Talk:Rasmussen Reports/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
lead: conservative leaning or independent?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 | The consensus here favors the position that this material does not belong in the lead section. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC) |
Should the lead section include anything about Rasmussen's political or partisan leaning or affiliation? If so, what should it say? Nstrauss (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Summary of issue: At this point we have found 3 reliable sources (New York Times, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, and Louisville Courier Journal) calling Rasmussen "independent" and one reliable source (Time) calling it "conservative-leaning". Given those RSs, what should be said in the lead about Rasmussen's political leanings, if any? My latest proposal is "Although it has been described as 'conservative-leaning,'[cite TIME] Rasmussen Reports is generally considered an independent polling agency.[cite 3]" There has been pushback because TIME is viewed by some editors as liberal. The argument has also been made that the political leanings of a polling firm are never appropriate for a lead section. Another argument was made that we must rely on the way the poling firm describes itself. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the following passage to the lead:I included a comment: "reference to criticism in lead - everyone wants to know, are they independent or partisan." Naapple reverted my edit with the comment: "Your edit is unsourced and slanderous."Although Rasmussen Reports has been repeatedly criticized as having a conservative leaning, it describes Scott Rasmussen as an "independent public opinion pollster."[1]
The sentence I added was neither unsourced nor slanderous. It quotes the Rasmussen Reports website directly. And there are a series of sources cited in the body that have criticized Rasmussen as having a conservative leaning. Per WP:LEADCITE, there is no requirement that every statement in the lead be sourced if the statement is drawn from other, sourced statements in the body. Naapple, I think in this situation it would have been more appropriate to edit my addition rather than to simply revert it. After all, as my comment reflected, the average reader really will want to know where Rasmussen stands in the political spectrum, and your reversion didn't help with that. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong in the lead, as it is an opinion. There's a section already on accuracy with cited opinions for and against.
- WP:LEADCITE isn't a blanket policy of picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be summarized in the lead, nor was it even an accurate summary.
- If your sentence was a direct quote, please provide the source. I'm betting the direct quote was "independent public pollster", which even if I had left that, would've neutered the meaning of your sentence, which was to indirectly state an opinion that Rasmussen leans right. It seemed more appropriate to remove the whole thing than to change the sentence to something completely different than its original intention.
- In any case, the citation you gave went to Scott Rasmussen's biography. This article is on Rasmussen Reports. Naapple (Talk) 03:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The direct quote was the citation, which is from the "about" page on Rasmussen Report's website. The other sources are extensively listed in the body. Just like I said. Why don't you take a stab at a sentence or two that describes Rasmussen's place in the political spectrum, instead of just slamming me? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That would be WP:OR. It's not our place to define where it sits in the political spectrum. If Rasmussen defines themselves as apolitical, then that's how we must describe them. You cite pertinent information and let the reader decide. Naapple (Talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMO, assertions about Scott Rasmussen's political leanings belong on the Scott Rasmussen page, not on the Rasmussen Reports page. As for the assertion that "Rasmussen Reports has been repeatedly criticized as having a conservative leaning," that strikes me as a bit of a loaded claim that isn't satisfactorily verified by the article's contents. What does "repeatedly" mean? And who has done the criticizing? There is a citation in the article from a Time Magazine article that identified Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group." In the referenced Time Magazine article, Rasmussen Reports is not criticized for being a "conservative-leaning polling group," they are merely identified as such by the article's author. There's not enough evidence in the article to warrant including claims about Scott Rasmussen's political leanings in the lead of the Rasmussen Reports page. It seems to me that this article, which is about a polling company, should focus on evaluating the accuracy of the company's polling results. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how about a simple sentence saying: "Rasmussen Reports has been repeatedly described as having a conservative leaning." It drops the loaded "criticized" language and says nothing about Scott Rasmussen the person. "Repeatedly" is appropriate given the multiple sources in the body that state as much.
- Another alternative would be to drop the sentence and simply start the article with "Rasmussen Reports is a conservative-leaning American electronic media company..." After all, we have a reliable source (Time) stating as much. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I already posted it above, but you should look again at MOS:IDENTITY. I'm willing to bet I could find an article saying that Time Magazine leans left (because they do). That said, one media outlet slamming another doesn't necessarily mean it's now cited fact and can go in the lead. And while I haven't looked, I'll bet Time Magazine's wiki doesn't have anything about leaning left in the lead.
- You almost could write "Time Magazine, itself facing criticisms of leaning left, accuses Rasmussen of leaning right" but then that wouldn't be very appropriate for the lead.
- It just doesn't belong. Rewording it doesn't matter as it's the context that's the problem. User:Naapple (Talk) 09:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand at all how MOS:IDENTITY is applicable at all. Also, Time is a reliable source, pure and simple. Plus, my proposal isn't to say that the Rasmussen is conservative-leaning, it's to say that it has been described as conservative-leaning. That is 100% verifiably true. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nstrauss, that's an improvement, but there are still problems. The claim that Rasmussen Reports is conservative-leaning is cherry-picked from the accuracy section. If we were to include that in the lead, we would also have to say "Rasmussen Reports has been described as conservative-leaning, independent, accurate, etc." The point is, it has been described as a lot of things, and those things belong in the "Evaluations of accuracy and performance section", not in the lead. Also, there are not "multiple sources in the body" that identify Rasmussen Reports as conservative-leaning. There is one source (the Time article-more specifically, Bryan Walsh, the author's article). Other sources identify Rasmussen Reports as having "Republican-leaning results" to varying degrees. But that's a different claim than saying Rasmussen Reports itself is "conservative-leaning." There are lots of legitimate and varying opinions about the accuracy of Rasmussen Reports, but to keep the lead WP:POV free, this article is best-served by including opinions/descriptions/perceptions, etc. of the accuracy of Rasmussen Reports under the appropriate section of the article.Safehaven86 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about this: "The political independence of Rasmussen Reports has been a subject of controversy. Some have praised its accurate polling, while others have described it as conservative-leaning." --Nstrauss (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- One Times article from a left wing author doesn't mean there's a "controversy". Like Safehaven said, you can't cherry pick one thing from the criticism section and put it in the lead. This is why the article has a criticism section. It's clear that you believe Rasmussen is biased, but your opinion doesn't fly here, and a general statement that Rasmussen has general allegations of bias isn't true. Can you find a truly unbiased evaluation of Rasmussen that lists them as leaning right? Probably not, which is why these opinions are delegated to their own category. Naapple (Talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nstrauss, I don't object to your proposed sentence, but I think its inclusion in the lead could pose a problem. Is there a compelling reason that it needs to be in the lead? It seems to me that content-wise, there are a number of other areas about Rasmussen Reports that have received either comparable or more attention than perceptions of bias/accuracy. If we include your sentence, we'd need to include a number of other facts in the lead (performance in past presidential elections/other elections, for one, which takes up a larger part of this article than perceptions of accuracy). The lead would quickly become a replica of the article itself. Why not stick to including a discussion about accuracy in the body of the article? That doesn't seem objectionable to anyone at this point, while including a sentence about this topic in the lead has met with objection. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- One Times article from a left wing author doesn't mean there's a "controversy". Like Safehaven said, you can't cherry pick one thing from the criticism section and put it in the lead. This is why the article has a criticism section. It's clear that you believe Rasmussen is biased, but your opinion doesn't fly here, and a general statement that Rasmussen has general allegations of bias isn't true. Can you find a truly unbiased evaluation of Rasmussen that lists them as leaning right? Probably not, which is why these opinions are delegated to their own category. Naapple (Talk) 23:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- How about this: "The political independence of Rasmussen Reports has been a subject of controversy. Some have praised its accurate polling, while others have described it as conservative-leaning." --Nstrauss (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMO, assertions about Scott Rasmussen's political leanings belong on the Scott Rasmussen page, not on the Rasmussen Reports page. As for the assertion that "Rasmussen Reports has been repeatedly criticized as having a conservative leaning," that strikes me as a bit of a loaded claim that isn't satisfactorily verified by the article's contents. What does "repeatedly" mean? And who has done the criticizing? There is a citation in the article from a Time Magazine article that identified Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group." In the referenced Time Magazine article, Rasmussen Reports is not criticized for being a "conservative-leaning polling group," they are merely identified as such by the article's author. There's not enough evidence in the article to warrant including claims about Scott Rasmussen's political leanings in the lead of the Rasmussen Reports page. It seems to me that this article, which is about a polling company, should focus on evaluating the accuracy of the company's polling results. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- That would be WP:OR. It's not our place to define where it sits in the political spectrum. If Rasmussen defines themselves as apolitical, then that's how we must describe them. You cite pertinent information and let the reader decide. Naapple (Talk) 04:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The direct quote was the citation, which is from the "about" page on Rasmussen Report's website. The other sources are extensively listed in the body. Just like I said. Why don't you take a stab at a sentence or two that describes Rasmussen's place in the political spectrum, instead of just slamming me? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
To respond to both Naapple and Safehaven86 simultaneously, please let me explain why I'm pushing this. I have no political angle or personal beliefs about Rasmussen. I simply think that readers are entitled to know where Rasmussen stands on the political spectrum. Are they considered conservative? Are they considered independent? These are reasonable and oft-asked questions about any polling firm and are noteworthy enough to be included in the lead. Wikipedia regularly includes statements in lead sections about the political leanings of think tanks, political research organizations, etc. And based on the body of the article and a Google search, it's clear that much has been written on this subject. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Nstrauss. I understand where you're coming from, but I have a few disagreements. First, I don't think we can assume "everyone wants to know" about the alleged/perceived political leanings of Rasmussen Reports. In my own case, when I read about a polling firm, what I want to know is "how accurate are they?" Looking at the other Wikipedia pages for polling firms (Gallup, Quinnipiac, etc.), I don't seen any discussion of/demonstrated interest in perceived political leanings of the organizations. Overall, I don't understand how a polling firm can have any political leaning at all–they are, after all, rewarded for their accuracy in predicting outcomes of elections. Rasmussen Reports picked President Obama to win. Does that mean they are Democratic-leaning? No, it means they accurately picked the winner. A polling firm asks other people about their views, it doesn't express its own (how would it be able to do so, when it is reporting on the results of polls taken of American voters?) And how can an organization, which is made up of individuals with varying beliefs, have any coherent political leanings? As I suggested earlier, maybe this is an issue for Scott Rasmussen's personal page. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're mistaken in thinking that a polling firm cannot have a political leaning. A number of pollsters are regularly identified by reliable sources as being Democratic or Republican. For example, PPP and Democracy Corps are regularly identified as Democratic, while Resurgent Republic is regularly identified in newspapers as Republican. The lead section for our article on PPP states: "Although criticized by some Republicans as having a Democratic bias, PPP has not exhibited a bias in its polling results, according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com who says he is a supporter of Democrats, was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 and wrote at liberal web site DailyKos.com. Silver says PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results." (I actually think this is way too much detail for a lead section.) In any case, Rasmussen is known for producing results that lean in one direction compared to other firms; it's obvious from looking at the RealClearPolitics charts. That certainly doesn't mean that Rasmussen is biased but it raises the question, and if you google for the answer you'll find pages and pages of opinions and analysis on the subject. Evidently this is a subject that is of interest to many people! Of course, I didn't mean that literally "everyone" wants to know about Rasmussen's political orientation, but lots of people do. Most people are like you and want to know about the accuracy of the poll. I think it's safe to say that most people would believe that, all things being equal, a politically independent polling firm is going to be more accurate than one that was affiliated with a party or known to have a partisan bias. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some polling groups are considered Republican or Democratic because they do the polling for Republican or Democratic politicians. As far as I can tell, Rasmussen does not do polling for any political party. I believe it is in that sense that the company describes itself as "independent"–they formulate, pay for, and publicize their own polling questions rather than doing polling for political parties/candidates (see bottom of article) You mentioned earlier that political organizations and think tanks often have political assessments in their WP articles. Note that Rasmussen Reports is a media company, not a think tank, non-profit, advocacy group, etc. As for allegations that Rasmussen Reports "leans right", take a look at this part of the article: "In a column written the week before the 2010 midterm elections, Rasmussen stated his belief that Republicans would gain at least 55 seats in the House and end up with 48 or 49 Senate seats. Republicans ended up gaining 63 seats in the House, and coming away with 47 Senate seats." Rasmussen predicted 7 less Republican victories than there actually were–does that make him Republican-leaning, or conservative? Or does it make him Democratic leaning? I would argue it just means his polls were off in that instance. Anyway, going back to the original question, there are not sufficient reliable sources in this article to warrant putting anything in the lead about allegations of Rasmussen Reports being conservative. We still have the one reference, from a Time Magazine article. Here are a few reliable sources describing Rasmussen Reports as "independent:" New York Times,Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, and Courier Journal. More often than not, Rasmussen Reports is simply mentioned in the media as "Rasmussen Reports", with no descriptor. E.G. in the Huffington Post and Los Angeles Times.Safehaven86 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you for finding those sources. Based on those I propose: "Although it has been described as 'conservative-leaning,'[cite TIME] Rasmussen Reports is generally considered an independent polling agency.[cite your 3]" This accomplishes my goal while reflecting the reliable sources. Thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- That still doesn't belong in the lead. We currently have one source, an article in Time Magazine, describing Rasmussen Reports as "conservative-leaning." It would be giving that one article, which is already mentioned in the body of the article, undue weight to put it in the lead. If we cherry-pick this source for the lead, we'll end up with a lot of superfluous detail in order to appease everyone (i.e. the PPP lead, which is much too verbose. I'm guessing that happened because no one was pleased with the objectivity of the wording, so people kept adding qualifying details). That would happen here, too. It would end up saying something like "Rasmussen Reports, described by Bryan Walsh ofTime Magazine as "conservative-leaning" (although others, in turn, have accused Time Magazine and Bryan Walsh of being liberal-leaning)", etc. There's nothing so special about an article in Time Magazine about the environment (not about polling, or politics), that warrants giving this much weight in the lead. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, let's say we had the statement "Rasmussen Reports is generally considered an independent polling agency.[cite 3 sources]" That would be noteworthy enough for the lead, wouldn't it? But the problem with that statement is that it ignores a reliable source that comes out the other way. I agree that the 3 sources you found are in aggregate more reliable than Time, which is why the last sentence I proposed gives considerably more weight to those sources. "Generally considered" basically signals an endorsement. Also, adding the political orientation of a well-established reliable source is totally inappropriate either for the lead or for the body. The article is about Rasmussen, not about Time. This issue was hashed out in a previous talk thread for this article and I doubt you'll find anything like that anywhere else. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, if you would, please point me to the criticisms of Bryan Walsh as liberal-leaning. I looked briefly and couldn't find them. Preferably not something on Redstate or similar. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why is adding the perceived political orientation of a source "totally inappropriate?" Isn't that, in essence, what you are attempting to do here? As for Bryan Walsh, I don't know much about him or any perceived political leanings, I was just pointing out that if we introduced his article in the lead, it would be scrutinized and we'd likely end up with a Public Policy Polling lead situation, where so many qualifiers were added that it would clutter the lead. And the policy for reliable sources takes into account individual author as well as publication. Have you read the Time article? It's not about polling, or polling accuracy, or politics. It is about global warming, and it mentions a Rasmussen Reports poll in one sentence. It's hardly a definitive look at Rasmussen Reports. To scrutinize the accuracy/politics of Rasmussen Reports, we should at least draw from sources that purport to do just that, rather than simply mentioning a single Rasmussen Reports poll. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Isn't that, in essence, what you are attempting to do here?" No, not at all. I'm trying to describe the subject of the article, not the sources that are used to describe the subject of the article. Regarding your latter point, if we discarded reliable sources using that criterion we'd have to strip half the material out of Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You could have 10 sources that say Rasmussen is unbiased and it still wouldn't matter. By listing the small minority opinion that Rasmussen is biased in the lead, you're given undue weight to an opinion that's not held by the majority. Wikipedia states that small minority opinions shouldn't be listed at all. Please review WP:WEIGHT and give this a rest. Naapple (Talk) 07:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, WP:WEIGHT states that tiny minority views shouldn't be listed at all. It says that small minority views should not get as much weight as majority views. 1-out-of-4 is not a "tiny minority." It's only one away from not being a minority at all. My proposal is true to WP:WEIGHT and the ratio of the sources by giving much stronger language to the 3 over the 1. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The actual words they use are "significant minority", not small. In any case, the number of references doesn't matter. It's the wording. You are asking for a 2 part statement, that latter of which is only held by a small minority. That's why it shouldn't be included in the lead and is instead listed elsewhere in the article. Naapple (Talk) 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the times that Rasmussen Reports is mentioned in the media, it is simply referred to as "Rasmussen Reports," without any politically descriptive adjectives (i.e. "independent" or "conservative"). The times when Rasmussen Reports is described with an adjective actually represent a very small sample of all mentions of Rasmussen Reports in reliable sources, and the instance in which Rasmussen Reports was described as "conservative leaning" represents an even smaller minority viewpoint. Take a look at this list I have assembled of mentions of Rasmussen Reports in a wide array of reliable sources. In all 20 of these articles, Rasmussen Reports is simply referred to as "Rasmussen Reports." Mentions of Rasmussen Reports as "independent" or "conservative" are very rare compared to this. Instances in which Rasmussen Reports is described with a political adjective are not in any way the norm (and is not even consistent in the same publication!) and consequently deserves little weight. You'll even see that Time has variously described Rasmussen Reports as "conservative leaning" and as plain old "Rasmussen Reports." If we made your suggested edits to the lead, we would not be accurately portraying the way that Rasmussen Reports is widely treated by reliable sources. It's our job to paint a picture of the way Rasmussen Reports is described among reliable sources–and it seems quite clear that Rasmussen Reports is not usually described in any sort of political terms. List: Detroit Free Press, Arizona Republic, The Atlantic, Politico, National Public Radio, The Hill, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The New Yorker, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Barron's, USA Today, U.S. News and World Reports, Huffington Post, Washington Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Salon Safehaven86 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the list, but I'm not clear on what it's intended to prove. Are you saying that if most reliable sources are silent on an issue then we should be too? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I am saying. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to do: represent what a collection of reliable sources have said about a topic. A wide variety of reliable sources routinely use Rasmussen Reports without qualifying their mention of this company with any sort of political description (as seen above in my list). One reliable source, Time, referred to Rasmussen Reports as "conservative leaning" one time (in an article not about public opinion polling). In multiple other Time articles, Rasmussen Reports is referred to simply as "Rasmussen Reports." It's simply not notable enough to include the one Time article in the lead, as it is not at all representative of how Rasmussen Reports is routinely portrayed in reliable sources. It is lending undue weight. Mentioning the one Time article in the lead would be an inaccurate and irresponsible portrayal of how Rasmussen Reports has been routinely treated by reliable, verifiable sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely. You should seriously review some of the guidelines. Wikipedia does not engage in WP:OR. Look again at WP:WEIGHT, here's a direct quote:
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
- We don't engage in original research. Even if Rasmussen was biased (which by most accounts it isn't), it STILL wouldn't belong in here because the majority opinion is that they are apolitical. Naapple (Talk) 03:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the list, but I'm not clear on what it's intended to prove. Are you saying that if most reliable sources are silent on an issue then we should be too? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the times that Rasmussen Reports is mentioned in the media, it is simply referred to as "Rasmussen Reports," without any politically descriptive adjectives (i.e. "independent" or "conservative"). The times when Rasmussen Reports is described with an adjective actually represent a very small sample of all mentions of Rasmussen Reports in reliable sources, and the instance in which Rasmussen Reports was described as "conservative leaning" represents an even smaller minority viewpoint. Take a look at this list I have assembled of mentions of Rasmussen Reports in a wide array of reliable sources. In all 20 of these articles, Rasmussen Reports is simply referred to as "Rasmussen Reports." Mentions of Rasmussen Reports as "independent" or "conservative" are very rare compared to this. Instances in which Rasmussen Reports is described with a political adjective are not in any way the norm (and is not even consistent in the same publication!) and consequently deserves little weight. You'll even see that Time has variously described Rasmussen Reports as "conservative leaning" and as plain old "Rasmussen Reports." If we made your suggested edits to the lead, we would not be accurately portraying the way that Rasmussen Reports is widely treated by reliable sources. It's our job to paint a picture of the way Rasmussen Reports is described among reliable sources–and it seems quite clear that Rasmussen Reports is not usually described in any sort of political terms. List: Detroit Free Press, Arizona Republic, The Atlantic, Politico, National Public Radio, The Hill, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The New Yorker, Time Magazine, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Barron's, USA Today, U.S. News and World Reports, Huffington Post, Washington Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Salon Safehaven86 (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- The actual words they use are "significant minority", not small. In any case, the number of references doesn't matter. It's the wording. You are asking for a 2 part statement, that latter of which is only held by a small minority. That's why it shouldn't be included in the lead and is instead listed elsewhere in the article. Naapple (Talk) 08:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're mistaken in thinking that a polling firm cannot have a political leaning. A number of pollsters are regularly identified by reliable sources as being Democratic or Republican. For example, PPP and Democracy Corps are regularly identified as Democratic, while Resurgent Republic is regularly identified in newspapers as Republican. The lead section for our article on PPP states: "Although criticized by some Republicans as having a Democratic bias, PPP has not exhibited a bias in its polling results, according to Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com who says he is a supporter of Democrats, was a public supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 and wrote at liberal web site DailyKos.com. Silver says PPP actually had a small pro-Republican bias in its 2010 polling results." (I actually think this is way too much detail for a lead section.) In any case, Rasmussen is known for producing results that lean in one direction compared to other firms; it's obvious from looking at the RealClearPolitics charts. That certainly doesn't mean that Rasmussen is biased but it raises the question, and if you google for the answer you'll find pages and pages of opinions and analysis on the subject. Evidently this is a subject that is of interest to many people! Of course, I didn't mean that literally "everyone" wants to know about Rasmussen's political orientation, but lots of people do. Most people are like you and want to know about the accuracy of the poll. I think it's safe to say that most people would believe that, all things being equal, a politically independent polling firm is going to be more accurate than one that was affiliated with a party or known to have a partisan bias. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, Nstrauss. I understand where you're coming from, but I have a few disagreements. First, I don't think we can assume "everyone wants to know" about the alleged/perceived political leanings of Rasmussen Reports. In my own case, when I read about a polling firm, what I want to know is "how accurate are they?" Looking at the other Wikipedia pages for polling firms (Gallup, Quinnipiac, etc.), I don't seen any discussion of/demonstrated interest in perceived political leanings of the organizations. Overall, I don't understand how a polling firm can have any political leaning at all–they are, after all, rewarded for their accuracy in predicting outcomes of elections. Rasmussen Reports picked President Obama to win. Does that mean they are Democratic-leaning? No, it means they accurately picked the winner. A polling firm asks other people about their views, it doesn't express its own (how would it be able to do so, when it is reporting on the results of polls taken of American voters?) And how can an organization, which is made up of individuals with varying beliefs, have any coherent political leanings? As I suggested earlier, maybe this is an issue for Scott Rasmussen's personal page. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You two seem to be taking pretty different positions. By my understanding, Naapple would support having a sentence saying that Rasmussen is independent, but Safehaven86 would have a big problem with it. Is that fair to say? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Now you're arguing semantics. This conversation has gone on long enough. If you haven't gotten it by now, you won't ever get it. It doesn't go in the lead. The End. Naapple (Talk) 06:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am most certainly described as "left-leaning"; and it's clear to me that this is too weak by far to belong in the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- ^ "Scott Rasmussen Biography". Rasmussen Reports.
The Way It Was Claimed That Rasmussen Scored Higher Than Quinnipiac in 2010 Statewide Tossups Was Biased And Not in Sync With The NPOV Policy
This claim is backed by only three election results and while I am okay with keeping the results of the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race in the article, I am not okay with keeping the results of the either the 2010 Connecticut and Ohio Gubernatorial races in the format which they were typed. Rasmussen demonstrated the claim that it has a pro-Republican bias in both of these final polls by claiming thatt Strickland would win by 4%, when he won by only 2.7%, and that Malloy would lose by 3% when he had won by .7%. The only way I would favor re-including the results in both Connecticut and Ohio is if it is mentioned that this advantage over Quinnipiac only counted for the three elections that were sourced and that they did claim the Republican candidates in the elections scored higher than they actually did.75.72.35.253 (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The three races are included because they are the three toss-up Senate and gubernatorial races in which both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polled (which is relevant given that Nate Silver ranked Quinnipiac as the most accurate and Rasmussen as the least accurate pollsters of that cycle–so the three toss-up races in which they both polled are an appropriate data set for comparison). You are correct that Rasmussen predicted that Republicans would do better than they did in all three races. It is also true that Quinnipiac predicted Republicans would do better than they did in two of these three races–Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Indeed, Quinnipiac predicted higher Republican margins of victory that Rasmussen did in Pennsylvania (by 1 point) and in Connecticut (by 1 point). In Ohio, Rasmussen predicted a higher outcome for the Republican candidate than Quinnipiac did (by 3 points), but Rasmussen was more accurate in that race by .4 points. The original content that you have changed accurately represented that Rasmussen was more accurate than Quinnipiac in these three races. Now it seems you want to qualify that by claiming Rasmussen has a pro-Republican bias. If the data from these races is grounds for assessing whether a polling firm is "pro-Republican", than Quinnipiac actually has a higher Republican lean than Rasmussen. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- @Safehaven86 - Just looking at this section now, seems like OR to me. What is the source for the claim that these three races "are the three toss-up Senate and gubernatorial races in which both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polled" made both here and in the article. Nate says that he reviewed over 100 Rasmussen surveys to come to his conclusion. the current article picks out three in which Rasmussen outperformed Quinnipiac to contradict Nate's conclusion. Fair enough if we have a source which says these three are important and why they are important - but I am not seeing that at the moment. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The three races are included because they are the three toss-up Senate and gubernatorial races in which both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polled (which is relevant given that Nate Silver ranked Quinnipiac as the most accurate and Rasmussen as the least accurate pollsters of that cycle–so the three toss-up races in which they both polled are an appropriate data set for comparison). You are correct that Rasmussen predicted that Republicans would do better than they did in all three races. It is also true that Quinnipiac predicted Republicans would do better than they did in two of these three races–Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Indeed, Quinnipiac predicted higher Republican margins of victory that Rasmussen did in Pennsylvania (by 1 point) and in Connecticut (by 1 point). In Ohio, Rasmussen predicted a higher outcome for the Republican candidate than Quinnipiac did (by 3 points), but Rasmussen was more accurate in that race by .4 points. The original content that you have changed accurately represented that Rasmussen was more accurate than Quinnipiac in these three races. Now it seems you want to qualify that by claiming Rasmussen has a pro-Republican bias. If the data from these races is grounds for assessing whether a polling firm is "pro-Republican", than Quinnipiac actually has a higher Republican lean than Rasmussen. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- According to Real Clear Politics' data, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac only both polled in 3 of the same Senate [1] and gubernatorial [2] races ranked as toss-ups (CT gov., PA senate, OH gov). According to this Washington Post [3] article, "There may be no more important governor's race in the country than the fight between Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and former Rep. John Kasich (R)." Larry Sabato had the PA Senate, CT gov. and OH gov. races all as toss-ups on election eve [4]. These three particular races were widely considered important toss-up races, and they're the only toss-up races in which both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polled that cycle, so I think it is relevant data to include. See Talking Points Memo[5], Washington Post [6], Time [7], and New York Times [8]. I can add some of these links to the article if you think that would improve the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- From what I can make out your analysis of the data is wrong. The Florida gubernatorial race was polled by both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac and ranked toss-up by Real Clear Politics [9][10]. The Pennsylvania Senate race was actually ranked as "likely Dem" by Real Clear Politics on the Pennsylvania Senate race page[11] but is also listed as a toss up on the Senate Race Map.
- But aside from these technicalities, the main issue here is that information has been pulled together from a number of sources and synthesized into an argument that none of the sources make -a classic case of WP:SYNTH. Where is the source that says the results of these 3 races are more relevant to the relative performance of Rasmussen and Quinnipiac than the 100 plus other polls they conducted during the cycle? Dlv999 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- According to Real Clear Politics' data, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac only both polled in 3 of the same Senate [1] and gubernatorial [2] races ranked as toss-ups (CT gov., PA senate, OH gov). According to this Washington Post [3] article, "There may be no more important governor's race in the country than the fight between Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and former Rep. John Kasich (R)." Larry Sabato had the PA Senate, CT gov. and OH gov. races all as toss-ups on election eve [4]. These three particular races were widely considered important toss-up races, and they're the only toss-up races in which both Rasmussen and Quinnipiac polled that cycle, so I think it is relevant data to include. See Talking Points Memo[5], Washington Post [6], Time [7], and New York Times [8]. I can add some of these links to the article if you think that would improve the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not sure whether taking data from different pages on Real Clear Politics is WP:SYNTH or just WP:CALC. I notice in all of these races (except Florida, where Rasmussen picked the winner and Quinnipiac did not) Rasmussen and Quinnipiac picked the same winner, just with different margins. I originally added this data to show that while Nate Silver slammed Rasmussen and lauded Quinnipiac in 2010, their results in a number of close races were very similar. Anyway, the way that things are presented in the article now may well be confusing and not improving the article. I think we should add balance to the Nate Silver criticism section, which itself is longer than the entire favorable section. Instead of any RCP data, we could link to an article such at this [12] which critique's Silver for combining the Fox News/Pulse Opinion Research polls with the Rasmussen Reports polls, and for punishing Rasmussen for taking too many polls, after Silver had previously criticized Rasmussen Reports for not taking enough polls ("Silver can’t even keep consistent his reasons for hating Rasmussen Reports...") Or this article [13], which takes issue with Silver's pollster rating methodology ("His adjustments appear to significantly and dramatically alter rankings prominently promoted as "pollster ratings," ratings that are already having an impact on the reputations and livelihoods of individual pollsters. That's a problem...") Perhaps adding these articles in place of the current RCP data would be a better approach to balancing the section. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
lead: conservative leaning or independent? (take two)
I believe that the discussion above entitled "lead: conservative leaning or independent?" was closed prematurely as consensus was not reached. As no one has cited policy to the contrary I am opening this "new" discussion to invite editors to weigh in and continue the debate. A summary of the issue is as follows:
- Should the lead section include anything about Rasmussen's political or partisan leaning or affiliation? If so, what should it say? At this point we have found 3 reliable sources (New York Times, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, and Louisville Courier Journal) calling Rasmussen "independent" and one reliable source (Time) calling it "conservative-leaning". Given those RSs, what should be said in the lead about Rasmussen's political leanings, if any? My latest proposal is "Although it has been described as 'conservative-leaning,'[cite TIME] Rasmussen Reports is generally considered an independent polling agency.[cite 3]" There has been pushback because TIME is viewed by some editors as liberal. The argument has also been made that the political leanings of a polling firm are never appropriate for a lead section. Another argument was made that we must rely on the way the poling firm describes itself.
If there is no further discussion this will be my last contribution on the subject. --Nstrauss (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It's my opinion that such does not belong in the lead here. It's not a major thing. More importantly, as above, consensus is against it. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Massive refusal to get the point problems aside, I'll go ahead and participate this time so you don't have to worry about evil ol' Beeblebrox doing the close again. Having looked at the article and the previous discussion I find that material about their upolitical leanings or lack thereof is already included in the article text. To insist it be mentioned in the lead lends it undue weight, as though it is one of the most important aspects of this firm that readers must know, even if they don't read the entire article. Therefore I oppose any such mention in the lead. The lead isn't for details, it is for the big picture. One source treating the subject as one thing when every other source treats as something else is a detail. Leave it where it is and drop this obsessive quest to force it into the lead section. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
How about if we simply add the word "independent" (with the three sources found by Safehaven86) to the lead? What would people think of that? --Nstrauss (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why? because you really, really want to change the lead or because there is some compelling reason to do so? ( hint:you have not as yet provided a compelling reason). Beeblebrox (talk)
- Will you please get off my case and respond substantively instead of levying the same personal attack over and over and over again? I get it, you don't like me or my inscrutable motives. Contribute to the discussion or move on. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that there is widespread interest in Rasmussen's political leanings -- supported by scores of blog entries on the subject -- including something about this in the lead would be consistent with PPP ("liberal bias"), Mason-Dixon ("independent"), and Quinnipiac ("independent"). --Nstrauss (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that a recent entry by Nate Silver at the New York Times calls Rasmussen "Republican-leaning." That makes 3 RS's calling it independent, and 2 calling it either conservative-leaning or Republican-leaning. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I added that Silver article a couple of weeks ago into the Nate Silver section, which is an extensive section including Silver's views on Rasmussen Reports over the years. I just added another line of info from that article. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion seems to have quieted down but I can't tell if we have consensus. I propose: "Although Rasmussen Reports is politically independent,[cite 3] its polling tends to have a slight conservative tilt.[cite 2]" I'll add this if there's no discussion in the following week. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I remain unconvinced that it belongs in the lead section as the issue can easily be addressed in the main text and as such object to your proposed edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the proposed change. I assume by "cite 2" you mean Nate Silver's most recent piece. First of all, Nate Silver is a self-described [14] progressive. He was granted access to the Obama campaign's 2008 polling data, and he signed a confidentiality agreement with the campaign [15]. He voted for Obama in 2008 and says he primarily votes Democratic [16]. In 2008 Silver ranked Rasmussen Reports as the most accurate polling firm and said of all the polling firms, he would want Rasmussen Reports with him "on a desert island" [17]. Silver changed his tune in 2010, ranking Rasmussen Reports as inaccurate [18] and Republican-leaning. So far in 2012, Silver has decided that Rasmussen Reports has a Republican-leaning tendency that is "not very strong" [19] All of this, by the way, is discussed in detail in this article. But this is an article about Rasmussen Reports, not about what Nate Silver thinks about Rasmussen Reports at any given time (which is subject to significant change, as you can see from the links above). There is no compelling reason to include Silver's varied thoughts about Rasmussen Reports in the lead. That's giving undue weight to a source that, while prominent, is not entirely impartial, given his self-described allegiances and relationship with the Obama campaign. Putting one of the many varied evaluations of Rasmussen Reports into the lead seems to be forcing an issue for which I've seen no compelling justification–and the opportunity to discuss this issue at a notice board has been turned down [20]. Perhaps some new news and analysis will come out of the 2012 elections. But I don't think there's anything more to discuss at this point. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. This re-tread of the previous, properly closed discussion has been nothing but a pointless waste of time brought about by one users apparent inability to accept that consensus is not with them on this matter, that it never has been with them, and that they have yet to convince a single other user that there is some compelling reason to include this information in the lead. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Savehaven86, I don't understand why either (a) Silver's self-described progressivism or (b) the fact that he changed his mind prior to publishing that entry make the proposed source no longer reliable. Lots and lots of journalists whose articles are cited on Wikipedia are self-described progressives or conservatives or whatnot and no one cares. And what is this so-called relationship with the Obama campaign? I'm not aware of anything. Aside from all that, we have a second source (TIME) that takes the same position. At one point you posited that the author was a liberal but you provided no evidence of that and even if he was I don't see why that has any bearing on his reliability. As I stated before, if we had to censor or qualify references based on authors' political ideologies then we'd have to delete half of Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, lots and lots of journalists are cited on Wikipedia–but their opinions are not cited in the lead of articles that are not about said journalists. I linked above to an article explaining that Silver was given access to campaign data from Obama's 2008 campaign and signed a non-disclosure agreement. We do have a second source–Time–which is mentioned in the body of this article. This debate is not about whether to include these sources in the article but about whether or not to include them in the lead. You have provided no justification for why we should attempt to state the myriad opinions that various people have about Rasmussen Reports in the lead of this article. About the Time author, I did not say that he was liberal–I said that if we were to include that reference in the lead, someone would invariably come along and qualify the statement by saying the author was a liberal. That's what happens when you put opinions about organizations in the lead, as happened at the PPP article with qualifications about Silver. Putting a select few people's opinions in the lead lends undue weight. And if you were to accurately state the changing opinions of Nate Silver toward Rasmsusen Reports over time, you would have to say that Rasmussen Reports went from being Nate Silver's favorite poll to his whipping boy. And then we would have an article, and a lead, titled "What Nate Silver Thinks about Rasmussen Reports." We have already had this discussion. Discussion was closed. On multiple occasions, you refused to seek content dispute resolution on this topic. You then said you would stop pushing the issue [21]. Then you came back, started the same conversation that had already been finished (disrespecting the closing of the discussion you had started), and when no one commented, you took that as consensus. No consensus has been reached. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% on one thing, that no consensus has been reached. I absolutely did not take the lack of comments as consensus, hence: "The discussion seems to have quieted down but I can't tell if we have consensus." Evidently we don't! I encourage others to weigh in on this issue. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus has been reached that your proposed changes are a good idea. That is the topic under discussion. If, as you indicate, there is no consensus, then the changes should not be made. Just our of curiosity, how long do you think this thread needs to stay open before you will be satisfied that there is no consensus to implement your proposed changes? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- You misunderstand me - I am satisfied that there's no consensus! My reading of WP:CLOSE is that the thread should remain open as long as necessary until consensus is reached or the thread is otherwise resolved. You might be surprised to learn that many discussions remain open for months or years without resolution. An {{unresolved}} template may be appropriate. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- No consensus has been reached that your proposed changes are a good idea. That is the topic under discussion. If, as you indicate, there is no consensus, then the changes should not be made. Just our of curiosity, how long do you think this thread needs to stay open before you will be satisfied that there is no consensus to implement your proposed changes? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you 100% on one thing, that no consensus has been reached. I absolutely did not take the lack of comments as consensus, hence: "The discussion seems to have quieted down but I can't tell if we have consensus." Evidently we don't! I encourage others to weigh in on this issue. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, lots and lots of journalists are cited on Wikipedia–but their opinions are not cited in the lead of articles that are not about said journalists. I linked above to an article explaining that Silver was given access to campaign data from Obama's 2008 campaign and signed a non-disclosure agreement. We do have a second source–Time–which is mentioned in the body of this article. This debate is not about whether to include these sources in the article but about whether or not to include them in the lead. You have provided no justification for why we should attempt to state the myriad opinions that various people have about Rasmussen Reports in the lead of this article. About the Time author, I did not say that he was liberal–I said that if we were to include that reference in the lead, someone would invariably come along and qualify the statement by saying the author was a liberal. That's what happens when you put opinions about organizations in the lead, as happened at the PPP article with qualifications about Silver. Putting a select few people's opinions in the lead lends undue weight. And if you were to accurately state the changing opinions of Nate Silver toward Rasmsusen Reports over time, you would have to say that Rasmussen Reports went from being Nate Silver's favorite poll to his whipping boy. And then we would have an article, and a lead, titled "What Nate Silver Thinks about Rasmussen Reports." We have already had this discussion. Discussion was closed. On multiple occasions, you refused to seek content dispute resolution on this topic. You then said you would stop pushing the issue [21]. Then you came back, started the same conversation that had already been finished (disrespecting the closing of the discussion you had started), and when no one commented, you took that as consensus. No consensus has been reached. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the proposed change. I assume by "cite 2" you mean Nate Silver's most recent piece. First of all, Nate Silver is a self-described [14] progressive. He was granted access to the Obama campaign's 2008 polling data, and he signed a confidentiality agreement with the campaign [15]. He voted for Obama in 2008 and says he primarily votes Democratic [16]. In 2008 Silver ranked Rasmussen Reports as the most accurate polling firm and said of all the polling firms, he would want Rasmussen Reports with him "on a desert island" [17]. Silver changed his tune in 2010, ranking Rasmussen Reports as inaccurate [18] and Republican-leaning. So far in 2012, Silver has decided that Rasmussen Reports has a Republican-leaning tendency that is "not very strong" [19] All of this, by the way, is discussed in detail in this article. But this is an article about Rasmussen Reports, not about what Nate Silver thinks about Rasmussen Reports at any given time (which is subject to significant change, as you can see from the links above). There is no compelling reason to include Silver's varied thoughts about Rasmussen Reports in the lead. That's giving undue weight to a source that, while prominent, is not entirely impartial, given his self-described allegiances and relationship with the Obama campaign. Putting one of the many varied evaluations of Rasmussen Reports into the lead seems to be forcing an issue for which I've seen no compelling justification–and the opportunity to discuss this issue at a notice board has been turned down [20]. Perhaps some new news and analysis will come out of the 2012 elections. But I don't think there's anything more to discuss at this point. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's the problem with that. It would seem your definition of "resolved" is you getting your way. The discussion has been resolved. Twice. But it seems that nothing will convince you of this. Not the fact that no other editors have supported your suggestions, not the fact that a request for comment thread that you started was closed, and not the fact that after you went ahead and re-started a closed thread, that again, no other editors supported your proposed changes. There's no need to keep this discussion going. I'm sorry that you do not like the results of this discussion, but consensus has been reached, and it is against your proposed changes. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I and others have been trying to tell you for some time now. You have not convinced one single other user that your proposed changes to the lead should be made. Not one. Nobody agrees with you. By pretending there is some sort of progress towards your goal or insisting that there is no consensus unless it agrees with your proposal you are doing nothing but making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself. You need to accept that consensus does not support your idea and stop beating a dead horse. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Who's beating the dead horse here? (How many times can you make the exactly same point? I think we're at least 10 by now...) --Nstrauss (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, Beebs, if you insist on making this discussion all about my conduct could we please take it to my user page instead of bothering other editors here? --Nstrauss (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is where you are causing the problem. You've been told, not just by me but many but by numerous other users, that you are in the wrong and should drop it. How many times do you 'meed to be told the same thing, over how many months, before your ego will allow you to accept that literally nobody agrees with you? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- 42. Now can we move on? --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- If by "move on" you mean drop this pointless proposal to change the lead and do something else, that is exactly what I have been advocating all along. If you mean go back to pretending that there has been any progress whatsoever towards implementing said proposal because you can't accept that the it has been repeatedly rejected, I'd rather not. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- 42. Now can we move on? --Nstrauss (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is where you are causing the problem. You've been told, not just by me but many but by numerous other users, that you are in the wrong and should drop it. How many times do you 'meed to be told the same thing, over how many months, before your ego will allow you to accept that literally nobody agrees with you? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- NStrauss, please read Template:Unresolved. In particular, "This template should be rarely used. The purpose of the "unresolved" tag is to give a visual hint to readers of talk page items that a topic contains important unresolved issues, most commonly an action or change that has been agreed to by consensus but not yet actually dealt with, or a consensus discussion that failed to reach agreement, but needs to go one way or another to solve an extant problem or resolve a conflict with policy." And "In particular, PoV-pushing by abuse of this template (e.g. lone-editor prevention of archival of a discussion no one else is interested in) should be reverted." It seems to me that this is an inappropriate use of the unresolved tag. We do not have an action that has been agreed to by consensus but not dealt with. We do not have to resolve a conflict of policy. It seems to be this is a clear case of "lone-editor prevention of archival of a discussion no one else is interested in." If you agree, please self-revert your last edit. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, removed. I was merely going by what I read in WP:CLOSE. I want to encourage others to weigh in as I do not believe consensus has been reached. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean unanimity. It means a general agreement among most particpants in a discussion. In this case, every participant except one in two discussions spanning a period of over a month is in agreement that the material does not belong in the lead. That is a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not a consensus. We've been down this road before. WP:CONSENSUS: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal." WP:WHATISCONSENSUS: "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." "Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it." Please apply these principles instead of making up your own. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean unanimity. It means a general agreement among most particpants in a discussion. In this case, every participant except one in two discussions spanning a period of over a month is in agreement that the material does not belong in the lead. That is a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, removed. I was merely going by what I read in WP:CLOSE. I want to encourage others to weigh in as I do not believe consensus has been reached. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- NStrauss, please read Template:Unresolved. In particular, "This template should be rarely used. The purpose of the "unresolved" tag is to give a visual hint to readers of talk page items that a topic contains important unresolved issues, most commonly an action or change that has been agreed to by consensus but not yet actually dealt with, or a consensus discussion that failed to reach agreement, but needs to go one way or another to solve an extant problem or resolve a conflict with policy." And "In particular, PoV-pushing by abuse of this template (e.g. lone-editor prevention of archival of a discussion no one else is interested in) should be reverted." It seems to me that this is an inappropriate use of the unresolved tag. We do not have an action that has been agreed to by consensus but not dealt with. We do not have to resolve a conflict of policy. It seems to be this is a clear case of "lone-editor prevention of archival of a discussion no one else is interested in." If you agree, please self-revert your last edit. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
disruptive edits
Unidentified editor(s) are making disruptive edits to this page and to the page for Scott Rasmussen. These edits have the effect of highlighting partisan criticism of Rasmussen's polling.
Sourced, relevant, and balanced additions are always welcome. Much more can be said about Rasmussen's results, relative to other pollsters. However. Duplicating and/or re-sorting existing material is not helping. It would be great if those editors would engage here and have a positive impact on this article's accuracy and completeness. --Lockley (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Lockley, I agree. I have tried to tidy things up at the Scott Rasmussen page. In any event, there should be new information about polling accuracy to add to this page after the election results are in. Tucsontammy (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Favorable vs criticism
In this section, favorables stay on topic, but the criticism from Nate Silver (unlike the praise from Nate Silver in the very preceding section) turns into a pro vs. con on Nate Silver argument. Critiques of Silver's methods don't belong here. There's plenty of that on Silver's and FiveThirtyEight's articles. All that's relevant to the Rasmussen Reports article is that Silver's analysis, which is not the same as his Pollster Ratings, found that Rasmussen had the largest miss and one of the largest biases of pollsters in the 2010 election. How Silver weights Rasmussen in his model (which is the reason for the Pollster Ratings critique quoted here) is irrelevant to discussion of Rasmussen's (in-)accuracy in the 2010 elections, and should be removed. 74.104.155.167 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Not contradictory
Just so we're clear here, conservative-leaning and independent aren't contradictory. One is an analysis of how accurately the poll - with all its assumptions - reflected the results of the election, the other is a statement of intent and politics of the polling company. The problem appears to be one of bias in the sampling method, not any intent to mislead, and efforts will likely be made to fix this next cycle.
Rasmussen Reports is an independent poll that, this cycle, produced conservative-leaning polling results. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Expanding the Lead to Provide Accessible Overview
I noticed the following at the top of the Rasmussen Reports Wiki page:
This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article.
Per the note above and advice from Safehaven86 (talk), I would like to make a suggestion that a little more detail be added to the first section to give a better sense of what the company does. It doesn’t need to be long and detailed, just something as simple as:
Rasmussen Reports is a non-partisan American polling company.[1]Founded in 2003, it produces daily public opinion data and analysis that is distributed through a website, an email newsletter, an online video service and various social media tools. The company's slogan is, "If it's in the news, it's in our polls."[2]
As opposed to just “Rasmussen Reports is an American polling company.[2]”
- I find this language unduly promotional. The lead section should focus readers on the most noteworthy aspects of the subject. In this case Rasmussen's distribution channels and motto aren't very notable. I would support the addition of something saying that Rasmussen is one of the most widely cited national polling firms (only if reliable sourcing can be found, of course), and possibly something very carefully and neutrally worded about its polling accuracy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the lead sentence of this page should be fleshed out to be more informative (it used to be, IIRC). Perhaps a good point of comparison is the Gallup page, whose lead section has several non-contentious / factual short sentences about the company, including some text taken from the company's own web site (clearly marked with double quotes). It would be nice if the reader could get a similar summary of Rasmussen in the first seconds of coming to the page. IMO, the text should stick to some basic facts about what the company does. I had a go at a summary, based in part on what's on the Rasmussen company's About page. What do people think of the following? "Rasmussen Reports is an American polling company, founded in 2003. The company engages in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information. Rasmussen Reports conducts nightly tracking, at national and state levels, of elections, politics, current events, consumer confidence, business topics, and the president's job approval ratings." Terrycojones (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've just added the text suggested above, and removed the "intro too short" flag. I realize, of course, that there was no discussion re the proposed text. IMO the replacement is a more helpful summary than the original half dozen words. Hopefully we can continue to improve it, supposing people think it still needs work. Terrycojones (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rasmussen Reports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.washingtonbusinessmag.com/home/76-meet_the_man_who_takes_america_s_pulse.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120316105435/http://www.snellingnj.com/articles-and-news/snelling-in-the-news-12142009/ to http://www.snellingnj.com/articles-and-news/snelling-in-the-news-12142009/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rasmussen Reports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070808065237/http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com:80/post/?q=N2E1YjQ0NzQ3ODVmOWU2M2E5YWNiMDEwMmQ1MWNmN2Q= to http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2E1YjQ0NzQ3ODVmOWU2M2E5YWNiMDEwMmQ1MWNmN2Q=
- Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/10/39727?currentPage=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Evaluations of accuracy and performance section
I think there is too much quoted material within the Favorable sub-section and the Nate Silver Criticism sub-section. Much can be paraphrased. Additionally, the Nate Silver sub-section includes Silver's critiques of Rasmussen Reports, and then the article includes quite a lot of third-party critiques of Silver. This amount of third-party critique of Silver belongs on his article, not within the Rasmussen Reports article. Fdssdf (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's illogical to use election results to measure the accuracy of polling methods in this country where the accuracy of our vote counting is notoriously low and we still have not addressed the problem in Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.93.49 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Removal of criticism
I feel like if you compare what is in the article today to what it was before the election much of the relevant critical comments have been removed. Leaving you with the overall impression that is not an accurate reflection of this pollsters accuracy or deviation from elections. There also seems to be a lot of things that seem very positive i.e. they accurately predicted 47 out of 50 states that isn't really an accurate description of their accuracy as a pollster or in comparison to other pollsters. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:102:6F20:1D72:F628:353E:CE39 (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
telephone polling
The article quotes R as saying that the 2012 election would be the last national election based on telephone surveying. But the section on 2016 does not indicate how the polling was done. Kdammers (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
2016
For 2016, the article gives the accuracy of RR on the popular vote but not on the electoral vote. According to RR (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/rasmussen_reports_calls_it_right), they were the only poll to call Trump the winner. Kdammers (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Rasmussen' own version of this article
Rasmussen have posted on their website a version of this article: Rasmussen Reports: What Our Wikipedia Page Should Tell You. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)