling lack of analysis/criticism regarding Rachel Maddow's coverage of the speculative scandal of collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and the Russian government. Maddow's reporting on the issue lifted her show to the highest echelon of cable-news popularity (there is a vague mention of this in the article: "In mid-May 2017, amid multiple controversies surrounding the Trump administration, MSNBC surpassed CNN and Fox News in the news ratings," the controversies having mostly been related to the Russia issue). Furthermore, her reporting on the issue was uniquely dogged and consistently suggested that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, the combination of determined and sensationalist reporting on an issue of such prospective severity (had a conspiracy been proven -- as Maddow suggested was inevitable -- the presidency would have been totally undermined) explaining Maddow's rise in popularity. Any decent biography of Maddow must delve deeply into her reporting on the Russia story -- the story that catapulted her to the top -- and must also delve into criticism of Maddow published in the aftermath of the Mueller investigation; after all, the conspiracy long suggested by Maddow's top-rated news program was ultimately proven false (on a relevant note, in the days following the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, Maddow’s ratings dropped significantly). This is a matter of keeping a person with a platform of significant public influence accountable, regarding what may very well be the most profound part of her legacy thus far; surely there is room for this if there is room for a mention of Maddow's first crossword puzzle. I suggest the following as sources to use in editing the article; "Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart." by Eric Wemple of the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/); "Rachel Maddow's Deep Delusion" by Rich Lowry of Politico (the publisher of the article) and The National Review (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266); "Will Rachel Maddow face a reckoning over her Trump-Russia coverage?" by Ross Barkan of The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow); and "Rachel Maddow’s Conspiracy Brain" by Willia Paskin of Slate (https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/rachel-maddow-mueller-report-trump-barr.html, this source at least mentions the drop in Maddow's vierwership). The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Slate at least can be reasonably described as left-leaning, as in not the type of publications to have a vendetta against Maddow; Rich Lowry's article, although particularly hard hitting (as would be expected from a right-winger, given the issue), is fair. I would make the edits myself, but I lack the privileges to do so. Please consider this suggestion, and thank you for reading it.--Nfcoyle (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem is what you cite are opinion pages written by people sitting more right-wing, which would be undue weight. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree wholeheartedly with Nfcoyle's assessment of the Biography. How is it possible that the fact that she was proven wrong about Russian Collusion is not mentioned at all? She staked her career on it, she guaranteed indictment, she touted non-existent evidence and then was proven wrong which affected her ratings greatly. How is it not mentioned that she had an anti-climatic, embarrassing moment "exposing: Trump's tax returns? In Political Commentary her closest counterpart is Sean Hannity. In Hannity's Wikipedia Bio there is a section called "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism"... it is by far the longest part of the entire article. yet with Rachel Maddow it seems that her mistakes, no matter how public they were, and no matter how memorable they were, have been omitted. Why? I see no Problem at all with the citations provided by NFCoyle, and I wonder why almost 3 months have passed and his suggestions are ignored.Doniboy71 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Doniboy71

This comment is close to or over the line of a WP:BLP violation. Please cite specific sources and propopse specific content if you feel the article needs to be edited for NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 12:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nfcoyle & Doniboy71. However, as a longtime observer of this page, I would advise you that if you want changes done......I would go to an RFC.....and also cites with RS. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

An RfC seems premature. Simply draft the content you feel would be appropriate in a NPOV manner and cite it with reliable sources. Others can check the work, make suggestions and hopefully consensus will emerge. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee the poster(s) suggesting this that their proposal will be rejected by the vast majority who monitor this page. (See the archives.) So I was warning them of that. However, a first draft [ready for RFC] to be used for discussion here (first) would be fine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not good process to jump to an RfC before there's even been a specific and verifiable concern presented here. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea either. But I am advising the posters of the likely outcome of any discussion here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Better just to advise them to do the best job of stating the proposed article content and sources. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Break

My understanding is that the Russia Collusion accusations were proven to be false. As per suggestion above, I made an edit to add a new section to the Rachel Maddow page, with a statement about Maddow's participation in this hoax, but my edit was instantly reverted. This seems unreasonable. The conclusion that the Russian Collusion accusations were a hoax are extensively stated in reliable sources. This is a mainstream opinion, as reflected in the media. Sbelknap (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Opinion articles are not usable for factual claims in a BLP, especially not such broad, controversial ones. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, give us several hard news sources with an international reputation for checking and rechecking facts (along the lines of New York Times and Washington Post), rather than an opinion piece posted on a website, before using words like "hoax". Sundayclose (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The problem at this discussion is the assertion that "the Russia Collusion accusations were proven to be false." That is incorrect. In fact there have been multiple, neutral, bipartisan reports and investigations saying that the Russians really did interfere in the 2016 election, with the goal of undercutting American democracy. The most recent such report, issued just this week, was from the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Republican-Led Review Backs Intelligence Findings on Russian Interference" Keep in mind that the Republicans are in the majority in the Senate and that this unanimous, bipartisan conclusion was reached by a Republican-led committee. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

That report of the Senate Intelligence Committee does not conclude that members of the current administration colluded with the Russians. Sbelknap (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sbelknap: Nor did the Intelligence Committee conclude that the administration did not collude with the Russians. You're confounding separate issues. You are trying to claim conclusively that there is a "hoax". There is unequivocal evidence that Russia interfered with the election. We are a long way from concluding that there is evidence of a hoax. In a BLP or any article that pertains to living people, we don't casually throw around words like "hoax" without plenty of well-sourced evidence to back it up. And you haven't provided that evidence. A key issue here is WP:BLP; please read it. Regardless of what ultimate facts may eventually be discovered about collusion, Wikipedia is always conservative in stating conclusions about living people. If the evidence isn't unequivocal, we leave it out. Sundayclose (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

On March 24, 2019, the Washington Post Editorial Board assessed this information as follows: "Trump did not collude with Russia." Sbelknap (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is what liberal (but honest) journalist Glen Greenwald wrote about the Mueller report and Mueller's various statements:

"But certain facts will never go away no matter how much denial they embrace. The sweeping Mueller investigation ended with zero indictments of zero Americans for conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election. Both Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner – the key participants in the Trump Tower meeting – testified for hours and hours yet were never charged for perjury, lying or obstruction, even though Mueller proved how easily he would indict anyone who lied as part of the investigation. And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe.

Those responsible for this can refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing. They can even claim vindication if they want and will likely be cheered for doing so.

But the contempt in which the media and political class is held by so much of the U.S. population – undoubtedly a leading factor that led to Trump’s election in the first place – will only continue to grow as a result, and deservedly so. People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax. And none of that will go away no matter how insulated media and political elites in Washington, northern Virginia, Brooklyn, and large West Coast cities keep themselves, and thus hear only in-group affirmation while blocking out all of that well-earned scorn."

Sbelknap (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You are being very deceptive and you need to stop it. You cherry picked a few words. So let's look at the details in the Post article. Here's a quotation: "Mr. Mueller found that the investigation 'did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.'" There is a huge difference between "did not establish" and "exonerated". Quoting further: "Mr. Mueller made clear this was not an exoneration." As others and I have said (and you refuse to hear), there is unequivocal evidence that Russia interfered with the election. But most importantly, where is your evidence of a hoax? By refusing to get the point about your your BLP violation of claiming a hoax without a shred of evidence, your editing has become disruptive. Either provide the clear evidence of a hoax or move on. Sundayclose (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. The issue is collusion between Trump and Russia on the election. The title of the Washington Post editorial states that "Trump did not collude with Russia." This is confirmed in the body of the article. The issue is whether the Trump administration colluded with Russia on the election. The Mueller report, his subsequent statements, and coverage in the media confirm that Trump did not conspire with Russia. Sbelknap (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No you stay on topic. You can't evade the issue by telling others not to hold you accountable. The core issue about your BLP violation in the Rachel Maddow article is your claiming a hoax, not once but twice, and then a third and fourth time on your talk page. That is the reason you were reverted, and the reason you were warned about edit warring and failing to establish consensus. So, where is your evidence of a hoax? Telling me to "stay on topic" will make neither me nor the question go away. Sundayclose (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted that above. Glen Greenwald refers to the Russia-Trump collusion narrative as a hoax. Perhaps the most interesting facet of this hoax is how the media has removed many of their most embarrassing errors in reporting on the Russia Trump Collusion Hoax. Glen Greenwald has done a great journalistic service by compiling some of these failures of the media in an article entitled, "The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story"

An opinion piece on a website is insufficient for such a serious BLP violation. Give use your evidence confirming a hoax from a reputable news outlet with an international reputation for fact checking, such as the New York Times or the Washington Post. Otherwise move on and stop your disruptive editing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not an "opinion piece published on a web site." This is the view of the Washington Post editorial board, published in the Washington Post. Sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's Piers Morgan on the topic, "The Russia collusion hoax was a disgraceful fake news witch-hunt that shames all of Trump’s deranged enemies in the media, the FBI and Hollywood and has probably ensured their worst nightmare - his re-election" Sbelknap (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, Piers Morgan = not a reliable source of anything. Also see WP:DAILYMAIL, it has been deprecated as a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the WaPo editorial board only writes opinion pieces, as does every other editorial board. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap Glen Greenwald is not the WP Editorial Board, and his opinion is not printed as a fact in the WP. Neither is Piers Morgan. Stop compounding your BLP violation with opinions that are not from major news outlets. Move on. Sundayclose (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, I think you need to keep your focus on: she chased this for years (constantly doing everything possible to try to connect it to senior members of the Trump admin, including Trump himself).....and she came up empty. I wouldn't call the notion the Russians messed with the 2016 election a "hoax". The focus here is what Maddow tried to do with it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The WaPo editorial board writes editorials that describe the official position of the WaPo. This is not the same as an "opinion piece", which refers in deprecatory fashion, to op-ed articles. Both editorial board pieces and op-ed pieces can be cited in wikipedia, where appropriate. Glen Greenwald and Piers Morgan are both widely cited in wikipedia. There is no reason to omit these two as sources for this article. Sbelknap (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Widely cited on Wikipedia" doesn't qualify them as reliable sources that there was a hoax. Yes opinion pieces can be cited as opinion, but not as facts to use words such as "hoax". Sundayclose (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate assertions:

1. Russians attempted to interfere in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

2. The Trump administration colluded with Russians to interfere in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Here, the issue of interest is the second assertion. The first assertion is not relevant. Please stop conflating these two assertions, as it is distracting. Sbelknap (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop telling others what they can and can't do in response to your false claims. There was also your assertion that there was a hoax, for which there is zero evidence. Now, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article. What changes (with reliable sources, not opinions) are you suggesting?

I agreed with the suggestion, proposed by another editor on this talk page, that there be a subsection titled, "Political commentary, controversies, and criticism" I then suggested that this statement be included in this new subsection, "Maddow extensively covered the Russian Collusion Story, which eventually was discovered to be a hoax. " I provided a reliable citation for this statement. The hoax in this case, refers to the fake news that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump administration to influence the 2016 presidential election. This is not a WP:BLP issue, as the statement asserts that Rachel Maddow dug a very deep hole, covering this hoax night after night, only to be proven wrong in the end. It is notable that she went hard on this story and that she was completely wrong.Sbelknap (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You have no support on this talk page for claiming a hoax. And until you get support that is a moot point. Tell us specifically (with reliable sources, not opinions) what you would like to say about the "deep hole", but leave out the false claim of a hoax. You might actually make some progress here if you would stop clinging to that fabrication. But keep a few policies in mind that I have to wonder if you are familiar with:WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BLP. Sundayclose (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no fabrication. Glen Greenwald used the term "hoax" in reference to the Russian Collusion hoax. I cited that source above. Sbelknap (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It would be better to say something like: Maddow extensively covered the Russian Collusion Story, speculating on the possible involvement of members of the Trump administration, which eventually was rejected by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Maybe add a comment about how this has led to criticism of her in some circles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This seems OK to me. Thanks. Sbelknap (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to see the specific wording and the specific sources that will be cited. And opinions need to be identified as opinions not facts, with much more WP:WEIGHT on hard facts from sources like NYT and WP. One other point: Criticism/controversy sections are discouraged on Wikipedia because they attract excess and exaggeration, especially with a subject such as the one we are discussing. There should not be a header using "criticisms" or "controversies"; in fact it likely does not require a separate section. Instead, incorporate the information into another section per WP:CRIT, and with concern for reasonable length and a long-term rather than immediate perspective. Sundayclose (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The current article does not meet wikipedia standards for WP:NPOV, even for a biography of a living person. Above, on this talk page are several criticisms that have not made it to the article. Reviewing the edit history shows that many attempts to add apparently accurate and critical information have been reverted or removed as a consequence of ostensibly unrelated edits. This is problematic. Sbelknap (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This pattern of edit warring, followed strong (unsupported) assertions on the talk page of WP:NPOV with further innuendo as to some conspiracy by other editors is regrettable Sbelknap. I support Sundayclose in opposing a criticisms or controversies section as it inevitably leads to bloat. The reference you give is polemical in nature, we need something in a reliable source which makes the connection - for example the proposed wording from Rjal3ww33 would need to appear in a reliable source (even if we paraphrase). There is a strong danger here of synthesis or original research and that is bad enough on general articles but unacceptable on a BLP one. -----Snowded ^TALK 05:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Intercept is a reliable source and Glen Greenwald is an honest journalist. There are many other sources that provide a similar analysis and conclusion. Sbelknap (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

From The Guardian we have, "Robert Mueller’s determination that no evidence exists to prove Trump and Russian colluded to fix the election has exposed, once again, the venality of A-list political punditry. At the top of the heap is none other than MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.<img src="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/28/trump-russia-investigation-mueller-liberal-media-rachel-maddow" /> Sbelknap (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

From the Washington Post, we have this: <img src=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 /> Sbelknap (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The first is clearly designated as an opinion piece (and a polemical one) so that doesn't help your case. The second is behind a firewall so you will need to quote in FULL -----Snowded ^TALK 18:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of news and the media is contained in editorials. Can you be specific about what you find to be polemical in the cited sources from the Intercept or the Guardian? These sources provide evidence to support their analysis. Please provide some alternate source that supports your position. What we have so far are your own opinion that the sources cited are "polemical" or "opinion pieces." Sbelknap (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I read and subscribe to the Guardian and they are very careful to distinguish opinion pieces from reporting. This is so labeled, it isn't my opinion it clearly states what it is. You are attempting (again) to use limited sources coupled with your personal interpretation to make a political point. You are attempting to make an insert into an article without proper sourcing - there is no obligation on me to provide alternative sourcing.-----Snowded ^TALK 18:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Re the suggested wording Maddow extensively covered the Russian Collusion Story, speculating on the possible involvement of members of the Trump administration, which eventually was rejected by the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Could I please see the wording from the committee report that expressly asserts that there was no collusion by the Trump campaign? (BTW any involvement would be by members of the Trump CAMPAIGN, not the Trump ADMINISTRATION.) Since the report was heavily redacted by the Trump administration before being released,[1] any admission of collusion is likely to have been removed, but where does the document say directly that there was no evidence at all? In other words, that the collusion allegation was a hoax as some people here are trying to say? (BTW you might take a look at the definition of hoax: [2]. We are a very long way from that.) -- MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Committee report is a primary source. High-quality secondary sources are preferred on wikipedia. The analysis (including use of the term "hoax") was made by Glen Greenwald here: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-merely-reject-the-trumprussia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/

Here are the relevant quotes

THE TWO-PRONGED CONSPIRACY THEORY that has dominated U.S. political discourse for almost three years – that (1) Trump, his family and his campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election, and (2) Trump is beholden to Russian President Vladimir Putin — was not merely rejected today by the final report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. It was obliterated: in an undeniable and definitive manner.

and

But the contempt in which the media and political class is held by so much of the U.S. population – undoubtedly a leading factor that led to Trump’s election in the first place – will only continue to grow as a result, and deservedly so. People know they were scammed, that their politics was drowned for years by a hoax. And none of that will go away no matter how insulated media and political elites in Washington, northern Virginia, Brooklyn, and large West Coast cities keep themselves, and thus hear only in-group affirmation while blocking out all of that well-earned scorn..

Sbelknap (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Still running the single source argument Sbelknap? I suppose consistency might be considered a virtue, but not here. You need something more substantive -----Snowded ^TALK 21:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's better characterized as the "single opinion" argument. And it's disruptive editing. If we continue to get the same argument over and over with nothing new, we need to ask for a close of this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This wikipedia article does not reflect wide-spread criticism of Maddow that she exaggerated and misrepresented evidence that there had been collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign (and, after the inauguration, the Trump administration). Criticism of Maddow on this came from both the left and the right. Maddow spent months harping on this. I've presented three sources, here is another, by a liberal media critic. This is from Erik Wemple's Column of December 26, 2019, entitled, "Rachel Maddow rooted for the Steele dossier to be true. Then it fell apart."

The case for Maddow is that her dossier coverage stemmed from public documents, congressional proceedings and published reports from outlets with solid investigative histories. She included warnings about the unverified assertions and didn’t use the dossier as a source for wild claims. There is something fishy, furthermore, about that Mueller footnote regarding the “tapes.” In their recent book on the dossier, “Crime in Progress,” the Fusion GPS co-founders wrote that Steele believes the document is 70-percent accurate. The case against Maddow is far stronger. When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document. 
And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.
She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry.

Sbelknap (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please use Help:Show preview and keep things tidy. It's hard enough to follow this without making it look like a spilled box of notecards. Also, place links (even if paywalled) after quotes to preserve clear attribution.

The Wemple article is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/rachel-maddow-rooted-steele-dossier-be-true-then-it-fell-apart/

This is very clearly an opinion, as it says right across the top of the article There is never going to be a lack of pundits sniping at each other, but Wikipedia isn't a gossip column. It doesn't really matter whether or not Wemple is "liberal". Trying to throw random opinions against the wall to see what sticks doesn't seem like a good faith attempt to summarize reliable sources. If there is some independent reason to think that Erik Wemple's opinion belongs in this article, or anyone else's opinion on this, I haven't seen it made here yet. That doesn't mean this is a total dead end, but a large quantity of useless sources isn't helping, so the work hasn't been done yet. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, please stop with the opinion pieces. We deal in facts here and we require neutral, reliable reporting. The hit pieces you keep quoting are not neutral, not reliable, and not reporting. And they are often about something other than what you are trying to prove. Please stop changing the subject, and stop posting references that are about a completely different subject. I believe what you are trying to claim here is that collusion by the Trump campaign has been "proven a hoax". That's what you said above: My understanding is that the Russia Collusion accusations were proven to be false. Your proposed statement for the article said the claim had been disproven by the Senate committee, but to "prove" it you cited a column by Greenwald about the Mueller report, not the Senate Committee. The Wemple article is about the Steele dossier and doesn't deal with collusion at all. And despite Greenwald's hysterical language, the claim of collusion has not been disproven, much less "proven a hoax"; the Mueller report said they didn't find sufficient evidence for it but noted that a lot of potential evidence had been withheld so they couldn't evaluate it. Your persistence in pushing this partisan claim is getting to be an enormous waste of everybody's time. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hit pieces? Enormous waste of everybody's time? I've made a good faith attempt to bring balance to this article. The report of the Senate Committee, the Mueller report, and the Steele dossier are not unrelated. They were all related to the (clearly false) assertion that there was collusion between the Trump campaign/administration and Russia. Rachel Maddow's program covered each of these in exhaustive detail. Her coverage of this topic was biased. Fair-minded journalists noticed this and wrote about it. That perspective is not shown in this wikipedia article. There are many other wikipedia pages that cite well-reasoned analysis from editorials. On what basis do you assert that this is not permitted here? Now, there is an attempt to shut down discussion about this issue. Isn't that the purpose of a wikipedia talk page? To discuss how to improve the article? Lets get the perspective of some other editors. Sbelknap (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Other editors? Other editors have already expressed their opinions with no support for claiming a hoax. I think it's time to ask for this discussion to be closed. We have one editor endlessly repeating the same POV argument with no substance and refusing to drop the stick. I'll give this another 24 hours and then seek closure if no one raises any new points in support of this edit. There are so many more important matters on Wikipedia to focus on. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is a Friday evening in the USA. Perhaps you might be more patient. Note that your assertion, "There are so many more important matters on Wikipedia to focus on." is an opinion. I strongly disagree. Having balanced articles on journalists is incredibly important. Many people look up wikipedia articles on journalists seeking precisely the sort of information I am urging us to include in the Rachel Maddow article. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Sbelknap (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I said early on in this section....you may want to take this to RFC.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

an RFC won’t solve these POV and sourcing problems. If you want a practical plan you need to do the research finding strong reliable sources and then report what they state. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well first off: this really isn't my argument.....and secondly, there seems to be a dispute on the the sources. If this reaches a impasse (which I predicted early on it would), I was advising Sbelknap of other options.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also a behaviour issue with Sbelkap - we had this on the Heidegger article with pages and pages of talk page argument, refusal to accept consensus, refusal to use an RfC, single source use, suggestions of conspiracies by other editors, innuendo about the motivation of other editors and so on. He's had a serious restriction in the past for this sort of thing and I was thinking of going to ANI on the Heidegger disruption but he finally stopped editing that article. I think the best tactic, unless other substantial editors come in to support him, is to simple refer to previous answers and revert any changes to the article which are not agreed. -----Snowded ^TALK 04:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that we make no further response whatsoever to the same repetitive POV argument in order not to feed into such behavior. And behavioral issues sometimes must be addressed when they become as disruptive as this has; a complaint at WP:ANI and a possible topic ban may be in order. I still plan to seek closure of this discussion since no new information has been presented. Sundayclose (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

We can dismiss his comments if we wish (as per POV). But I can promise you this: it's going to come up again and again. (See the archives.) As the article stands now, we don't mention the fact a Federal investigation concluded that a dimension of this scandal (which she chased for years) was incorrect. (Taking it on it's face.) That's (either) one heckuva omission or a fairly brazen disregard for NPOV. Whatever technicality one wants to find in wiki rules to ignore that fact.....it seems to me that a more productive use of our time would be to fix it now as opposed to this same conversation about a million times.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If a similar issue is raised again by someone who can provide facts (not opinions) from reliable sources without the incessant POV-pushing based solely on opinion, that's perfectly fine. That's the way Wikipedia works. But most of the wall of text in this thread is not how Wikipedia works. No one here has used a "technicality" to "ignore" facts. Several of us here have asked for and even encouraged providing reliably sourced facts on this issue, but no one so far has produced them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

2 Questions: The Muller investigation concluded that the evidence was insufficient that Trump’s campaign "coordinated or conspired" with Russia correct? This is one (of several) aspects she chased for years correct? If you answer to both of those questions is "yes" (and there are a lot of sources we can find for both).....why omit this fact? (Even if you don't care for the way another editor is putting it together.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Give us reliable sources. So far only opinion pieces and Wikipedia editors' synthesizing their own conclusions is all we have. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

So are the answers to my questions a "yes" and a "no" (in order)? Or are they both "yes" (and the issues are simply sources)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not putting the cart before the horse by speculating about conclusions until I see specific wording AND the reliable sources to back it up. There's far too much of that already in this thread, and I don't plan to add to it. That is not "ignoring" because of a "technicality"; it's the way Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to me like any speculation would be required to answer those questions. But if I get time (early on next week; I don't post that much on the weekend) I will see if I can put together something with RS. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Without specific wording and reliable sources there is room for lots of speculation. That's what makes up most of this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33 RE: The Muller investigation concluded that the evidence was insufficient that Trump’s campaign "coordinated or conspired" with Russia: "The evidence was insufficient" is a far cry from "it's been disproven", and nothing at all like "it was a hoax". It is more along the lines of "there was some evidence but not enough for a conviction". The whole argument here has been to add to the article something along the lines of "The Russian Collusion claim was a hoax and Rachel should be criticized for falling for it". Completely unwarranted. The truth is more like "there was a lot of evidence for Russian collusion (see, for example, Links between Trump associates and Russian officials), and Rachel reported it, but no one was actually indicted for collusion." Which doesn't mean Rachel was wrong. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A agree that the "hoax" comment in unwarranted. (IIRC, I've already said that.) But the fact is: she chased this for years and a Federal investigation eventually concluded that the evidence was "insufficient". For this article not to note that is a problem to me. But I agree wording is important.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, I think that the Mueller investigation saying the evidence is "insufficient" says more about the Mueller investigation than it does about Maddow. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Amazing where/on what I can/can't get personal opinions and where I can't.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Break #2

Enough about what did and didn't happen. Let's see your proposal for what to put in the article, with reference, and let's discuss it.-- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On wikipedia, critical editorials and opinion pieces are allowed to be cited as sources for biographies of journalists who do not parrot the narrative but are verboten for progressive journalists. This will be evident to editors willing to compare these biographies. I will leave that as an exercise to you all. Is this de facto policy what you all support? Or should the same fair-minded policies be applied to all BLPs? Sbelknap (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the American Bar Association News's analysis. How about simply quoting this verbatim as a first statement and then noting that Rachel Maddow extensively covered the story?

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation did not find sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the United States’ 2016 election and did not take a clear position on whether Trump obstructed justice.

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

Sbelknap (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would we put the ending at the beginning? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. That's not a proposal for this article. It doesn't say anything about Rachel. Or rather, it would be WP:SYNTH to connect these two completely different points. SYNTH = Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Sbelknap, enough games, either do the work and find strong reliable sources, and see what they say about Maddow and this issue, or move on. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of All Editorials, op-eds, commentaries, and opinion pieces that are cited as sources in the Rachel Maddow article.

There appears to be a clear consensus among currently-engaged editors that sources which are editorials, op-eds, commentaries, and opinion pieces are not to be used in this Rachel Maddow wikipedia article. I would be most grateful if currently-engaged editors would affirm this consensus, so that we can remove these cited sources, and the assertions that they support from the article. Let's give this 72 hours, so that we can be sure we have adequate input. Thanks to all. Sbelknap (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to tell us specifically what needs to be removed. We don't need to deal with additional disruptive editing on your part. And this serves as a caution to not remove anything without first discussing here. Sundayclose (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Clear disruptive edit Sbelknap. You have been around long enough to know that opinion pieces cannot be used to support a definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice, but they can be used in some contexts. It is far from clear that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia. You have also been around long enough to know about logging in -----Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This gushing source seems redundant. I propose we delete it. https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Rachel-Maddow-is-my-sweetie-3289766.php Sbelknap (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Definitely inappropriate. I have removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Give us all the sources you object to in one post so we don't have to endlessly deal with you yet again. Then wait for a response here before making any changes. Sundayclose (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

"…we don't have to endlessly deal with you yet again." Seriously? Please read WP:OWN, review your comments on this talk page, and reflect. Sbelknap (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Its a perfectly reasonable request, maybe you should reflect on your own own comments -----Snowded ^TALK 22:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Some of the cites have broken links, including archived links. Is there some wiki magic for fixing these? I was unable to google true links for two of them, then gave up. Thanks, @MelanieN, for deleting the the inappropriate citation. Sbelknap (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Add "conspiracy theorist" to this biography in accordance with the Russiagate accuracy rate. 24.125.169.152 (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax was (and is) a conspiracy theory. It is undeniable that Rachel Maddow promoted the Russia-Trump Collusion Hoax and yet this is not mentioned in this article. Compare to articles for conservative commentators (e.g., Lou Dobbs) regarding the Obama Birther Conspiracy Theory (also a hoax). Larry Sanger is correct: http://archive.vn/bWFAU Sbelknap (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Responsible journalists recognized that Maddow was promoting a conspiracy theory about Russian Collusion long ago: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/?comments=1 Sbelknap (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap isnt wrong...Eruditess (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

Change the host from Brian Williams to Lester Holt 68.229.137.214 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Maddow and Williams are cohosts for special events, like the election and debates. I don't think I've ever seen Maddow and Holt in the same show. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 02:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Rachel Maddow’s birthday is April 22, not April Fool’s Day (April 1) as stated in Wikipedia.

My source is April 22, 2021’s MSNBC The Rachel Maddie Show, where she confirms her birthday is, indeed, April 22.

Thank you Deglispiriti1 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We need to be able to verify the information, rather than just be told it was on TV. Are there any reliable sources with this information? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a deeper issue at play. What is the source supporting the birthday currently shown in the article? I'm wondering if it needs to come out until we can find a reliable source that has been verified. —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Political bias on Wikipedia.

As an example, Dan Bongino is as "right-wing however Rachel Maddie is only listed as "liberal.' Shouldn't Bongino simply be listed as conservative? Because otherwise Maddow needs changed to left-wing. 72.28.182.45 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss "bias on Wikipedia", or Dan Bongino's article. This is the place to discuss Rachel Maddow's article. Why should her descriptor be changed? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think "liberal" is sufficient here. Right-Wing/Conservative and Left-Wing/Liberal are all interchangeable, so what's the difference? Spf121188 (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We always follow the sources. The sources do not use the term "left-wing". But I agree that "liberal" is sufficient and less open to dispute. Sundayclose (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Support "liberal," and I'm not sure who Dan Bongino is but the label of his political views/affiliation is an issue for that article's talk page. Jasphetamine (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

you guys are idiots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.85.227 (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

Please mention the lawsuit filed against her by Devin Nunes. 47.50.128.26 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Profile photo

The current lead photo of Maddow is captured from a CC-licensed YouTube video. It's not very flattering, given that it captures her mid-speech. Could someone go watch the video and capture it at a better moment? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Organization of Awards page

The Awards Section of the article is very unorganized

GameOfAwesome (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2022

Location of typographical error: Section: Radio; 3rd from last sentence in paragraph; Error: "...6:00 to 9:00{ p.m. EST..." Correction: delete bracket "{" after "9:00" to make "...6:00 to 9:00 p.m. EST..." Goman1 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Williams Brian Williams retired and is no longer her co-host, so remove the reference to him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/22/business/media/rachel-maddow-msnbc.html

Rachel is the top news anchor at MSNBC. Her most recent contract changes her position at MSNBC, elevating her profile to top new anchor and shifting her role to high profile news events and limiting her weekly hosting duties. ElleWeeke (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

should a new section be added to the article titled 'controversies' or something similar such as misinformation. If you have a look at the two links below which are the CDCs statements of the effect of the covid 19 vaccine on transmission in comparison to the claim made by Rachel the two greatly contradict each other. would this be appropriate I'm new to the wiki system so some guidance would be appreciated. :)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1475193955704881152 Jonnyhhh (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New podcast series

I attempted to add a sentence about Maddow's new podcast series, entitled Ultra, but was prevented from doing so because this article appears to be blocked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a "ridiculous situation". Some articles on Wikipedia are semi-protected, meaning new or unregistered editors cannot edit. This is usually done with articles that attract a lot of vandalism and edit warring. You have two options. You are strongly encouraged to register an account. It's quick, easy, and free. Read WP:ACCOUNT for details and a link to register. After a few days and a few edits, you'll be able to edit semi-protected articles. Your other option is to suggest your edit here and be sure to include information about a reliable source to support your edit. Then you wait and see if other editors respond here. If editors notice that there are problems with your suggested edit, you discuss it here. Sundayclose (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Masters Oxford

Hi! As far as I can see Maddow does not have an MA from Oxford (as stated in the box) but only a DPhil. 178.197.234.242 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Although she likely received a Masters during her work at Oxford (most doctoral programs do that), it is not in the source cited so I removed it. The source doesn't even say what kind of doctorate she received (DPhil, or PhD, or another one). When I have time I'll try to track that down. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! As Oxford doesn't award PhDs, I think it would have to be a DPhil :). This is not the best source but in this podcast episode she says that she initially enrolled as a Masters student but then switched into the DPhil, without ever finishing (or even really starting) the masters program: https://podcasts.apple.com/nz/podcast/anniversary-special-rachel-maddow/id1081584611?i=1000430085558 178.197.232.173 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Remove extra "was" in Early life section

Last sentence of Early life and education section, "Her thesis was titled "HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons" and was supervised by was Lucia Zedner." Please change "was supervised by was" to "was supervised by". 2600:4040:B278:6000:1DC7:141E:6CE:3D35 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Maddow has written a new book, I would like to add it to the bibliography section:

https://global.penguinrandomhouse.com/announcements/crown-to-publish-rachel-maddows-prequel-an-americans-fight-against-facism/

Maddow, Rachel (2023). Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism. Crown. ISBN 9780593444511. Kalsyrinth (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done CptViraj (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)