Talk:The Five

So on the talk page for The Gateway Pundit I objected to the basic premise of the article, saying: "I don't know about this... it seems like just another "here's a group whose political view we dislike" article, which will quickly be forgotten or deprecated." I also pointed out that "[i]t's already becoming a listicle, the laziest possible article that virtually no one will read. Lists are easy to write, hard to parse, and generally a bad way to do business."

I feel identically about this page. I'm pretty loose with inclusion, but this seems like another in a string of articles that are just motivated by one political point of view, rather than anything having to do with our goals here on RW.

Even if these articles shouldn't be deleted, and could be improved and turned on-mission, it would be great if ClothCoat would - at a minimum - stop making them like this or at least answer my concerns.--^talk 12:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto to inverse stopped clock. These two that are about actual shows/websites aren't beyond saving (these are things, that actually exist, and can be described in a matter-of-fact way), but I'd question the missionality or even the basic point of having them on RW. Certainly just lists of things aren't worth it. It's a TV Tropes approach, which is fine for that but I'm not sure is entirely right for RW. ^pathetic 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Given how prejudice is by definition irrational, it would seem to me that an article on a prejudicial television show does not deviate too far from RW's mission. But I do see your point about how it seems we just go after people with right-wing political beliefs these days. Rand0 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Their global warming denialists and promote myths such as feminism causing paedophilia among women, how is this not part of our mission? ClothCoat (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I go after the liberal as well. If I go after the right-wing more in this article it's because it's a right-wing show. It's not my/our fault they've become radicalized in recent years. As the New Left article shows these guys are basically the right-wing version of the New Left, so the right-wing in America is just more prone to promoting wackiness. I was considering making a page for the stalinst party in Russia though, to "balance" it out.ClothCoat (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You are giving the idiots on this show a huge compliment by comparing them to the New Left. Don't do that please. Rand0 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol ok sorry. I'm just saying, these people think algebra worksheets are a liberal conspiracy. This article belongs here. Instead of complaining people could just edit it, I've already done most of the work by getting the sources. this whole "oh my god we're so mean to the right already" reeks of the balance fallacy, and it's not our fault the political right in America has gone off the rails. We create the Category Right of Reason just so people would know that we don't think they're ALL bad, and we defend capitalism. This is hardly a far-left wiki. ClothCoat (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no one here who has said that the problem is just that we're criticizing conservatives and liberals unequally. I certainly didn't say that. Instead, the issues are that (1) they're poorly-written listicles, with one list of BAD PEOPLE and one list of BAD STATEMENTS, which is hard to read and not helpful to anything, and (2) they're not on-mission. It's true that some people on these shows have said some things that are woo, and maybe even regular guests say a lot of nonsense. However, the shows themselves are not about woo or anything else on-mission. If you watch an episode, 99% of what's said will not be remotely about anything mission-ey.

The end result is that we have an article about a conservative news show that is mostly criticized for just being conservative, and the evidence about why that's bad are some aggregated statements plucked from among a wide variety of them.

If some of these people are terrible, then make an article about them. Some of them have articles already. Criticize their support of specific woo. This article, which will be deprecated almost next week and which could only conceivably work as an ammunition list ("Oh yeah, well here are some of the things conservatives have said on The Five...") is not going to inform anyone of anything useful.--^talk 19:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok then I guess we could just make a list of the people (as much as a pain as that's going to be) but I still feel like we should have something of an article on this show. For instance, pretty much ALL of the hosts thought that algebra was a liberal plot, so that would apply to the show more than any individual. There's nothing conservative about attacking algebra or promoting woo. Even if the show isn't officially devote to woo that's unofficially a good chunk of what they do. (I watch the show so I see it all the time). I don't have a problem with you taking out the parts you don't like or edit it in a non-list way, of course. ClothCoat (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Mission goals

I still think this page should stay. The show is fairly authoritarian (hostility to Muslims, wanting Gitmo inmates to kill themselves, etc.), promotes anti-feminist crankery, and a part of the media. Plus the global warming denialism and conspiracy theories. That sounds like it's on mission for now. ClothCoat (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 Rand0 (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)