This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Commonweal Institute external link keeps getting removed for "advocacy" while the Mackinac Institute external link remains - also advocacy. The Overton Window is about advocacy. Can someone explain? Dcourtneyjohnson ( talk) 02:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a staffer at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and a former colleague of Joseph P. Overton. Given an upsurge of interest in the “Overton Window” concept I have added some new material, clarifies the explanations, and separated formulations of the idea created by Overton from those of others created after his death. I have tried to avoid including any original research, and of course to keep it NPOV. Jack McHugh ( talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The article describes a graphic representation of a window, a "spectrum on a vertical axis with policies defined as “more free” at the top and “less free” at the bottom, where “free” is defined as less subject to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, it means..."
Seems like the article could really use an image or graphical representation of the concept. Has any ever been done? Someone willing to do a graphic for Wikipedia? I'm adding a {{ reqimage}} tag. N2e ( talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's reminiscent of a better established psychological theory (political psychology) called "affective intelligence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.171.170 ( talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
At 12:40PM on January 6th, 2011, Conservative conspiracy theory radio show host, Alex Jones, read the top two paragraphs of this very Wikipedia entry out loud on his radio show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.16.130 ( talk • contribs)
The main problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that it is not used consistently. For instance, the U.S. government promoted a "conspiracy theory" in the 9/11 Commission Report, namely that members of Al Qaeda conspired to carry out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but media outlets rarely call the U.S. government's version of events a "conspiracy theory" even though that's what it is (and please note I haven't said anything here about the government's theory being wrong, only that it *is* a conspiracy theory -- and Alex Jones doesn't believe in it. So on the subject of 9/11, as on a number of other subjects, he is no more of a "conspiracy theory" advocate than mainstream journalists). On an unrelated note, Alex Jones is probably better characterized as libertarian than conservative. Starchild ( talk) 10:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful for some sort of date when this theory was created. TMLutas ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Putting window in quote-marks doesn't overcome the definition's circularity. Plainly, it's not a real window so what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the mention of Russell Brand's rant about this, which redefined the Overton window as some kind of Noam Chomsky-esque conspiracy, instead of just a description of what the public finds acceptable. This is a fringe view as far as I can see, so unless anyone can find any reliable sources for it (and no, the Trews is not a reliable source for this), it's staying out. I'm not opposed to the view that the media constrain discourse to mollify advertisers, proprietors, journalists or politicians - of course they do - but I don't think that's the same thing as the Overton window. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- greenrd ( talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept is called "Overton Window" at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy site. Shouldn't the Wikipedia article follow the same capitalisation? — Quicksilver T @ 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how characterizing fringe theory as fringe can be NPOV.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree the term "fringe" seems pejorative. I think "not widely known" would be fairer and less leading. Starchild ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
There are no academic sources for this concept (I've checked). However, it has been adopted by media pundits and commentators from all across the political spectrum, but the right-wing and the libertarians seem to be most fond of the phrase -- which isn't surprising considering the originator. It is not found in any political theory textbook I could locate, for example. jps ( talk) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Overton window →
Overton Window – The term is capitalized properly with both words as it is the proper name of the idea according to the sources in the article and basically everywhere one looks outside of Wikipedia. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
jps (
talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I just want to note that the most important sentence of this article--the sentence that claims to define the "Overton Window"--is complete gibberish: "who in his description of his eponymous window claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within it, rather than on politicians' individual preferences." The proliferation of unclear pronouns ("it...it") leaves me with no sense of what the OW actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiculalinguae ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In the section on "Historical precedents," do we have a WP:RS to state that Hallin, Trollope, Frederick Douglass, and Christopher Buckley are related to the Overton window? Does Overton use them as examples? If not, the examples are merely one Wikipedia editor's observation, and WP:Original research, and must be removed. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The intro strongly ties Joshua Treviño's "degrees of acceptance" with the Overton Window. It presents Treviño's degrees as authoritative in reference to the Overton Window, and in my view, as inseparable from the Overton Window: see the image that shows the degrees of acceptance alongside the graphical depiction of the Window. I think this is true even given the caption beneath the image.
Is Treviño noteworthy enough, and considered an established expert in this subject, such that his degrees of acceptance is appropriate for such prominent placement at the top of the article? I don't believe so. Perhaps Treviño's thoughts could be demoted to a section, as one person's suggested labels for various points along the "More freedom ... Less freedom" line.
Best, 69.143.175.242 ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
user:Ymblanter, Vox (website) looks like a WP:RS. What's your problem with it? -- Nbauman ( talk)
How does it change over time? Benjamin ( talk) 06:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
13:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the "accepted" definition is of the Overton Window, the most common use of it is seen online by the Alt-Right as a strategic component of "Meme Warfare". Meaning, I think the Article would be improved if some mention of these connections were made. Tym Whittier ( talk) 23:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This credibility of this article would be significantly improved by removing the Alt-Right reference or including a Radical-Left example. As this article addresses the Overton Window in politics, we have copious examples of left politicians engaged in strategic meme warfare to left-shift the window; including media support to silence those opposed. In fact, the evolution of the media into a click-for-cash industry has led to a sort of every-man cheap propaganda engine to be exploited for Overton Window shifting social influence. Frankly, right-leaning principles are generally intended to secure the window in place; while left-leaning principles are aimed at change, "progress" and transformation that often require profound shifts. Ironically, the use of the Alt-Right example appears to be a left attempt at Overton window shifting. -- Chesterguy69 ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
There are similar concepts referring to the "limits of acceptance" in the media (which have become more and more powerful to frame the climate of politics). Of course "PC-ness" is vaguely similar, but there are more clearly defined words too. In 2013, Swedish political analyst Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson coined the word åsiktskorridoren ("the alley/corridor of /accepted/ opinions" and defined it as "the spectrum of opinions within which you can speak and write in public without soon incurring a psychiatric diagnose from some other participants". He was aiming to describe the narrow margins of acceptability and the risks of public ostracism in Swedish media (and by extension, the stagnation of political debate). Of course the term became controversial at once, with many people in the public media vehemently denying that such a thing existed. :)
Article at Swedish WP: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85siktskorridor
Just as with the Overton window, this kind of "alley" no doubt exists in many countries, more or less obviously - the difference is in where the limits are, from one country to another (and Ekengren also stressed that some of the demarcations change over time, but often without anyone openly admitting that the change happened). 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The Far Right Is Growing Stronger—and Has a Plan for 2024 "' Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This article would be greatly improved by the addition of dates; one gets no idea -- even to the decade -- of when these ideas were developed. Does Overton anticipate Foucault's notion of the epistème or does he follow in its wake? 2603:8000:FC03:140C:7523:7822:879:3DA ( talk) 15:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Commonweal Institute external link keeps getting removed for "advocacy" while the Mackinac Institute external link remains - also advocacy. The Overton Window is about advocacy. Can someone explain? Dcourtneyjohnson ( talk) 02:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a staffer at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, and a former colleague of Joseph P. Overton. Given an upsurge of interest in the “Overton Window” concept I have added some new material, clarifies the explanations, and separated formulations of the idea created by Overton from those of others created after his death. I have tried to avoid including any original research, and of course to keep it NPOV. Jack McHugh ( talk) 17:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The article describes a graphic representation of a window, a "spectrum on a vertical axis with policies defined as “more free” at the top and “less free” at the bottom, where “free” is defined as less subject to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, it means..."
Seems like the article could really use an image or graphical representation of the concept. Has any ever been done? Someone willing to do a graphic for Wikipedia? I'm adding a {{ reqimage}} tag. N2e ( talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's reminiscent of a better established psychological theory (political psychology) called "affective intelligence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.171.170 ( talk) 04:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
At 12:40PM on January 6th, 2011, Conservative conspiracy theory radio show host, Alex Jones, read the top two paragraphs of this very Wikipedia entry out loud on his radio show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.16.130 ( talk • contribs)
The main problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that it is not used consistently. For instance, the U.S. government promoted a "conspiracy theory" in the 9/11 Commission Report, namely that members of Al Qaeda conspired to carry out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but media outlets rarely call the U.S. government's version of events a "conspiracy theory" even though that's what it is (and please note I haven't said anything here about the government's theory being wrong, only that it *is* a conspiracy theory -- and Alex Jones doesn't believe in it. So on the subject of 9/11, as on a number of other subjects, he is no more of a "conspiracy theory" advocate than mainstream journalists). On an unrelated note, Alex Jones is probably better characterized as libertarian than conservative. Starchild ( talk) 10:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful for some sort of date when this theory was created. TMLutas ( talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Putting window in quote-marks doesn't overcome the definition's circularity. Plainly, it's not a real window so what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed the mention of Russell Brand's rant about this, which redefined the Overton window as some kind of Noam Chomsky-esque conspiracy, instead of just a description of what the public finds acceptable. This is a fringe view as far as I can see, so unless anyone can find any reliable sources for it (and no, the Trews is not a reliable source for this), it's staying out. I'm not opposed to the view that the media constrain discourse to mollify advertisers, proprietors, journalists or politicians - of course they do - but I don't think that's the same thing as the Overton window. Correct me if I'm wrong.-- greenrd ( talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The concept is called "Overton Window" at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy site. Shouldn't the Wikipedia article follow the same capitalisation? — Quicksilver T @ 19:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how characterizing fringe theory as fringe can be NPOV.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree the term "fringe" seems pejorative. I think "not widely known" would be fairer and less leading. Starchild ( talk) 10:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
There are no academic sources for this concept (I've checked). However, it has been adopted by media pundits and commentators from all across the political spectrum, but the right-wing and the libertarians seem to be most fond of the phrase -- which isn't surprising considering the originator. It is not found in any political theory textbook I could locate, for example. jps ( talk) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 17:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Overton window →
Overton Window – The term is capitalized properly with both words as it is the proper name of the idea according to the sources in the article and basically everywhere one looks outside of Wikipedia. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 02:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
jps (
talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I just want to note that the most important sentence of this article--the sentence that claims to define the "Overton Window"--is complete gibberish: "who in his description of his eponymous window claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within it, rather than on politicians' individual preferences." The proliferation of unclear pronouns ("it...it") leaves me with no sense of what the OW actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiculalinguae ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In the section on "Historical precedents," do we have a WP:RS to state that Hallin, Trollope, Frederick Douglass, and Christopher Buckley are related to the Overton window? Does Overton use them as examples? If not, the examples are merely one Wikipedia editor's observation, and WP:Original research, and must be removed. -- Nbauman ( talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The intro strongly ties Joshua Treviño's "degrees of acceptance" with the Overton Window. It presents Treviño's degrees as authoritative in reference to the Overton Window, and in my view, as inseparable from the Overton Window: see the image that shows the degrees of acceptance alongside the graphical depiction of the Window. I think this is true even given the caption beneath the image.
Is Treviño noteworthy enough, and considered an established expert in this subject, such that his degrees of acceptance is appropriate for such prominent placement at the top of the article? I don't believe so. Perhaps Treviño's thoughts could be demoted to a section, as one person's suggested labels for various points along the "More freedom ... Less freedom" line.
Best, 69.143.175.242 ( talk) 18:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
user:Ymblanter, Vox (website) looks like a WP:RS. What's your problem with it? -- Nbauman ( talk)
How does it change over time? Benjamin ( talk) 06:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
13:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in this AfD discussion about whether to delete Intellectual Dark Web. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the "accepted" definition is of the Overton Window, the most common use of it is seen online by the Alt-Right as a strategic component of "Meme Warfare". Meaning, I think the Article would be improved if some mention of these connections were made. Tym Whittier ( talk) 23:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This credibility of this article would be significantly improved by removing the Alt-Right reference or including a Radical-Left example. As this article addresses the Overton Window in politics, we have copious examples of left politicians engaged in strategic meme warfare to left-shift the window; including media support to silence those opposed. In fact, the evolution of the media into a click-for-cash industry has led to a sort of every-man cheap propaganda engine to be exploited for Overton Window shifting social influence. Frankly, right-leaning principles are generally intended to secure the window in place; while left-leaning principles are aimed at change, "progress" and transformation that often require profound shifts. Ironically, the use of the Alt-Right example appears to be a left attempt at Overton window shifting. -- Chesterguy69 ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
There are similar concepts referring to the "limits of acceptance" in the media (which have become more and more powerful to frame the climate of politics). Of course "PC-ness" is vaguely similar, but there are more clearly defined words too. In 2013, Swedish political analyst Henrik Ekengren Oscarsson coined the word åsiktskorridoren ("the alley/corridor of /accepted/ opinions" and defined it as "the spectrum of opinions within which you can speak and write in public without soon incurring a psychiatric diagnose from some other participants". He was aiming to describe the narrow margins of acceptability and the risks of public ostracism in Swedish media (and by extension, the stagnation of political debate). Of course the term became controversial at once, with many people in the public media vehemently denying that such a thing existed. :)
Article at Swedish WP: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85siktskorridor
Just as with the Overton window, this kind of "alley" no doubt exists in many countries, more or less obviously - the difference is in where the limits are, from one country to another (and Ekengren also stressed that some of the demarcations change over time, but often without anyone openly admitting that the change happened). 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The Far Right Is Growing Stronger—and Has a Plan for 2024 "' Although the alt right collapsed, its goal of shifting the “Overton window”—the spectrum of what is considered legitimate political discourse—succeeded. Today, white supremacist, anti-LGBTQ+, and even antisemitic conspiracy theories have become so prevalent that what was taboo even in 2018 is accepted by many as not only normal but acceptable." Doug Weller talk 15:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This article would be greatly improved by the addition of dates; one gets no idea -- even to the decade -- of when these ideas were developed. Does Overton anticipate Foucault's notion of the epistème or does he follow in its wake? 2603:8000:FC03:140C:7523:7822:879:3DA ( talk) 15:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)