Talk:Republicans pounce
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republicans pounce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Excessive reliance on opinion pieces
editAs of this writing, there is only one source in the entire article that isn't an opinion piece (and it's skeptical of the proposed phenomenon, to put it lightly.) Is there any significant non-opinion coverage of this at all? With only opinion sources, it is very hard to write a neutral article, especially when every single opinion piece comes from the same POV; while WP:BIASED sources can be used, an entire article that relies almost exclusively on opinion pieces that share the same bias raises WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- This response is an example of why Wikipedia is such a cluster fuck. Autistic bad faith application of arcane rules for political ends. 204.65.81.44 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Notability
editIs this really necessary to have as an article? At a minimum, all the opinion articles need to be removed from the references and proper non-commentary sources should be used to source this article. Tritario (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have contested the WP:PROD deletion by removing your tag. Please take it to AfD if you wish to pursue this. Astaire (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Tritario has added a notice "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: WP:NOTE ..." etc. Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
"No evidence has been produced..."
editI have removed the part in the lede saying that "No evidence has been produced in support of these allegations".
First, it's not accurate in light of the previous sentence, which says: these commentators have argued that journalists downplay controversies and potentially negative stories about Democrats, liberals, and progressives by emphasizing the Republican or conservative response to the story, rather than the negative aspects of the story themselves
. These commentators have indeed produced news stories that they believe to be evidence of the phenomenon (i.e. journalists downplaying negative stories). What is not clear is whether the media does so systematically or preferentially against a particular side, which is not an allegation made in the previous sentence.
Second, it presents obvious WP:SYNTH issues, as none of the cited sources make the claim that "no evidence anywhere has been produced". They simply discuss their own analyses that failed to turn up evidence. Astaire (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Arguments and beliefs are not evidence; they represent the subjective feelings those talking heads have about the pieces in question. Both of the cited sources, meanwhile, can reasonably be summarized as saying that the claims behind the term lack evidence. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
...can reasonably be summarized as saying that the claims behind the term lack evidence
No. Each article is concerned with its own analysis and cannot be summarized to make the claim that "no evidence has been produced" in wikivoice. Astaire (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Background section
editIt's not appropriate to string together secondary sources that don't talk about "Republicans pounce" as a term in order to make an implicit argument or present a particular framing in the article voice, as the background section did; nor is it appropriate to present unattributed arguments from opinion pieces via synthesis, which this edit summary implied was the intent of the section. If an opinion piece in the National Post makes a particular argument, we can perhaps describe that as the opinion of the author, with in-text attribution, in the commentary section, due weight permitting; we cannot copy-paste the sources of that argument and make it ourselves in the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The National Post article is news, not opinion, which you can tell by looking for the word "news" in the URL or at the top of the page. Astaire (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- The author Stuart Thomson is also a bureau chief for the paper, which means he's on the news side of the business and not the opinion side. It's a news article. Astaire (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)