Jump to content

Talk:RealClearPolitics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 20:47, 31 August 2014 (→Conservative: WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; '''that is a conjectural interpretation of a source''' (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Conservative

Are we aiming for 10 different uses of the term conservative or what? Not sure what caused this, but somebody needs to take a step back. Seriously. †TE†Talk 15:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dispute should be considered "resolved" as long as the introduction does not refer to the founders as "conservative." If the Human Events source is legit (it's not online), then it can stay in... but down in the body of the article, not in the opening. I think that's a fair compromise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I've emailed the Human Events article to TE a day or two ago, and I'll email it to any logged in editor who requests it if they have the "Enable email from other users" option enabled under Preferences. Gamaliel (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only addresses one of many issues. I understand the thought process behind using stands to reason or begs the question as rationale, but it doesn't allow for attaching contentious labels in the lead -- Even if true, albeit unverified. And it is unverified. Let us be clear about that. Only thing that's clear is these folks found a market and capitalized off it. Aside from that, other glaring problems are outdated sourcing, content and failure to move past the 2008 election cycle. †TE†Talk 04:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not clear at all. It's entirely verified, we've both read the article, and I'm not sure how you can find ambiguity in this source unless you're determined to read it that way. I don't know what your Daily Kos link has to do with this discussion at all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again Gamaliel, I respect your personal opinion these folks have taken ownership of a political affiliation by interviewing with Human Events -- But in the world of wikipedia we have certain criteria which has not, and will not be met by your personal interpretations of a quote taken on good faith from a decade ago. Sorry. †TE†Talk 18:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gamaliel, please email me a copy of the Human Events article. Thanks. — goethean 19:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of it. †TE†Talk 19:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, reading the article, it is quite amazing and bizarre that you think that the article does not establish that the site's founders are conservatives.
"We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives."
That's right between where they observe that (1) WMDs were found in Iraq, but that the evil mainstream media outlets like the NYT and WaPo covered up the story, and that (2) that the evil PC media like the LA Times "disingenuously" covered up a story about someone who attacked a army unit being Muslim.
The New York Times, by contrast, puts the story on its 'National' page and does the most blatant PC whitewash imaginable
It is very clear from the article is that they believe that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives, and that they have set out to correct the record. Any vaguely competent reading of the article leads to the conclusion that the site's founders are indeed political conservatives. This is a well-sourced statement that can be used in the article. — goethean 20:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as Goethean believes, it's quite clear the article shows the creators of RCP know that MSM is liberal. They have done a great job providing an alternative. Goethean and Gamaliel please explain how small your foundation can be among real men. †TE†Talk 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stay on the talk page unfortunately little girls outs wants war. †TE†Talk 20:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well calling me names will certainly change my mind. — goethean 20:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this took a turn towards immaturity. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the source (thanks for the email Gamaliel), I agree with ThinkEnemies. It is WP:SYNTH to abstract "Founded by Conservatives" by using the statement "We have a frustration that all conservatives have." That's like saying a statement that "I have the same frustration that African Americans have about racism" infers that I myself am African American. It doesn't. Without a source that says something to the matter of "this organization was created by conservatives," you cannot say it is. You can speculate on their politics to the ends of the Earth, but we cannot make factual statements without a source that spells it out in those words.--v/r - TP 00:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you said "I have the same frustration that all African Americans have about racism," which is more analogous to the article text than your example, then your audience would probably assume that you are African American, and they would be justified in doing so. — goethean 14:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assume they might be justified in doing, but it wouldn't make them more or less factually correct and is still synthesizing a source. It's plain and simple, you cannot assume what words mean. WP:OR says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Implying that the subject's use we "We face the same frustrations that all conservatives face" means they are a conservative is not directly supported. Directly supported would be "This organization was founded by conservatives." If you want to quote the subject and let the reader infer what they want, feel free. But using Wikipedia voice to say something that the source doesn't say isn't acceptable.--v/r - TP 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Wikipedians are allowed to (indeed, must) interpret texts in the same way that a typical competent reader would. — goethean 15:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret, but you cannot infer. What you're doing is inferring. "Because he said this, thus he is that." You cannot do that.--v/r - TP 15:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if he had said "We have the same frustrations that other conservatives have."? — goethean 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with TParis too. I've read the article and have went through the other references that were discussed in prior Talk page discussions. The founders of RCP were definitely saying they are conservatives, and created the website to counter what they perceive as the liberal bias of the MSM. Also, USAToday listed the site as a conservative website. Just as they listed TPM as a left-leaning one. It is obvious, and stated in the article that has been linked to and passed around, that the founders are conservatives. In any case, long standing consensus is established to describe RCP as conservative, but consensus can change. Perhaps a RFC would be something editors who wish to change consensus should consider. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is obvious" is not a reliable source. You can say that USAToday calls the website conservative-leaning but again, you cannot say it was founded by conservatives. In fact, WP:BLP comes into play here because your calling two living people Conservatives without a source to back it up. Goethean - I was thinking the same thing earlier. If "All" had been "Other" then it would be much more clear cut that they consider themselves conservatives. Let's talk about a compromise here, DD2K has a USA Today source that calls it conservative leaning, there is already a Time source that says the same thing. I propose you move that line from the Time source and add the USA Today source and put in the lead "This website has been described as conservative leaning" or something to that effect.--v/r - TP 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. A simple reading of the cited text indicates that the speaker considers himself a conservative. — goethean 18:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation, in otherwords your original research and synthesis. I have been arguing this point for the better part of 5 years. It is about time it was fixed. Arzel (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I made a fair compromise, which is exactly what the source says and you've declined it. I propose we move to WP:DR and bring in an uninvolved editor.--v/r - TP 19:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened this up for DR here.--v/r - TP 19:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate ya'all not restoring it after protection expired and waiting for DR to commence, I'm disappointed it's taking so long.--v/r - TP 01:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came late to the party! The WP:DRN is already over.  :-) I noticed this discussion over there, and at first glance, it seemed like the final ruling by the disinterested third-party editor was unfair. The plain english reading of the bare sentence, to my mind, is that the founders themselves were conservatives. However... on further thought, I decided it was not in fact fully clear. So I have a couple questions for the folks that have been following this issue. First, what other avenues have been examined, when discussing whether the two founders were *personally* conservatives when the created RCP? This is distinct from that being the *reason* they created RCP, of course... but if that can be shown, using Reliable Sources, then the key quotation itself (which states that they are frustrated with the liberal bias in the existing media but merely implies without explicitly saying they *themselves* were conservatives) can be coupled with the still-yet-to-be-shown proof that at the time they considered themselves conservatives. Has anybody looked into their FEC donations of that era? What about comparing early news-reports, to later news-reports? Here is some stuff to get the ball rolling. I think the evidence shows they were *not* conservatives at the time the site was founded... but they were not liberals either, obviously. It seems they are beings from the second dimension, like John Stossel, rather than members of the one-dimensional liberal-left-conservative-right metaphor. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They also aim to balance political perspective. "One of the things we work very hard on is trying to maintain a centrist positioning," Bevan says.[1]
...analyses from the left-leaning New Republic may be paired with more conservative publications such as the Weekly Standard. The goal is "to give readers ideological diversity," Mr. McIntyre said. "...and give multiple sides to every story."[2]
“We’re not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side. A lot of these advertisers don’t want their brand associated with people who are perceived on the extreme of the right or left.”[3]
Over time, RCP has earned a reputation for fairness, pulling the best political news and analysis from across the web and the political spectrum.... pulling together the most important political news and opinion – and from all sides.[4]
June 6, 2001: ...offer a wide range of views... the best articles of the day... [5]
“A lot of people have come to know Real Clear Politics, but don’t know who John and I are,” Bevan says. “That’s deliberate... it’s been the key to our success"[6]
[2004].... The real junkies don't care about all this, of course--who these guys are, how and why and where they do it.[7]
By October 2007, they had not only inked a deal giving Forbes a 51% stake in the company...[8]
My October, 2004 profile of RCP founders Tom Bevan and John McIntyre... a mix of well-articulated views on the vital issues of the day... writers ranging across the ideological spectrum from liberal Roger Simon to conservative Robert Novak; and to views as diverse as "Bush's War Strategy Has Paid Big Dividends" (Manchester Union-Leader) and "A Failed Presidency" (The New Yorker).[9]
...[not dated] a wide range... are aggregated on the website, although many typically have a conservative slant.[10]
...[in 2007] formed a partnership with a conservative[citation needed] think tank, the Manhattan Institute.[11]
The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research is a libertarian American think tank.... http://en.wikipedia.org , emphasis added , retrieved 2013
October 2004: He and Bevan have become pundits in their own right, both on the RCP Web log page, which reflects their center-right/libertarian leanings...[12]
June 6, 2001: The articles selected invariably demonstrate McIntyre and Bevan's political bent, about which they are unabashedly forthcoming. The Web site itself informs that "RealClearPolitics attempts to counterbalance the common liberal bias of the mainstream press by providing a more realistic look at the issues. Above all, we believe in freedom, personal responsibility, and the free market capitalist system..."[13]
June 6, 2001: "I'm not really a die-hard Republican because my interests are less on social issues, more on taxing and spending," explains McIntyre..."But I definitely don't want the government telling me what to do with my property..."[14]
October 2004: ... bemoaned the lack of a non-partisan Web site "for people like us," as Bevan put it. "People who live and breathe politics and the major issues of the day."[15]
June 6, 2001: says Bevan: "...Politics is so calculating, so staged. We try to unspin it."
That's probably the most indepth analysis on this topic to date. Thank you for the time and effort, 74.192.*.--v/r - TP 00:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. The site was founded by conservatives and I think the vigorous protests you guys display is more evidence of that than anything else. In the revisions page someone said CNN was founded by a liberal but that's not on their wikipedia page. I think Ted Turner's political beliefs are common knowledge and generally, liberals do not care about being liberals because that's what they are. It's only conservatives that have pretend to be something else.

Fact 5 That said, I don't see why if they are Libertarians that shouldn't be in lead. Since everyone knows libertarians are just republicans who are ashamed of their peers. The libertarians we hear about at least, since there are at least two kinds of Libertarians. Left and Right. The founders are (as are all republican libertarians) right libertarians. Please examine what left libertarians are like -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism and compare it with right libertarians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_libertarianism, and let me know which you think the founders should be labeled as.

Facts 1 and 2 “We’re not looking for the over-the-top, vitriolic, red-meat craziness on either side. A lot of these advertisers don’t want their brand associated with people who are perceived on the extreme of the right or left." -

"achieving that goal means purposely downplaying their personal positions."

That reads as clear financial motive to hide the intentions of the founders and the site to me. As for achieving their goals, yes, it's often easier to push ideology when you can hide your personal positions. See Fair and Balanced.

Lads- it's clear to anyone with half a brain what the game is here. What exactly is the harm in labeling things what they are? This site is supposed to be about the truth, not the truth that helps your political beliefs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk • contribs)

It's not a political issue, it's a liability issue for Wikipedia. We cannot make claims about people without a source. In terms of people's religion, political affiliation, sexuality, ect we need a primary source. You can say "Group A said Person B is a Conservative" if the source says so, but you cannot say "Person B is a conservative" in Wikipedia voice without a primary source from that person. Otherwise, we are open to libel and defamation lawsuits.--v/r - TP 00:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Libel is a form of defamation, and neither word would apply to calling a website conservative. First off all, the information would have to be somehow highly insulting and disruptive of their business to even begin to qualify, and it's clear that the owners do not believe the term is insulting. Second, it would have to be proven false, and that would be impossible. Third, since it's a public organization and not a private individual, it would have to be proven false and malicious in nature, which is insane. Fourth, there would have to be some real monetary damage, and since it's business model is to be a site aimed at conservative voices it's clear there would be no damage. And the claim that you can't call someone conservative "without a primary source from that person" if just silly. All you need is any reliable source. When the strategy of a political organization is to pretend to be neutral while at the same time being clearly biased, all that needs to be done is for outside groups to recognize it and call them on it. This is like Fox News claiming to be "fair and balanced" and pretending to not be conservative. It's an attempt to deceive, and by using Wikipedia's voice to go along with that deception if to be biased in favor of supporting the deception. Wikipedia's NPOV rules demand that the sources calling this site conservative be included so as not to mislead the public. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and neither word would apply to calling a website conservative" Absolutely and I don't disagree. What I disagree with is calling the founders conservative without a better source. Right now, the sources are all other people calling the founders conservative or the founders saying they share some frustrations with conservatives. We need a primary source to call the founders conservative. I've no objections to calling the website conservative. Perhaps you should've actually read what has been said on the issue instead of your assumption.--v/r - TP 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call the site or the founders conversative, all the same arguments apply. It's clear that they are, and it's clear that it is, and I have now edited the article to make the lead more clear. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is original research and synthesis to say "It's clear that they are". Either you have a source to make a statment about a living person or you don't. WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." (emphasis obviously mine) Just because no one has found one yet doesn't mean you can just move forward anyways. Per this dispute resolution, you are editing against consensus.--v/r - TP 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.)[16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
C'mon, that's uncalled for.--v/r - TP 20:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What a farce. — goethean 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClearPolitics&oldid=623621758"