Template talk:Pundits

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interesting. Stewart and Colbert aren't pundits, they are simply entertainers. but keep working on it ħumanUser talk:Human 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, although I think what you write would be a difficult proposition to support if we were to discuss it Winking0001.gif --Leotardo (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggest: get rid of the categorization of them, have the template add the category "pundits", and simply use dpl to list a random group of a dozen or so of them. Also, the image says more "screaming moron" than "pundit" to me. But it's a WIP, obviously. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I find pundits to be more opening their mouths voicing their opinions than really thinking things through. That's the hope of the symbolism behind the wanton, open, screaming mouth. The "Mmmm...okay" column is really the only effort to provide a gray area, and I'm unhappy with the categorization names, but I don't want to get rid of them as there is a hierarchy of quality. --Leotardo (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but many pundits aren't "screamers". I like the general idea, but maybe an image evocative of "talking head" would be better. Many of the people listed here never scream, and many are well-informed and useful. The cats are too much "one person's opinion", I think. Just put the template on all the pundits pages and let dpl pick the links randomly. The articles themselves explain what these people are like. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It's my understanding RationalWiki doesn't have a problem with opinion, it's just whether it holds true or not. So I don't understand your Wikipedia-esque objections. If the categories fall flat, people will change them and I welcome it, but your critique is pretty amorphous and doesn't highlight a concern that I can sink my teeth into except that the image is overstated symbolism. --Leotardo (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
So write an article about political pundits. The categories fell flat and I changed them. You are making a template here, not an article. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I also don't think Rivera is a "pundit". Go ahead, though, and add this to all the other people, then we can do the dpl thing to list them? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
How are you defining this term? Because Rivera is certainly a pundit on Fox News. --Leotardo (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of these people need to be "defaultsort"ed. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

the "cats" for the pundits[edit]

It seems to be highly subjective. In other words, you are putting your opinion of each of these people on 27 pages, which is a bit strong to do without discussion.

The version I made, which pulls a random 13 of the article in the category "political pundits" up, is at least not so editorially contestable. However, you may wish to improve the intro to the random list. The image still bothers me. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's start with the hyperbole: where are you getting the 27 page number? Is this what I've inadvertently done, or is that what you are expecting I will do. If it's my opinion, so what? I find many of the articles, categories, and choices for Template:Discrimination to be random and opinion-oriented, so why is an opinion here an issue for you? If the people on the handful of articles I inserted it on object to the insertion (I welcome reverted) or the categories, I expect they will voice their opinions without the need for you to portend problems. Your template changes are dull and lack much creativity, wit or originality. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my interest in this site, because I didn't think it was a bland, politically correct "don't offend anyone" sort of place, and that's the face you paint on it for me, to be frank, particularly as one of the old-timers. --Leotardo (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it's what I did. I integrated this template with the category "political pundits". I'm not trying to "not offend anyone". Perhaps you could write an article on political pundits wherein you express your opinions of various ones. Using a nav template to do it is counterproductive. If you write such an article it would basically be a portal to the cat, and be linked from it. navigation templates usually just list articles, sorry if I bored you. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you addressed much of what I wrote above, and my interactions with you and what I've seen of you recently leave me unimpressed. I'll remove the template in the article I wrote on David Frum and let others do what they want with this template as they see fit, which is easier than picking an edit war over the lame version you created. --Leotardo (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates, especially navigational ones, are intended to improve access to pages on the wiki, not express one editor's random groupings of articles. The template simply gets people to places. What you were writing in it would have been better of as an article. A lead article, linked in the top of the template. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point, underscored by Template:Sex, which includes the not-random grouping of articles Gerbiling, Cunt, NAMBLA, Naked, Clitoris and Love. It's real easy to figure out your standards with what you write above, your critiques, and the existing examples on the site. --Leotardo (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The sex template is random. The war template is not. DiscrimLaw is not. There are some other random ones I forget right now. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The idea of "Discrimination Law" as a template is random (and comical to insiders), and so are the articles chosen for it, and I'm somebody who knows the topic. So one template is random, another is not, and one you clearly don't understand why is random falls in the middle; yet you have an issue with the randomness of my template. I can see that you've really worked out the rationality of your opinions. --Leotardo (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC
When you call it "my template" you miss the point entirely. Also, I repeat, Stewart and Colbert are not pundits. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You're an obtuse fellow, aren't you? Clearly "my" = "the one I created and whose talk page we are on but I guess you're right - I just don't get "it" and "it" is "you". Also, I repeat, you never defined "pundit" and only backtracked when you realized Geraldo Rivera is a pundit on Fox News, which you got wrong. --Leotardo (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And you are just being insulting. We are are not on your talk page, this is public wiki property. I defined pundit at category:political pundits, in case you weren't conscious at the time. As far as GR, I didn't realize he was on Fox, and I yielded. That's what people do. Also also, your pundits2 template is pushing the envelope of a ridiculous way to "win an argument" instead of simply "get things done well", which is what wiki communities struggle to do. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Also also also, you never defined pundit either. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I feel no shame in anything I've written here. I defined pundit by this site's own terms via Category:Political pundits - I've been trying to work by discernible norms; I've reviewed previously existing categories and articles, and worked from there. You seem to think this effort, and the multiple examples I've shown to you from it, matter for naught if they conflict with your own personal thoughts that can't point to any rational consistency on this site as a basis for moving forward. Since that's the case, it's my vision v. yours on the articles and templates I create. When someone besides you steps in and supports you, I'll cheerfully back down. --Leotardo (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Quit the lame wikilawyering and pointy edits (pundits2) and communicate what you are trying to do. That category had no text before I edited it yesterday. What is your definition of a pundit? Wiki editing is not a "battle" it is a conversation. By the way, have you added your new templates to the template list? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Quit the lame, "Stop doing the same thing I'm doing" bit and communicate what you are trying to take issue with. You have an issue in this particular case you haven't articulated very well, especially contrasted with the multiple examples that exist on the site. My definition of "pundit" is "someone professed to be an opinion-leader who analyzes events in the popular media". What's yours? --Leotardo (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Christ, you dumb fuck, I came here to help you make this work well and all you do is revert me and be a prick. Fuck off. Edit the pundit article if you give a shit. And stop being a complete asshole. I repeat, I came here to help. And you have been nothing but rude and clueless. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the exact same sentiments about you. If I have somehow missed some obvious cultural norm or thing here, you've failed to point it out adequately and I would expect your longevity on this site and age bracket would have have taught you at this point in life in how to better explain yourself, your motivations and to introduce people you think ignorant of The Ways as to how it is done. You've failed with all that with me, someone who has only evidenced they are here to help and contribute. Your words above mean little to me since you seem to be kind of ill-suited as any sort of 'guru' or wisdom-provider of how the site works. --Leotardo (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Random list vs fixed list[edit]

The DPL list are much more helpful in that you don't have to update the list every time you want to add someone to it. If you wanted we could do something like {{Pseudosciencenav}} which has a combination of random and fixed if you think there are certain pundits that need highlighting. We can also do random sub-lists using a key, but that can get tricky. - π 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


This template is a disaster. Some of these people are just loudmouths. Others are real "pundits". I think we need two templates. Rachel Maddow, for instance, is sure as hell not represented by that gaping maw. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, without the image, I can live with this. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We ought to create two boxes for political pundits[edit]

The template, especially with the subtitle squakbox and dirty dozen gives a fairly disparaging intro to the users listed. I would say that may make sense with the more pugnacious one's but many speakers there are simply advocates for political change. I propose turning them into two or three categories and templates. Conservative pundits, liberal pundits and political advocates. ShabiDOO 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)