Talk:RealClearPolitics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Implementing the RfC result

I didn't participate in the RfC above about quoting the RCP founders' self-description, but several other editors did. It seems that a resolution was reached and implemented. The last change to the version implemented was a wording change suggested and made by Arzel, without objection.

Now Arzel is removing the consensus language that apparently was acceptable to all the RfC participants (including Arzel himself). The apparent reason -- judging solely from his ES's because he's seen fit to unilaterally overturn the RfC without making the slightest effort to discuss the matter here -- is that he's unhappy about some issue in the wording of the FiveThirtyEight article. From Talk:FiveThirtyEight it appears that he was in an argument on the subject in a thread that ended more than a year ago. Arzel's last edit to FiveThirtyEight was more than two years ago.

Arzel, if you have a problem about the description of FiveThirtyEight, please take it up there. To express your displeasure by trying to undo the RfC here is a violation of a guideline that I'm sure you're familiar with: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

The issue for this article is that the founders of RCP have expressly stated that their conservative ideology was part of their motivation for founding the site. You have not raised any issue as to the accuracy of the multiple reliable sources to which these quotations are cited.

I am restoring the language as you put it in the article at the end of the RfC. JamesMLane t c 08:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that 538.com and RCP are two sides of a same coin, maybe even the same side. 538.com has since removed all mentions to the Liberal nature of Silver, to which I had discussed. The two articles were discussed and edited in tandom, and now that 538 has been "cleaned" the previous RfC is redacted. For 538.com the result was that it was a NPOV violation and undue weight. As such the same logic applies here. The only reason for the NPOV in the lead hear was because of ideologicaly driven editors using a couple of sources to make their case when the vast majority of sources clearly point to RCP being a non-partisan aggregator of polls and commentary from accross the political spectrum. Insinuating, in the lead, that RCP is conservatively biased is a violation of NPOV and undue weight. You will have to argue the case that that information is due weight for the lead and not just an attempt to present a biased point of view. The arguement was never strong to begin with, and now that 538.com has been cleaned of the bias there is no reason to leave RCP biased. Arzel (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinion that the treatment of the two subjects is inconsistent doesn't empower you to unilaterally ignore the RfC. If you see an analogy, make the case on the appropriate talk page. The issue here is that the RCP founders made statements about their motivation in establishing the website that is the subject of this article, and those statements are perfectly appropriate for inclusion in this article. I haven't waded through all the discussion at FiveThirtyEight but my impression is that there was no comparable statement about the purpose of the site; if there was, go add it there. You haven't edited FiveThirtyEight or Talk:FiveThirtyEight since November 2009. Even then, what you were actually trying to add was your opinion that the site is "liberal-leaning". Here, the edit that you repeatedly revert doesn't make any such characterization. It includes statements from the founders about their purpose, and it adds that "the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum." No one is even trying to describe RCP as "conservative-leaning" (although that's certainly a widely held view and might qualify for inclusion with appropriate attribution and sourcing).

Your way of expressing your dissatisfaction is disruptive. Please undo your revert and, if you think that the language resulting from the RfC should be modified, discuss your proposed changes here. If you think that a particular quotation from Nate Silver should be included in the 538 article, you should discuss it there. JamesMLane t c 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

RCP and 538 are not "two sides of the same coin", but that is besides the point. If you have suggestions for the 538 article, take them to that Talk page. One does not simply get to overrule an RFC because they do not agree with the results. Dave Dial (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#What is proper procedure when RfC result is ignored?. My purpose there is to consider the general procedural issue, not the propriety of including in this article the quotation from the RCP founders. I suggest that the latter discussion should remain here. JamesMLane t c 21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

According to BLP: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This link is dead and there doesn't seem to be a a reliable, published source to which claim about intentions of RCP founders can be sourced so I'm removing it. -- Vision Thing -- 13:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The state of the link is immaterial. This article exists, I've verified that fact via a database search. Update: The article is also still on their website. I wish I'd googled that instead of doing the db search; would have save me some time. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics.com is a libertarian site, end of discussion

I don't really have a dog in what seems to have been past fights over whether RCP is biased or not, but ideologically, if you apply the Duck Test, it's pretty clearly (or should be, if you're not dense or up to no good) modern libertarian: pro-business and overall conservative in politics except for being mostly neutral in personal choices (aka no government in the bedroom.) Steve Forbes, the owner of Forbes magazine, which in turn is the majority owner of RCP, has a long pro-business/neocon/social conservative history dating back to Reagan and includes being a past supporter of Ron Paul and member of the now defunct, American Enterprise Institute-affiliate, neocon (non)think-tank, the PNAC ("Project for the New American Century"). RCP seems to skew more libertarian than Forbes's more conservative personal philosophy, but RCP's contributors are dominated by ties to conservative/libertarian sites and media, and is referenced primarily by conservative/right wing media, especially if you remove poll results.

The fact that the word "libertarian" doesn't appear in the article or even on this talk page until I brought it up doesn't say much about the accuracy and overall neutrality of the article. -CallMeBC aka 209.6.39.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC).

To approach a discussion with a title that says "end of discussion" means you do not want anyone to assign weight to your post. Wikipedia is a place of free flowing thoughts and much discussion. The direction of your title is the antitheses of what this is all about. That aside, I think the lead is accurate and fair. You have offered no source that uses "libertarian" for possible inclusion. Neutralis (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, your response is evasive and disingenuous: I gave a you a good, basic description of its founders, owners, and affiliates -- all of which scream conservative-libertarian by any measure. If one applies the Duck Test to your response, you come off as someone with a political agenda trying portray RCP as something it's not. As far as a source goes regarding what RCP's core ideology is, a quick Google brought up this little list of The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites by RightWingNews.com, in which RCP ranks #11. Yeah, it's only a blog site, but basically so is RCP, and I do believe they know their own. CallMeBC aka 209.6.38.168 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

This passage: "and while some have suggested the commentary is conservative-leaning," is cited by an eight year old story. Is a snapshot from eight years ago, three years prior to the purchase by Forbes, particularly relevant for the lead? Seems better suited in Origins or maybe a history section. If it stays in the lead perhaps we ought find "some"one else to back up this claim in present times and under present the ownership arrangement, or at least note that the observation is rather dated?--RWR8189 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's still conservative. Consider http://www.topsite.com/best/conservative or http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-50-most-popular-conservative-websites/ I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias

Real Clear Politics has been repeatedly accused of bias in its polling averages, leaving out documented polls from Public Policy Polling and other sources. There was the October 25, 2012 PPP poll of Virginia. This poll indisputably does not appear on the Real Clear Politics polling average for Virginia. The Ipsos/Reuters daily tracking poll indisputably does not appear on the Real Clear Politics polling average nationally. Both polls show leads for Obama.

This is an important issue for Wikipedia readers to be aware of and investigate themselves, as RCP promotes itself as an unbiased source of polling information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.84.218 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I reverted your edit because you did not include verifiable third party sources to support your claim. If you want your edit to be included please provide third party sources to support your claim. Vinnyv (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. I linked directly to the PPP polls website, and to Real Clear Politics itself. PPP put out a poll of Virginia, which is publicly available. Real Clear Politics did not put that poll in its average. It's not as though RCP systematically excludes PPP, since it included PPP's poll of Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.84.218 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with 173.66.84.218. It is difficult to find a third party source for this, as it has not made it to any big news outlets. However, the facts are the facts and if you go to RealClearPolitics for Virginia you will see that those polls are still missing until this date. I added my own version of this topic and linked to one report I could find for it. However, I would not have believed this website, if I had not been able to check it myself like 173.66.84.218 suggests. Rwh85 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: less than 24 hours after I added the section on the Virginia poll, RCP has decided to update and include the PPP poll for Virginia (looks like somebody there is watching their Wikipedia entry). Therefore I have no objection to the removal of the bias section. Rwh85 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure its Arzel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Quote in the lead about their philosophy

I just restored the quote because it compactly explains their motivations in their own words. The stated reason for removal was its age, but I don't see how that's relevant, especially since it speaks of their initial motivation, not anything ongoing. Perhaps we can discuss this further. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ted Turner is a liberal. Why isn't that fact mentioned on CNN's page? Answer: Because it's not relevant. Whether or not RCP's founders are conservatives is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You guys are totally blowing your alleged "neutral" credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.247 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If Ted Turner said "I founded CNN because I thought television news was too conservative", it would certainly be relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Conservative: August 2014

Note: Categorizing people as having a particular political opinion or position requires actual strong reliable sources. Do we have specific reliable sources stating that McIntire and Bevan self-identify as "conservative"? The Princeton article does not remotely make that claim- only that the website says it seeks to "counterbalance the common liberal bias of the mainstream press by providing a more realistic look at the issues" which, truth to say, was a position echoed by a Public Editor of the NYT who noted such a "bias" at that newspaper (And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.)[1] The HE article says "we share a frustration all conservatives have" which is not much of a self-identification as McIntire and Bevans being self-identified "conservatives" as much as it says the "liberal bias" they see in the media causes frustration. WP:BLP thus suggests we not make such a claim, and especially not in the lead. Collect (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think for the most part we're past that. Not that Geothean or DD2K agree, but I don't think they intend to push the issue. On another note, the quotations by Geothean look fine to me. Proper context, direct quotations. The reader is going to be able to come to their own conclusions.--v/r - TP 19:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Nah, I won't push the issue. I'll just let you two continue to piss on flagrantly violate WP:LEAD because you have personal issues with this article accurately summarizing the reliable sources on the topic. — goethean 20:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

C'mon, that's uncalled for.--v/r - TP 20:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think it's(calling them conservatives) controversial. Obviously others disagree. So I guess we are left with some kind of compromise, it doesn't really matter that much to me. I don't hold any animosity over any disagreements here, even if I disagree. Dave Dial (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We need something in articles about all publications to state it they have an editorial position and what it is. And clearly RCP is orientated towards U.S. conservatism. I would imagine they have a larger overlapping readership with the National Review and The American Thinker than they do with The Nation or Mother Jones. TFD (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I can find nothing whatever in any policy which says we must categorize publications at all. As we do not need to do so, we ought not do so without a really good reason. What any editor "imagines" is not a reliable source. In fact, I suspect their largest overlap is with 538. And since the term "conservative" has disparate meanings in different places, it is silly to say we should categorize what is mainly a "present lots of differing opinions" sites as being specifically in any pigeonhole. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What a farce. — goethean 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Geothean - please. @Collect - categorizing is appropriate. @TFD - I've never disputed whether the site has a conservative slant. I'm disputing labeling the founders as conservative without a primary source explicitly stating so.--v/r - TP 23:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I demur -- almost no news aggregation sites are categorized in that manner on their Wikipedia pages. Looking at their current front page, I see articles from the NYT, New Republic, USA Today, Fox, Forbes and the WSJ right at the top. Also CNN, CNBC, and a slew of others. Looks a tad eclectic to say the least. Calling that grouping "conservative" is pretty hard to justify. I would say "financially capitalist, socially libertarian, and fiscally conservative" is close maybe. But the use of the ill-defined "conservative" fails. Collect (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont know about news aggregation sites, but I do know The New York Times has an entire paragraph calling it liberal.--v/r - TP 23:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

And how many times is "liberal" in the lead for the NYT? In its infobox? Outside the single paragraph? RCP has 11 uses of "conservative". The NYT has 4 uses of "liberal". Sorry -- that analogy fails. LAT - zero uses of liberal or any other political categorization. WaPo has a columnist called "liberal" and one quote saying it is "not the liberal newspaper it once was" but no categorization of that paper at all. USA Today - no categorization whatsoever. Might you show me a case (even a single one) where a US newspaper is categorized as "liberal" on Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a discussion for Talk:NYT. The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The lead currently fails to accurately summarize the body of the article. This is a violation of Wikipedia's manual of style. — goethean 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Wikipedia voice is probably wrong. Perhaps we could say "Several left-leaning media outlets have criticized RealClearPoliics of having a right or center-right bias."? The details can be worked out, obviously, but something similar to that might satisfy both you and Geothean?--v/r - TP 01:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What left-leaning media outlets are making that criticism? RCP has a balance across the political spectrum, and I have not seen that argument presented previously. On a side note, the new source added from the AU conference paper is not an RS to claim conservative. For one, it is a conference paper, and does not appear to be a peer reviewed paper, plus it is a primary source. Also, all of the sources recently added by Goethean are very dated. If these are being used to try and prove that RCP is conservative then it should be noted that RCP was taken over by Forbes after these publications. They should be removed as irrelevant to the current state. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article makes it all clear. I'd suggest reading it before commenting on what the lead should say. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy Revisited

The following quote is garbage:"the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America and others describe the site as being right wing." First, the reference included gives RCP only a passing mention, it is not an assessment of their political leanings. Second, the "and others" part is totally unsourced. 209.149.177.10 (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

variously described as "right-leaning"

What is THAT supposed to mean? ---Dagme (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.88.84 (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an unsourced quotation. It shouldn't be here. As this talk page indicates, there are many examples of outlets describing RCP as centrist or at least working to maintain both sides of the American political aisle. This is a bad article. It beats the reader over the head with numerous references to an ideological bent that may or may not exist--there is not consensus. It has a substantial "Philosophy" section that aims to further this, one that is entirely absent on the pages of other news outlets such as Huffington Post or Drudge Report.

Use of direct quotations

I'm noticing that there are many direct quotations throughout the article. Is this a good move? Or would it be preferable to add more facts and content, rather than people's opinions. Rafael Monroy-Rojas (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

no mention of RealClear Media Group or realclearpolicy.com

Very strange: No mention of those here and no mention of the owners mentioned in this article (RealClearInvestors and Crest Media) on https://www.realclearpolicy.com/about.html --Espoo (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There was some such content, but it was removed. See : https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&diff=951069120&oldid=950999359 and consider improving on it.50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)