There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Pundit
The "notable" sections subheaders make no sense. ħuman 01:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Left/right of reasonable[edit]
What does the section "Left/right of reasonable" refer to? Are they all "unreasonably" leftwing or rightwing? If so, what is meant by "reasonable?" Blue (pester) 05:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I initially had an idea that it was parodies of pundits until I saw several names who I knew were not parodies of media, such as the Rachael Maddow. So far, it just seems to mean "pundits we agree with a reasonable amount of time and two parodies of pundits and excesses of newscasters". Crow7878 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
What exactly does it mean to be a "wingnut in waiting"?[edit]
And how would Bill Kristol be 'dubious', exactly? Rabbitxhampster (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Judging from the list, less popular, and occasionally reasonable, but those are just WAGs. Тytalk 00:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- Michael Savage and Hal Turner don't really have a reputation for being of the occasionally reasonable sort. Although they are less popular. They're actually considered some of the craziest of the wingnuts. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
John Oliver should undoubtedly be either "angry" or "wingnut"[edit]
This article is biased as hell. Whoever made this sincerely thinks that John Oliver presents a balanced view? — Unsigned, by: 212.219.117.144 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
- Regarding bias, please get aquainted with what we're actually about. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Question[edit]
The term is derived from Sanskrit - is this an example of cultural appropriation? Anna Livia (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Just a dumb list[edit]
What is gained from this list that isn't already covered by a category? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's an awful listicle. How about redirecting it to the category? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really a fan of having category redirects in the mainspace. If anyone wants to turn this into an actual article, it would be appreciated. Plutocow (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The old opening section before the list is at least a start in that direction. Future steps should involve including the roles and impacts that pundits can have on politics, ecology, science, etc. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just delete this dumb list. A section just for "Angry" pundits, wow, how useful. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 02:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I deleted the list then. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 01:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just delete this dumb list. A section just for "Angry" pundits, wow, how useful. --It's-a me,
- The old opening section before the list is at least a start in that direction. Future steps should involve including the roles and impacts that pundits can have on politics, ecology, science, etc. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not really a fan of having category redirects in the mainspace. If anyone wants to turn this into an actual article, it would be appreciated. Plutocow (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)