Talk:Bloviation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bloviation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

English Language Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.English LanguageWikipedia:WikiProject English LanguageTemplate:WikiProject English LanguageEnglish Language articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notable bloviators

Under "notable bloviators" this article is missing every other American politician.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.28 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

I find the section questionable, even with references. It's a matter of opinion whether someone is a "bloviator" or not, and the list as it stands now appears to be a screed against persons with whom the contributor personally finds fault. The entire section should be removed, as it does nothing to illustrate the point beyond what is already written above regarding Warren G. Harding. It may also be a violation of WP:BLP: Just because someone wrote it in a publication doesn't necessarily mean that it is true, and it could even be libelous. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it after repeated deletion by a logged-out editor. These aren't vague claims, they're specific cites from reasonable sources, with the term used directly. This is our standard for notable content, per WP:V. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy,

Although the individuals populated in the list have been cited, I think this clearly violates the guidelines in the reliable sources article you referred me to. Specifically, the "Statements of Opinion" section describes an exception where sources should "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source."

I believe unless you can demonstrate where the "subjects" in that section have declared themselves "notable bloviators", the entire paragraph and their citations are completely invalid. More importantly, when one edits an article in wikipedia, there is a reminder that insists on bipartisanship and objectivity. This section is practically equivalent to having a section in the "idiot" article entitled "notable idiots", complete with of a list of individuals who have been cited to be idiots. ----the unamed user

Donald Trump

George Will called Donald Trump a "bloviating ignoramus" a couple months ago and it got a lot of media attention. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/george-will-calls-donald-trump-a-bloviating-ignoramus-on-this-week/) - I'm not sure it this warrants inclusion here, but I'll put it at the talk page so it's not forgotten in the event that this someday becomes more than just news. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLOG is the issue. Is George Will considered a sufficiently robust source that even his blog is a reliable source? If so (or you have another source), then go for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example?

It would be good to have an example of Harding's bloviation. What would be a good source? His inaugural address? --Macrakis (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains two recorded speeches as media files in the lead. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they're rather noisy and anyway I'd prefer text... --Macrakis (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]