Talk:RealClearPolitics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

List of Organizations describing RCP

Here is a list of organizations describing RCP. I simply took the first instance I could find of each unique mention from each organization.

• Listed as nonpartisan or independent.

1. "A new Newsweek poll shows Democrat Barack Obama with a 15-point lead over Republican John Mccain. But other polls show a much tighter race. Michele Norris talks with John McIntyre of the independent political Web site Real Clear Politics about the most recent polling data in the presidential contest." NPR
2. "Late on Tuesday, Obama had amassed 1155 pledged delegates, and Clinton had totalled 1013, according to independent website Real Clear Politics." The Australian
3. "A running tally by independent pollsters Real Clear Politics.." The Herald Sun (Australia)
4. "according to the independent Real Clear Politics website." The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
5. "according to the nonpartisan Real Clear Politics." Wall Street Journal
6. "Real Clear Politics" (www.realclearpolitics.com), a contributor to Yahoo's Political Dashboard, also is a leading source of independent political coverage online. The Star Tribune
7. "According to an average of statewide polls by the independent politics Web site Real Clear Politics" St. Petersburg Times
8. "Site-ului independent specializat Real Clear Politics anunţă o prezenţă record la vot, 66% dintre americanii cu drept de vot exprimându-şi opţiunea." Evenimentul zilei (Foriegn Language)
9. "An average of several recent Iowa polls on the Republican side by independent political website Real Clear Politics" Turkish Press
10. "A compilation of polls by Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan group" Los Angeles Times\
11. "Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan Internet Web site." Chattanooga Times Free Press
12. "compiled by Real Clear Politics, a non-partisan group" Chicago Tribune PPV
13. "according to an average of recent polls by the nonpartisan Real Clear Politics." Daily Contributor
14. "nonpartisan Real Clear Politics website. " Arizona Daily Star

• Listed as being mostly balanced or Nonpartisan with a Conservative Blog/Commentary

1. "Real Clear Politics has a blog that's right of center. The main product is pretty balanced. We've done story counts" Mediaweek
2. "Real Clear Politics, which provides a daily and non-partisan compendium of articles printed in leading newspapers and magazines, along with a comprehensive list of polling results, talk show transcripts, links and its own RCP blog, which, like the entrepreneurs who run the site, John McIntyre and Tom Bevan, tilts conservative." New York Press

• Note - TIME has refers to them as Non-partisan, but also mentioned the right-leaning blog/commentary one time.

1. "Obama had been gaining in the polls in Pennsylvania. He started March down more than 20 points but in recent days had whittled down Clinton's lead to just 7.3%, according to an average of Pennsylvania polls by the non-partisan website Real Clear Politics" Time
2. "RealClearPolitics.com scores points for its in-depth, right-leaning commentary section, and its comprehensive list of the day's major op-eds is extremely convenient and useful. TIME

• Listed as being Conservative

1. "Scorn for the report is particularly prevalent among supporters of President Bush and the war effort. At the conservative political site Real Clear Politics, Robert Trascinski writes: " Seattle Times
2. "Real Clear Politics, a clearinghouse for political news that is apparently quite popular with readers of a more conservative bent than the typical Salonista" Salon
3. "Tom Bevan, who runs the popular right-of-center Real Clear Politics Web site realclearpolitics.com " Newsday PPV
4. " RealClearPolitics.com: Tom Bevan, 34, started this conservative-leaning Web site with a college friend in 2000 and added a blog in 2002. USA Today

As you can see there are far more organizations that refer to them as nonpartisan or independent. This is also not counting the mostly uncountable number that make no specific disctinction. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pay attention, because you're becoming irritating. The words independent and nonpartisan refer to the fact that the site is not run by a political party, or a lobby, or a partisan think-tank. It says nothing about the political bias of the site. You really to stop and think about this before continuing to mangle the lede with this nonsense. ► RATEL ◄ 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ME? I am NOT the one trying to label the organization. Why don't you step back and think about that? Arzel (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is routine to state that a newspaper, or website, etc, has a political bias. You can see that on most pages dealing with entities like this on wikipedia. Stating that a site is nonpartisan/independent (ie is not run by a political party) is never done. I ask you to self-revert now please. If you do not, another editor will do it for you. ► RATEL ◄ 04:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is one thing to state an opinion of political bias. It is a completely different thing to state a fact of bias. You have no basis to remove this well-sourced information given your previous stance. Arzel (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we are having to go through this tired argument again. No, it is not a POV violation to claim that a conservative group is conservative! How much simpler do we have to make this? Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just because you claim them to be does not make it so and screaming(!) it doesn't make it even more so. Why do you ignore the many more reliable sources that claim them to be neutral or non-partisan. Why do you wish to turn WP into a partisan battle-ground? Arzel (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As a socialist your parties look identical to me. I am not partisan in the slightest. Republican = capitalist scum. Democrat = capitalist scum with slightly more erudite rhetoric. I am however quite a bit beyond left-leaning; see non-partisan and holding to a wing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is why a true independent appears like a right-wing wacko compared to your ideology. FYI, you would fit in quite well with the Progressive wing of the Democratic party. Arzel (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{Undent}Nice to see you entirely missed my point. My point was that one could be non-partisan and still subscribe to a "wing" - a distinction you seem not to get. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Added to NPOV message board. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If people are going to require a label then all sources identifying RCP as something must be recognized with their references. We can't just pick some references which present one picture. In general this is still a bad solution since we are still using OPINION to define a group. It appears that WP is taking an ideological point of view and violating NPOV. Arzel (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I try to AGF but seriously read WP:TEND as this is getting very tiresome. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not try to read up on WP:NPOV. I see only your personal bias if you refuse to include addtional sourcing to present ALL sides equal to their weight in available reliable sources. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of bias if they disagree with you. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, when an editor makes a statement like this No, it is not a POV violation to claim that a conservative group is conservative! How much simpler do we have to make this? I think it is pretty hard to not see their bias. Arzel (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with saying a conservative group is conservative if it is in fact conservative? You see bias in everyone whenever they disagree with you. Give it a rest and discuss the issues. Gamaliel (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAP Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The "independent" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean) and "conservative" should certainly be discussed in the article if they are noteworthy in and of themselves. At the moment they are the DEFINING facts of the notability of the site. The thing is a news aggregator.

I don't see any bias. I see poor choice of wording in the lead. It is too hypey (cut some), too povish (cut and restored, now flagged).

I don't see why WP readers need to know that one of the founders loves news (duh, he has built a business around it, he better) in the lead.

The founders certainly aren't a defining part of the notability of the site, so not needed in sentence one.- Sinneed 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the conservative bits are pretty well hammered home in the philosophy, why does it not have more coverage in the lead?

The "independent" bit isn't obvious to me in the body, why does it belong in the lead at all? Does it need to be added to the body?- Sinneed 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "independent" is discussed above. Why don't you read the long discussion that has already taken place on this issue before tagging and disputing? Please review all discussion of this point above and in archives (if present) before continuing this discussion, because I doubt you are bring any new perspective to the issue. ► RATEL ◄ 06:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of "independent" isn't discussed in the article, and this is about content... remember... the encyclopedia? wp:talk And because it needed to be removed from sentence one, wp:MOS, wp:lead and was restored. wp:ROLLBACK And no, thank you, and please give a read to wp:CIVIL and wp:talk.- Sinneed 06:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think independent can go, since it's obviously the site is not sponsored by a political party or interest group. But the characterisation of the site as conservative-leaning is well sourced and btw many more sources exist for that. It's merely an adjective and does not need text in the body for inclusion in the lede, but of course you could always start a section on its political leanings if you wish. ► RATEL ◄ 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I must correct myself, there is also text supporting the lede's "conservative" descriptor in the article, from the mouth of the site's owners. ► RATEL ◄ 08:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please explain why you added source to "Republican-leaning" to the lead when you have refused to add a source to the lead for "Non-partisan" or "Independent". Seems like a little undue weight to me. Arzel (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to try to source descriptors that I did not insert. The wp:BURDEN of sourcing remains with those who add data. Moreover, it's superfluous to say that the site is independent (ie not owned or funded by a party), since if we added that here, we'd have to add it to every page about a political website, and that's not done, since they are all independent. Of course, a cynic would ask just how independent realclearpolitics can be when it's owned by Steve Forbes, McCain's adviser in the last election. ► RATEL ◄ 21:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So now you are saying it is not independent or non-partisan because it is owned by Steve Forbes? By such logic there are no truly independent or non-partisan thinkers in the world. Regardless, the source added doesn't say "conservative-leaning" it says "Republican-leaning". Which non implies that the site IS partisan. However, there are far more sources that specifically state RCP to be non-partisan. This is giving Undue Weight to this point of view which is clearly not-represented by the majority of sources available. You added the source, and I am not even sure how you found it. It is from 2006, and my searching for those words doesn't even bring it up. It seems that you are trying to add additional weight to your belief regarding RCP. Now, please tell me how it is fine to add a now partisan source when you have fought very hard to keep any reference to RCP being called "non-partisan". Arzel (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) This has been argued over again and again and it's got to the point where you'd benefit from a read of wp:DEADHORSE and wp:letitgo. especially the latter. ► RATEL ◄ 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be dead when you continue to shoot it. Independent has now been removed, even though the NPOV message board didn't have a problem with that. It is well sourced, you cannot deny. And you have now added a source which doesn't back up the statement in the lead. Unless you concede that conservative-leaning = republican-leaning, which by proxy indicates partisanship. Per your own logic if you are going to use a source that indicates a party lean it cannot be non-partisan. Arzel (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Arzel, one has nothing to do with the other. There are plenty of groups, think tanks and organizations that proudly proclaim their work as 'non-partisan' and 'independent', on all sides of the political spectrum. Those words mean that they are not controlled by any particular Party, not that they have no political ideology or do not favor on Party over the other. Do you really no understand that point? DD2K (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

McIntyre Denies any conservative leanings

After a little searching while working on the 538 article I cam across this atricle in which McIntyre specifically denies any conservative leanings.

Mr. Silver has also criticized fellow aggregators, most notably accusing RealClearPolitics.com of rigging its averages to favor Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, and other Republicans this month.

He later backed away from that claim and said the two sites had a friendly rivalry and grudging respect for each other.

Mr. McIntyre denied that his site had conservative leanings.

“We’re running a business,” Mr. McIntyre said. “We have no interest in screwing around with that for partisan purposes.”

How should McIntyre's respone be included in the lead since the lead specifically contradicts their statements. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously he is responding to a charge of rigging the pure data, the polling data, which admittedly would be a very stupid thing for them to do. But nobody seriously contends that the comment on the site is anything but right-leaning.

Just a note that Arsel has removed this citation from the lede (it has the sentence "John McIntyre, pollster for the Republican-leaning website RealClearPolitics.com". ► RATEL ◄ 15:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

That source is from 2006, USA Today's other source used in the lead is from 2008, stick with the most current sourcing. Regardless of what you or I think about their commentary (ie blog) the lead gives the intrepretation that the whole site is conservative-leaning since it makes no explicit statement to the contrary. Don't forget that this is a legal business, and the lead makes a statement of fact when it is really opinion. This should be made explicit. Change it from a statement of fact to a statement of opinion. Arzel (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect on the dates. The source you removed is from 2006, true enough, but the source you claim is 'most current' is not. It's from 2003, not 2008. One has to question the reason you are fighting so hard to prevent Wikipedia from identifying a conservative website as being a conservative website. It doesn't make the accusations of skewing the polling data in the lede. It's like some liberal fighting to prevent the Daily Kos from being identified as a liberal blog just because they use an independent, unbiased polling firm(Research 2000). It doesn't make sense. DD2K (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule about using the most recent sourcing, so your removal of the source is questionable. I'm happy with the current phrasing. If we start trying to say one part is conservative and the other is not, it starts looking clumsy. But why not put your alternate phrasing of the lede sentence here for consideration? ► RATEL ◄ 01:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate using the most recent information. I cannot fathom any reason to use old information with regard to the same information, much less when the two sources contradict each other. I will work on a lead sentence that doesn't make a statement of fact. Arzel (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guess I was wrong about the dates. That does not change the fact that the source does not state "conservative-leaning" it states "Republican-Leaning" ergo, Partisan. Both Ratel and DD2K have made a point about the difference between independent and conservative. Republican-leaning would imply the opposite of nonpartisan by definition. This is obviously contradictory since there are numerous sources stating nonpartisan with one source claiming republican-leaning. You both are pushing a point of view. Republican and Conservative are not all-inclusive. A Republican is not neccessarily Conservative and neither are Conservatives neccessarily Republican. That source in undue weight and original research. Arzel (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've rejigged the lede to try to stop these endless discussions. ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably not perfect for anyone of us involved, so it is probably a good middle ground. I appreciate the changes. I think we can apply the same standard to 538.com. I don't know of any citations that specifically state as such, but I would consider his polling aggregation to be nonpartisan as well. Arzel (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say the wording is just about 'perfect' in both articles. It let's readers know of a potential bias in the creators blog, while making no accusations of their data analysis. DD2K (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Message Board

I posted this at the NPOV Message Board with my concerns and to hopefully get some other perspectives. link Arzel (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the page for five days following a request on RfPP. There seems to be a lot of reverting by single-issue and/or infrequently used accounts: most recently Operasinger34 and Kadams810. One recent edit from Ubiq, and back in March/April, Samuelchi and Cnbaldis. On the other side, reverting by 216.73.250.230, 24.199.65.218, and 208.120.198.145.

Could whoever the IPs are, please log in in future? If the other accounts continue to revert, you risk being blocked. Please discuss your differences on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops...sorry, the unsigned IP addresses were my edits. Probably shouldn't edit from work anyway! :P Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The version that's locked is not a consensus version. So to bring the back and forth to an end for now, I propose that after the sentence ending with "spectrum," we add the following:

When discussing the philosophy behind the site, co-founder Tom Bevan said: "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."

If you insist on including reference to the 2003 quote in the intro, we should at least include the rest of it. This will help to paint a more complete and accurate picture of the goals of the site.Kadams810 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the obvious and suspicious nature of all the self-supporting single-purpose accounts that descend upon this article, I think it's fair to state that consensus is (at best) ambiguous. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a compelling argument for why we shouldn't create a more balanced opening section. Also, I'm not sure why people who are new to editing on wikipedia should be punished. As requested, I've been posting on the talk page when I make edits. Still, the admins froze a version of the page with a disputed intro section. All I'm asking is that we provide a bit more context in the opening section for now. I'm not sure why anyone would object to the edit I suggested above.Kadams810 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That is covered by the second half of the very sentence to which you refer: "while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum." With regards to the The Wrong Version, you're not being "punished". You've shown quite a willingness to edit war, and I find myself unconvinced that everything is on the up-and-up. Your suggestion is unnecessary -- the information is already present. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a stable version of the page that addressed the charge that the site is conservative-leaning without being excessive, but it was changed for obvious political reasons. Can someone please explain the opposition to this version of the intro paragraph?

RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan[2][3][4] political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. Some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning,[5] but the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum. The blog aggregates columns and news stories as well as election related transcripts[6] and videos.[7] The site also carries the most recent poll data,[8] and compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race.

The people editing the page on the other side are attempting to give the impression that it is a conservative site in the intro. No one is suggesting completely removing the reference to the 2003 quote. It's already included lower down in the article. But, there's no need to address conservative bias multiple times in the intro. It's excessive and suggests that the site is biased. Simply mentioning that there are accusations of conservative bias and countering that by pointing out that the site runs articles from both sides of the political spectrum is sufficient. Again, what's wrong with the previous stable version? Kadams810 (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please speak about content and not try to assume the motives of other editors. Second, whether you believe the previous version was "stable", a glance at the article history shows a pattern of single-purpose accounts unduly influencing the direction of the article, so I don't think that history is any precedent here. Thirdly, the stated purpose for founding the site is significant to its history and existence -- the intro section, per policy, "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article" and should include all significant information. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadams, the previous version suggests that the site is unbiassed. The way I read it, it seems to be saying "some say it's biassed, but that's not true". It is not Wikipedia's job to make such a call. More neutral wording would be to say something to the effect of "The site's founders acknowledge that they themselves are conservative, but insist their column selection reflects a wide spectrum of opinions while the site's critics disagree." The important points that must be included for balance (in no particular order) are the following: 1) Some critics have claimed bias 2) The site's founders are conservative 3) The site's founders say they present a diversity of opinions. However you want to get those three points across is okay with me as long as it's clear and sourced. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nathan: Fair enough. I propose this:

"The site's founders are self-described conservatives, and some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning. However, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum, and co-founder John McIntyre says that 'ideological diversity' is a goal of the site."

That final quote is sourced later in the article. I see the page has been unlocked, but I want to avoid starting an edit war again, so I'll post here until we get a consensus. Thanks.Kadams810 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that rendering as long as each clause is appropriately sourced, and as long as the full quotations are included in the body. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. The change has been made. Thanks, Nathan. Kadams810 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Anytime. :) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted -- I can't support an edit that removes the basic information about why the organization was founded. Origins & philosophy are clearly significant and appropriate in the introduction, as evidenced by the dozens of established editors' opinions over several years. Please seek (full) consensus before instituting changes. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be your history (see MMfA). Arzel (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this: "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are fed up with what they perceive as anti-christian and anti-conservative media bias. Because of this, some critics have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning. However, the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum, and co-founder John McIntyre says that 'ideological diversity' is a goal of the site." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems needlessly complex -- what are we attempting to "fix"/add beyond what's already there? Just the "ideological diversity" goal statement? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you're taking the quote about "anti-christian, anti-conservative" bias out of context. It's one of the founders' opinions, not the reason they founded the site. For that, see the "origin" section. Also, the "ideological diversity" quote has to do with the philosophy behind the site, which you say is important. So, I'm not sure why you're not OK with that being in there. I think the way we had it prior to your last change is balanced and accurate.Kadams810 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos is right, the concern over anti-conservative, anti-christian bias is no less important to RCP's founders' philosophy than the concern for idiological diversity--unless I'm missing something, the context doesn't offer any reason we should think one of these concerns is more important than the other. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, there's no evidence that the statement about bias has anything to do with the motivation behind the site. Nowhere do the founders say they founded the site to combat perceived bias in the media. They do, however, say one of their goals with the site is 'ideological diversity.' And, Nathan, you said that including the fact that the founders say they're unbiased is important in the intro. That's why I included it. Again, the concern over bias is an opinion that should be in the article, but has no place in the introduction since we have nothing that tells us that it was the reason or even a reason they started the site. The stated motivation for the founding of the site, as I mentioned, is in the 'origin' section.Kadams810 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're just trying to wordsmith at this point. The source material, in a paragraph in which the founders are discussing the reasons for starting RCP, states:

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing." "We post a variety of opinions. We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

I don't know how you can possibly argue how this isn't significant, given that McIntyre offered this quote freely when discussing the "philosophy of the site." Regardless, policy is clear about what is appropriate in the intro, and consensus is strongly towards inclusion. If you insist upon adding the "ideological diversity" quote I'm fine with that, but I don't think you have any (non-SPA) support for culling out the sourced, relevant information discussed above, and there certainly is not a consensus to remove it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just put the whole damned paragraph in.

"RealClearPolitics is a news aggregator and blog based on "freedom" and "common-sense values," that advocates "...debate on the issues..." and posts a "...variety of opinions..." and has "...a frustration that all conservatives have...which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we can skip all this mealy-mouthed crap and go with a straightforward and honest intro, like we have in the article on FiveThirtyEight.com: "FiveThirtyEight.com is a nonpartisan[1] polling aggregation website with a liberal-leaning[2] blog created by Nate Silver." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with simplicity, but the quote about media bias should not be in the intro. Blaxthos, again, they never explicitly said that media bias was a reason they founded the site. They, did, however, detail many times the real reasons they started the site (1, 2, 3). Also, in the actual story, "We post a variety of opinions" is a different quote from "We have a frustration..." (from a different person as well). Hopefully putting them in the same quote was just a typo on your part.

We could end this by just removing "who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias" from the opening paragraph. If you insist on retaining the above quote, it's only fair if you include the founders' stated reasons for starting the site. I personally don't think all that is necessary in the intro, but I'm just trying to offer options.Kadams810 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is undue weight, and a violation of NPOV. No-where in the source do they claim to be "self-described" conservatives, and while they may be conservative, to make such a statement is going to require a strong source quoting them making that statement (WP:SYNTH). It is not the place of wikipedia to try and interpret the intent of living people by imparting their own spin on what they say. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the smell of burning strawmen... Arzel, the introduction does not say they "claim to be 'self-described' conservatives." Even if we grant your strawman argument, it's blatantly false -- the direct quote states "[W]e have a frustration that all conservatives have", which necessarily means that they consider themselves part of the conservative aggregate. Even so, that has no relevance to this discussion, so can we please stop making things up? The source material is an interview in which the founders discuss the motives and philosophy of the site. If they hadn't intended the message to be conveyed they wouldn't have said it. What is relevant is the statement of philosophy, which countless editors have noted is significant and should be included in the introduction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arzel is partly correct. There's no need to emphasize the "self-described" nature of their conservatism; a reliable source quotes them calling themselves conservatives so we should drop the qualification and simply call them "conservatives". As for the synth claim, the exact wording of the policy is: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The lede as it stands does neither of these things. All of the quotes are from the same reliable source, and we do not draw any conclusions the source doesn't state explicitly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the wording is ambiguous. Either the founders are speaking about how they are conservatives and they are speaking for conservatives, or they are speaking about how they empathize with conservatives. They have the same frustation that conservatives have is open to interpretation. They don't say "We are conservatives" or "We, like other conservatives". In anycase it is undue weight for the lead and a NPOV violation. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," is not ambiguous (cf. "We face the fear that all mortals face," or "We have the hair that all mammals have.") This is not an expression of empathy, this is a statement of inclusion. To pretend otherwise is disengenuous. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadams, am I right to think that you'd be fine with including the quote about anti-conservative bias as long as we also include the quote about diversity of opinions? I find that to be an agreeable, balanced, and accurate compromise. Blaxthos, do you concur? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do. As I stated earlier, I'm fine with including K's verbiage. My objection is to the removal of sourced, relevant, and significant content -- specifically, I don't see how anyone can argue that a reliable secondary source directly interviewing the founders about the philosophy of the site is anything but relevant. Guys, it's time to call it a compromise and move on. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I have no problem saying they're conservatives ("self-described conservatives" is fine as well). My problem is with the anti-conservative bias quote. I still stand by the argument that this is an opinion of one of the founders, not a driving philosophy behind the site. If we put it in the intro, we're suggesting that they actively seek to combat media bias with the site. And there's no evidence that that's what McIntyre meant with that quote or that that's what they do with the site. I read it to mean that they're just conservatives who have a gripe with the media. That's relevant to the article, but, in the intro, it's misleading (by suggesting that one of the site's main purposes is to combat perceived mainstream media bias) and doesn't help shed light on what the site actually is. I'd like to put this behind us as well. Why don't we just add the "self-described conservatives" thing back in there and call it a day? After all, Blaxthos, isn't that the main point you're trying to make?Kadams810 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In a word, "no". How "you read it" is irrelevant, as well as what you believe McIntyre meant; you also seem to be ignoring the governing guideline. The information obviously on topic, and was proffered by the founder during a discussion of the site's philosophy, and published in a reliable source. I don't like it is not a valid reason for exclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadams, you say above in reference to the anti-conservative bias quote, "If you insist on retaining the above quote, it's only fair if you include the founders' stated reasons for starting the site." I thought we had an agreeable compromise. What made you change your opinion? Having just read the entirety of Conservative Spotlight: Real clear politics, I think it is clear that D'Agostino (the article's author) did in fact mean that RCP was founded with the specific goal of combatting what they see as bias and political correctness in the mainstream media. Though I think McIntyre and Bevan had the same meaning when they made the quoted statements, it's important to note that Wikipedia's concern is not to decipher the intent of the speakers, but rather to present the information as it was related by the reliable source (in this case, D'Agostino). So, the question is about what D'Agostino meant, not what the founders meant. Read the extended quotation below, and it is quite clear what D'Agostino meant. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What is important is to not try to turn this into a political dogfight. RCP is wildly used by both the right and the left, and has left and right political commentary and news aggregation. The proposed leads imparts that they are biased towards one side of the political spectrum. As for the intent of D'Agnostino, that is the primary problem with imparting ones own synthesis in an article. Furthermore, by your logic you would be imparting the derived opinion of the author to make a definitative statement about the founders, that is not how this works. Neutral presentation is the trump card for all information on WP, and this attempt to paint RCP as a biased organization is a clear violation of NPOV. As a point of comparison, you don't see the leads of other news organizations littered with POVish statements about the supposed political intent of the founders of the organization. Arzel (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, synthesis (by definition) involves more than one source. This is not a political dogfight, this is about clearly and accurately presenting the article's subject. D'Agostino, McIntyre, and Bevan state clearly that RCP was founded in part to correct a perceived media bias. Stating this fact is neutral presentation, avoiding it is POV. And yes, other news organizations with a reliably documented point of view are described as such on Wikipedia. (See FiveThirtyEight.com) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

538 doesn't go into Silver's left leaning history within the lede, so that comparison is without merit. The history of 538 goes into detail regarding Silver's beginnings on Kos, but you don't see that being parroted within the lede in an attempt to paint 538 as a left wing site. If you are going to use 538 as your example, then that sentence does not belong within the lede. Arzel (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy if we mirrored the 538 article and say "RealClearPolitics is a conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog," leaving all the he-said she-said out of it. Simple, accurate, and to the point. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not a mirror of the 538 article. Furthermore, RCP states that they are non-partisan, and has been shown numerous times you can't use the opinion of others to make a declarative statement against an entity, everything must be attributed. On a side note, what is the purpose of including the first and last paragraphs from below? Arzel (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An oversight on my part. The first line should read: "RealClearPolitics is a non-partisan, conservative-leaning news aggregator and blog." Or something to that effect. The statement that they are conservative-leaning is bourne out by not just the opinion of others, but also by the founder's own declarations--in almost exact parallel to the 538 reference (which I believe you added to that article, right?). The quote below is the entire section of the article which deals with RCP's motivation and leanings. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you make this claim that RCP is conservative. A look back to one of your first comments really tells everyone just about everything they need to know about this recent discussion.

I believe they honestly attempt to provide editorial balance in the columns selection. I don't think they succeed, but whether or not their selection is biassed is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide.

In two sentences you show that this is largely based on your own personal belief, and then say that it is not up to us to decide, yet you have already decided. You don't have any proof that the news selection is biased. We have multiple RS that state that the articles they select are very balanced. We have RCP stating that they have no reason to play one side or the other, and in their "About Us" section they specifically state that they select articles from both sides. Their internal commentary (not quite a blog but close) could be opined as leaning conservative (similar to 538 in the opposite). Per MOS we should not be doing any labeling less we run the risk of Libel and cause actual damages to a business. We can express their stated business model and also include some opinion, but when we start making statements of fact based of interpretation of cherry picked quotes or outside opinion then it gives the impression that WP is taking a side. Arzel (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In two sentences, I stated that my personal opinions--and yours--are not the issue here. The issue is how we can accurately portray RCP according to reliable sources. It is not my opinion that the RCP founders are conservative-leaning; any unbiassed person who reads the article quoted below can see that. Please read WP:AGF and refrain from impugning my integrity as a Wikipedia editor. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics offers its own commentary as well. On March 24, it offered this 
assessment of the mainstream media's coverage of the tiny number of American casualties 
thus far in the Iraq war: "Did the media really expect no U.S. soldiers would die? That 
no one would be taken prisoner? That there wouldn't be any civilian casualties? That is 
exactly what you'd believe if you read the headlines today: 'U.S. Forces Take Heavy 
Casualties'-Susan Glasser, Washington Post, 'Doubts Raised on Strategy'-Thomas Ricks, 
Washington Post. . . .

"Even worse, on the index pages of the three largest online newspapers in the country 
there is no mention of the 100-acre chemical plant discovered by U.S. troops yesterday. 
To most people this would seem like a pretty significant development-after all, isn't 
discovering WMD facilities one of the main objectives of the invasion?"

McIntyre described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and 
"common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important 
thing. We post a variety of opinions."

"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias 
in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."

RealClearPolitics also dissected the media's disingenuous coverage of Asan Akbar's 
attack on fellow members of the 101st Airborne. "When the story initially broke on 
Saturday night it was widely reported that the suspect was a 'Muslim-American' soldier," 
it said March 24. "By Sunday morning that descriptor had been scrubbed from virtually every 
report. This morning, only the LA Times gives the story any play on its main page. . . . 
The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most 
blatant PC whitewash imaginable. . . . The Times serves up this quote from Akbar's stepfather: 
'I remember last Christmas he was complaining about the double standards in the military,' 
Mr. Bilal said. 'Hasan told me it was difficult for a black man to get rank in the military, 
and he was having a hard time.' Only the New York Times could take the fact that a Muslim 
soldier in the U.S. Army attacked his own comrades in an unprecedented way and turn it into 
an indictment of the Army itself for being racist."