Talk:RealClearPolitics/Archive 1

Alleged Bias

There has to be SOMETHING said about the right-wing bias of RealClearPolitics, a criticisms section, something. Just read one article's worth of attacks on Keith Olbermann and you'd see why. 129.49.5.122 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That claim needs to be verified with a reliable source in order for it to be entered in the article.--RWR8189 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

can you verify the GOP is conservative with a reliable source? give me a break. RCP is so clearly conservative, and that is coming from a conservative! 128.62.95.177 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be credibly verified that the GOP is, generally speaking, conservative. All RWR is asking is that you get a credible source to prove that RCP is also conservative. James.S 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree completely. I see articles from BOTH sides of the political spectrum and everything in between every day. For every right-leaning article they link to, there's a left leaning one as well. Sh76us (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "broadly inclusive, but somewhat right-leaning." Satisfied? I think that's a "fair and balanced" quick summary of RCP's POV. 162.84.207.114 (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Hello James. I think RCP is quite objective in its selection of stories. It is not conservative as the wikipedia article suggests. I am a liberal and I've been reading RCP for the past few months day in and day out. This is the first time I've encountered something to suggest that it is conservative.

Ok, how about MCintyre referring to Democrats as "crazy" on Hugh Hewitt's radio show? And constantly kissing Republican ass in his personal blog at RCP? Read the blog. Bevan and Mcintyre are obvious partisan hacks - www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544541/posts

I dunno. I think RCP is pretty conservative. It's listed in a number of publications as being conservative or right-leaning.

Here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-30-blogging-usat_x.htm "Tom Bevan, 34, started this conservative-leaning Web site with a college friend in 2000 and added a blog in 2002."

Here: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/11/27/ "Thomas Sowell writes about the top 1% of earners on the conservative Real Clear Politics Web site."

Tom Bevan is a conservative, he has said as much and he doesn't hide that in his writing or reporting. He regularly write for Fox News, which does not hide its bias or agenda at, he is featured in The National Review, an extreme-right publication, and regularly defends the GOP almost vehemently. RealClearPolitics may not have an agenda as such but it is not a neutral website. Arguman (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

conservative?

it seems like multiple people have tried to add content pointing out RCP's conservative leaning, but only one person, RWR, keeps changing it back. no coincidence that RWR stands for Ronald Wilson Reagan, btw. it is extremely disingenuous for a media organization to not be upfront about their political leanings, and as a daily reader of RCP, I can assure you it is conservative or at least right-leaning. Jgold03 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, find a media write-up describing it as such and I have no problem including it in the article.--RWR8189 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The writers themselves are conservatives, I don't think they deny this. Bevan is in love with Bush - http://www.suntimes.com/news/bevan/173997,cst-edt-bevan15.article

I believe the reference as "right-leaning" should be removed. This is merely an opinion, not a fact. And there are often articles on the site from all perspectives. The polls are not either right or left leaning. So saying that the entire sight is conservative would be a falsehood, and it is not encyclopedic content which can be attributed to a reliable source. Nwbh 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you actually examine the articles posted by writers for Real Clear Politics you will find that they do not feature left-wing or liberal columns. And their blog is largely a right-wing rant that attacks Democrats and liberals. Please research the facts.

I am pretty disgusted with people continually changing this page to indicate that realclearpolitics is an entirely conservative website. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site. After reviewing it, I believe that there is indeed a slant towards the right. However, on a daily basis I see some editorial content in the links section included from a variety of political viewpoints, including liberal viewpoints. It may be true that those in charge of the site are conservatives, but they by no means maintain this as a purely conservative site. Also, many people primarily use the website for their compilation of polls and polling averages. I do not see how anybody can claim that these polling averages and listing of recent polls is in any way slanted towards a conservative viewpoint. What shocks me is that you would not even accept my true statement that "not all content expresses a conservative viewpoint." Take your opinions elsewhere. 137.216.176.165 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• "we have a frustration all conservatives have...[which is]..the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."

That is a pretty conservative statement, pretty much stating that the purpose of the site is to _be_ conservative. Their use of NYT et al is a testament to their desire for _quality_ but it doesn't change the fact that those who write original content for the site are such fellows as Robert Novak and George Will, hardly liberal personas. I don't see any original content from the left on there. They link to _other_ sites for that. That being said, it's easier and simpler to label the site as being categorically conservative and that it just happens to feature interesting liberal content found elsewhere. 75.92.15.232 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC) User:Joel.a.davis

This is your opinion, and is considered original research. The fact is that MSM uses their compiled information without making a ideological classification. Unless you can find something where THEY say they are a conservative blog then you can't put they are a conservative blog into their lead. Arzel (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Opinion doesn't have anything to do with anything, it is pretty much their expressed purpose, not to mention there is a someone listed earlier who himself identifies as conservative identifying it as such. Ontop of that you claim that somehow the fact it's used by the MSM has some bearing, but that's pretty irrelevant. Just because they don't mention Bush is a republican whenever they cover him doesn't mean he's without a party, just that the fact the he was didn't matter for what they were going to talk about. Joel.a.davis (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact simply is that they do not self-identify as conservative and for that reason it would be OR to call them as such. However conservative/liberal a media outlet looks has no bearing on whether or not we can call them conservative/liberal. --Ubiq (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

are you having a hard time reading? What I quoted is McIntyre being pretty explicit that the _purpose_ of creating the site was to serve conservative interests. Seems the burden of proof is on you to explain why the quote above doesn't make RCP categorically conservative.Joel.a.davis (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use that tone with other editors. McIntyre is not saying that they created RCP to serve conservative interests. What he said, was that HE/THEY (while talking to a conservative audience) have the same frustration that all conservatives have. This is entirely different from saying that they are conservative. This is all mostly arbitary, the standard with organization is to use their self-identified qualifiers within their leads. To attribute some ideology for them is to perform WP:OR and specifically WP:SYNTH (which is what you are trying to do here). Unless you can find somewhere where RCP says We are a conservative organization you cannot present what is purely POV. Arzel (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, tone here is due to the fact that this is all insanely obvious. When describing the philosophy behind the site he mentions, without missing a beat, that he felt conservatives were the victims of bias in the media. What sensible meaning can we take out of this other than he felt he was a victim of bias and decided to create a website to "rectify" the problem. When you couple that with: ads targeting conservatives all over the site, and original content usually comes from George Will et al, I find it hard to go back to that section and read anything else into it. I'm not stating that we need to say the site anti-liberal or anything, but I think merely stating that it is conservative in tone and purpose is reasonable. The tone of incredulity is because apparently you think we're too ignorant to understand that this is an attempt to insert your own bias. Joel.a.davis (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is insanely obvious, you must work with other editors here at WP. I think you are seeing what you want to see in RCP. How do you know that he didn't miss a beat between the two quotes? Were you present at the interview? The editors of that magazine would have put together that article to play to thier readers. To imply some content analysis of what was said is WP:OR specifically WP:SYNTH. To further this and imply that he felt he was a victim of bias only furthers this original research and synthesis of material. Looking at the front page right now I see the following ads.

1. The Yankee Institue. They claim to be non-partisan, but probably are viewed conservative by most.
2. The God Who Wasn't There. Movie advertisement. Explores the Jesus Myth theory and arguement against a historical Jesus. I find very hard to believe this would be viewed conservative.
3. Roll Call, the Nation's Captial Newspaper. Claims to be non-partisan. Listed as Non-Partisan here on WP.
4. Kaplan University. Seems pretty non-partisan to me.
5. Ford Motor Company. Maybe a conservative company, I suspect more conservatives buy Ford than liberals.
6. Chevy. Who knows.
7. Direct TV. Don't see any obvious political ties there.
8. Daddy's little Democrat. Pretty obvious there.
9. Barak, Yes or No.
10. Barak, Yes or No again. This one is from Obama.promotowne.info (certainly not conservative.

From what I can see you have a few obvious liberal ads and a several middle road with a few that could be considered conservative. In any case analysis of the website is OR, even though from what I could see the evidence against a political stance is stronger. As for George Will, I don't even see his name on the front page. Arzel (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, the inclusion of the following:

In an interview with Human Events, McIntyre explained "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives."

Fails the summary aspect, it also is undue weight, cherry picking a specific comment to promote a point of view. Plus the context of what was being said can easily by confused to imply that McIntrye is saying RCP is conservative. However, Human Events is a conservative magazine, and McIntyre is talking to that audience, it is not the same thing. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the lead because the rest of the article lacks "weight", therefore not making it "undue weight". This is a quote directly from the founder, and deleting it on the basis that it could be misconstrued to "imply that McIntyre is saying RCP is conservative" is silly. The quote merely mentions his position on the bias in media against conservatives. That's an important viewpoint to mention from the founder of any form of media. If the reader derives from this that all monkeys are purple, that's the reader's fault, not wiki's. That Human Events is a conservative magazine is also irrelevant here and you have no evidence that he "is talking to that audience" so I don't know what you mean when you say "it is not the same thing". I'm guessing you think he wouldn't have said that if it weren't a conservative magazine he was talking to? Nothing's going to prove that. --Ubiq (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I don't have a problem putting it elsewhere in the article, if it could fit. I have a problem with the article as a whole...it looks messy and could use some reorganizing of information. At the moment there are two or three sections with very little in them, which doesn't look too good. --Ubiq (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then perhaps you should expand upon a new section discussing the premise that RCP is conservative using additional reliable sources discussing the aspect any how it may affect RCP. However, just making that statement provides only inuendo to the article. You also have no proof that McIntyre was implying that RCP is conservative, only that RCP is on record as sympathyzing with Human Event regarding anti-conservative bias. You have to be careful that you are not imparting your opinion into the article, which what you seem to have done in this case. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but I'm not imparting my opinion anywhere, and I'd appreciate you adhering to WP:NPA. I never claimed that McIntyre implied that RCP is conservative, so that point is meaningless. I don't need any additional sources to put this anywhere into the article, nor do I need to "expand upon a new section discussing the premise that RCP is conservative using additional reliable sources discussing the aspect any how it may affect RCP". That would be 1. not NPOV since you want me to "discuss the premise that RCP is conservative" (also note that I'm not trying to even make that premise) and 2. excessive considering the current length of the article. The quote is relevant to the reasoning as to the founding of their site, which can be inserted anywhere, including the lead. Sorry but you haven't done enough to convince me it shouldn't go in, but managed to insult me in the process at least. --Ubiq (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse you. Your first attempt inserted a false statement, multiple times. Making a statement of fact regarding why RCP was created. So please explain to me why you think that comment, of all the comments McIntrye made in the Human Events article, needs to be included? Arzel (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you ignored my reasoning for inclusion above. Please reread it. The quote from the article serves as a fitting summation for the sentiment expressed by the founders in the article. Above the quote is criticism from one of them on the mainstream media's coverage of the Iraq War. Below the quote is criticism on the New York Times' handling of the Asan Akbar story. So yes, I consider this quote to be one of a few you could take out of this article to help supplement this wiki article. Second, note that the original edit (the "false statement") you're referring to was NOT initially inserted into the article by me. I inserted it back into the article after I saw an RCP columnist and another user by the name of anon deleting it from the article without any (or sometimes bogus) justification. Anyway, we are now discussing a different edit, not that one. Third, I think you are either misunderstanding or misusing the WP:UNDUE reasoning. We are talking about one single statement in an article that is roughly a paragraph's length. Using your logic, I could easily argue that removing it is giving undue weight. Finally, I've noticed that you've twice accused me of POV pushing (once here and another in your edit summary) and I sense some cynicism from you as to my intentions, which I don't appreciate in the least. At this point, I'm leaning towards admin intervention to help resolve this...for some reason I get the feeling that you're still going to want keep this quote out of the article even though you've not submitted to me one legitimate reason it should not be included. --Ubiq (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite simple, it is undue weight for the lead. It is also NPOV because you are trying to assert a political ideology to RCP thus implying they are biased, when no evidence exists that they are biased, only inuendo. I stated NPOV violations because you seem to be trying to include this one sentence to prove that RCP is a conservative organization when there is no evidence of conservative bias. Just because you don't like the reason doesn't mean it is not legitimate. Arzel (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you call it undue weight for the lead does not make it so. Back your assertions up with reasons why. The lead is pretty much the whole article. I think you are overblowing the implications of the quote, as well as again, accusing me of trying to make some political point when you have zero evidence to back it up. RFC as well as admin intervention coming within the next few days. --Ubiq (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it that you are trying to add to the article with that statement? Arzel (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

McIntyre's view on the bias in media, an important and relevant viewpoint of the founder of any form of media, as I've already stated...restoring info. --Ubiq (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is that statement more important than anything else McIntrye has stated? Arzel (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be more important than everything else he's ever said to be included into the article. You're using your own strict criteria for inclusion to exclude the quote for whatever reason you can think of, and I'm done trying to reason with you. --Ubiq (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good answer. I replaced with a different quote from the article. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So how is that particular quote "more important than anything else McIntrye has stated"? Why is that quote not "undue weight, cherry picking a specific comment to promote a point of view"? Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either is particularly important for this article, but if that reference is going to be used we should at least approach it from a neutral point of view. Please tell Gamaliel how the quote I stated promotes any point of view? If fulfills your objective completely by stating what the founding principles are. It doesn't try to promote on view over another, and there is no way to imply any kind of NPOV violation. RCP is an independent organization, and other than a view blog and other leftist sites claiming bias because of some apparent connection to republicans or conservatives I have been unable to find anything that explicitly calls them a consevative organization or promoting a conservative point of view. The quote that Ubig, and to a lesser degree you wish to place in this article gives the impression that RCP is a conservative organization when there is nothing to suggest this, other than some original research and wordsmything. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It promotes the point of view that you favor, that RCP is completely neutral. I don't see any reason we can't use both quotes so we don't favor any point of view. Why do you find that idea objectionable? Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How does it promote any political point of view, and how can you promote neutrality when I didn't even mention anything related to politics. I'll ask you the same question. Why is the conservative quote important? What is it you are trying to say? You know before either was put into the article this article was completely neutral. It didn't ascribe to any political ideology, now however the reader can get no other impression that it is a conservative organization, and if you can't see that well then..... Arzel (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the reader gets the impression that RCP is conservative when we quote the founders saying "we are conservative", what is the problem? There is no better source for their views than their own words. This isn't about "trying to say" anything. The founders of a media website discussing their views of the media is certainly directly relevant. It's a pertinent fact and the kind of thing the reader would expect to see in a discussion of the founding of the website. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arsel, I can sit here and use the same argument you use for the other quotes that are provided: that it somehow misleads the reader into thinking the site is a "freedom" and "common-sense values" organization, when I clearly can't find any evidence whatsoever that that is true, either from their site or from secondary sources. I could probably remove it on a daily basis, calling it a result of POV-pushing or undue weight. Or...I could realize it's a relevant quote not assisted by any evaluation or interpretation, and could help add to an article that's relatively bare. --Ubiq (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a solution then. Take them both out then. Neither belong and without any context give a POV presentation. Just because it is a bare article doesn't mean it should be filled with junk. My spare bedroom is pretty bare, but it makes finding the important stuff easy. Arzel (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A new solution that is exactly the same as your old solution? Brilliant. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You should talk. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, snap! *eyeroll* Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you understand. I said I could make that point using the same logic you do, but I don't, because I see things completely differently than you do (and in fact, I see the additional quotes on freedom and common-sense values as helping this article). You seem to have a more cynical attitude towards the meaning of content presented in this article. I see the presentation of this interview as an as-is presentation, not trying to paint a picture one way or the other, but rather, letting the founders speak for themselves about things relating to their site. Your interpretation of this content as "junk" and a "POV presentation" are merely your opinion, one which I (and I'm sure others) disagree with. --Ubiq (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is "junk" in the sense you are thinking I am saying, just that it gives an undue weight to the notion that RCP is a conservative organization. Now, I don't really know much about RCP other than mostly what they do is compile information from a variety of sources, and from what I can tell they don't promote any political point of view (granted it is not always possible to remain completely neutral on every issue). When you put into this article (especially within the lead) that RCP is understanding of conservative issues, it gives the appearance that RCP is a conservative organization. Yet one must take into context that this was in an interview with a conservative organization, and the questions and answered would have been framed from "their" point of view. If they had made these statements in the NYT or some other main stream media then I would have less of a problem with it. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So we should discount their own words because they were sucking up to some conservative publication? That's not a reasonable standard for judging the acceptability of information for inclusion. Neither is your concern that they might just get the idea that the founders are conservative because they said they were in their own words. I think the editors here can find it acceptable that the quote not appear in the intro and that it be coupled with your quotes highlighting their openness and non-partisanship, but to excise a quote that speaks directly to the motivations of the founders on the flimsy grounds you offer is unacceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to allege bias, allege it. However, a reading of the article in question shows that the quote does not have anything to do with the founding of the website. Also, just because someone shares the frustrations of a group, it does not mean that they are a member of that group.

Perhaps the quote should be put in an "Alleged bias" section. The section would probably best fit under the "Original content" section. anon18 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An "alleged bias" section would only be appropriate if there were allegations of bias. The quote is from the founders themselves describing their motivations, thus it is directly relevant to the founding section. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote does not say that they founded the site for that reason. anon18 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither does this article. At least not anymore. --Ubiq (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote in question is not about the founding of the site. -- anon18 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll play along. Fits perfectly fine in the lead anyway. --Ubiq (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

People who edit this page continue to put a quote that is not about the founding of RCP in the founding section. Other quotes from the story may be about the founding of RCP but the one in question is not. The quote in question should not be placed in the lead because it is not a piece of basic information. As has been suggested on many occasions, it should be placed in another section, or omitted entirely. --Anon18 (talk) 20:507, 07 May 2008 (UTC)

Section has been renamed to Founding and Philosophy. --Ubiq (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with interpretation of the quote. Without attributing the affiliation of the author, the quote only highlights an affinity to a plight, not an affilation. It's not clear that they are identifying as conservative or if they are simply railing against bias that they see against conservatives. For example, imagine Anthony Romero of the ACLU saying "we have a frustration all African-Americans have", which is "the bias against African-Americans, educated African-American, [and even] successful African-Americans." Certainly you wouldn't presume that Anthony Romero is African-American based on that quote. In fact, the only real conclusion you could make is that the person quoted feels an empathy towards an injustice they perceive is occuring. Leaping to the conclusion that they must be part of the class in order to "feel their pain" is a form of confirmation bias. --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good analogy. That quote is given undue weight within the article. Used in an attempt to label RCP as conservative. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"In fact, the only real conclusion you could make is that the person quoted feels an empathy towards an injustice they perceive is occuring. Leaping to the conclusion that they must be part of the class in order to 'feel their pain' is a form of confirmation bias." Pretty important line there. Seems the leap that would happen (if at all) would be because we're not able to attach a label to the founders to remove said leap. But we can't just stick a label in to do that and there's no way of really assessing how many readers are actually going to draw that connection anyway. As I read it, it suggests they're frustrated with the media bias against conservatives. To me, that means they could aim for a neutral, conservative, or slightly less liberal bias. --Ubiq (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it is your opinion, and your interpretation is presented in a non-neutral way. Might I ask why it is important to be included? Arzel (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's apparent to me that you don't even bother reading people's comments. I didn't even state an opinion about RCP or interpret any information. I listed the possibilities I think could reasonably be drawn from the quote. I would answer your question but I already have answered it more than once. Not going to go in circles with you. --Ubiq (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to edit wars, this page has been protected for a week. Please use the time to discuss and come to a consensus on what should and should not be included. If you agree before that time you can list at WP:RFPP and request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ubiq (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Sentence.

The following sentence continues to be put into the article without any context. In an interview with Human Events, McIntyre explained "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives." The only reason for inclusion (which I can see) is to promote the personal views and opinions that RCP is a conservative voice. However, no evidence exists to support such a stance. Unless a valid reason can be given for inclusion it should be removed because it provides undue weight to the personal views of some editors, and is also in violation of an overall NPOV. In addition, the very inclusion is synthesis of material, in the sense that it tries to define RCP as a conservative group on the basis of one statement. RCP has clearly stated its purpose and goals, there is no reason to use this loaded sentence to promote personal points of view. Arzel (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this to death. This is nothing new. There is no NPOV violation in quoting people about their motivations in their own words. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your whole argument is based on a presupposition of other editors' "personal views". It's going to go nowhere--any counterargument can use the same logic, that you want to remove the quote to support your "personal views". --Ubiq (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no personal views of RCP, but it is obvious the both of you do. Rules for inclusion fall on the includer, what is your reasoning Ubiq and Gamaliel? Without any valid reason it is obvious it is to promote your own personal opinions and thus in violation of NPOV. Futhermore Gamaliel, this was never settled before. The page was locked and noone ever gave a reason for why they wanted it included before. As I see it this is still open. Arzel (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not "obvious" because it is not true. I've never heard of RCP outside of this article. Find a valid reason to remove the quote beyond your imagination. Gamaliel (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The creator of his website describing the reason for the creation of the site in the article about the site seems perfectly reasonable and it'd have to be a pretty good reason to remove an otherwise fine and sourced quote from this article. Chris M. (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I second that. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quantitative Evidence on RCP being conservative or right-leaning (as opposed to centrist) based on news articles from 2003-2008

RCP is the online equivalent (but less blatant) than Fox News, by using a numerical fig leaf of balance - by posting an equal number of articles that are clearly right or left - irrespective of the underlying preponderance of credible opinion in the country on that issue. They achieve this by mixing in some high-end respected pundits like David Brooks from the NYT, or Peggy Noonan of the WSJ, among moderate conservatives, and this is the key thing - they elevate much lesser known conservative writers to join a more respected pantheon of commentators, in their article links.

RCP fulfills a useful role in an easy place to find polls, like Pollster.com, but its pretense to fairness like Fox News is a bit lame. Its genetics are clear.

These are the Google News archival results:

"Tom Bevan, 34, started this conservative-leaning Web site with a college friend in 2000 and added a blog in 2002" (2003) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-12-30-blogging-usat_x.htm

"Chicago resident Tom Bevan is covering the Republican convention for his center-right blog, realclearpolitics.com" (2004) http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=RealClearPolitics+right-leaning

"Real Clear Politics, a right-leaning website, also has tons of useful information" (2008) http://politibits.tuscaloosanews.com/default.asp?item=2260417

This is where you may find articles have been written describing RCP as centrist. I found none that actually say that in this list: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=RealClearPolitics+centrist&btnG=Search&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8

The score is 3-0. This is enough quantitative evidence to label RCP as right-leaning.

This does not include any other sources like Brooks' take on RCP or the article below. I used an automated, quantitative source to compare - Google News - to keep my bias out.

One of the founders also confessed quite openly: "In an interview with the conservative magazine Human Events, McIntyre (who founded RCP with Tom Bevan) described the philosophy behind the website as based on "freedom" and "common-sense values." Said Bevan, "We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions." He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, [and] Christian conservatives." (2003) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200303/ai_n9233442

Cheers,

Malibudoc

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but highly respected "sabermetrics" poll aggregation site FiveThirtyEight.com put forth a scientific assessment today explaining the cherry picking philosophy of RCL in respect to the current Presidential race.[1] Of course, he is an admitted partisan, but looking at it from a quantitative, numerical perspective it does seem clear that the RCL methodology for arriving at its averages does look less than centrist in nature because they have altered their data sources in the midst of a clear polling shift (with the "advantage" going to the GOP nominee.) In general if two sides feel as strongly as they do here about something in respect to its political lean, it is usually bent... Neutralis (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I concur with your edit and your conclusions. This just proves once again that good research always trumps arguing and edit wars. Gamaliel (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were past labels unless they were self labels, and Original Research doesn't fly either. FiveThirtyEight put forth an opinion, and there was nothing scientific about it. Additionally, FiveThirtyEight is a competing for profit company of polling agregate data. Their opinion is undue weight within this article, and self-published at that. The fact that they compete with each other should be a huge red flag since it would appear that 538 is trying to affect their bottom line. Arzel (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nate Silver is pretty open about the fact that he's discussing a competitor. Perhaps you could quote him on the matter in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? Silver is basically saying that "His" method is better than their method. He even states in his discussion that he doesn't know why, he is just making an assumption which happens to play well into his bottom line. If a third party has a valid concern that is a different story, but a competing interest with a financial stake should not be included. Arzel (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation that there is a vague financial reason for Silver's commentary is not a valid criteria for excluding the work of a recognized authority on the subject. Gamaliel (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that he is a recognized authority? You do realize that his own bio here says that he started 538 as a BLOG, ie SELF-PUBLISHED, ie NOT RELIABLE. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. All caps added for emphasis and hilarity. "SELF-PUBLISHED material may, in some circumstances, be ACCEPTABLE when produced by an established EXPERT on the TOPIC of the article whose WORK in the relevant field has previously been PUBLISHED by reliable THIRD-PARTY PUBLICATIONS." Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says that he is an expert in this area? Additionally, your interpretation does not hold water. You are an admin, so I shouldn't have to quote policy, or do you simply only read the words that fufill your point of view? Show me some proof that he is an expert in this area. Your insistance of using a blog really is vexing, and your edit warring is also troubling. Arzel (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources to substantiate that he is a recognized expert in the Nate Silver article. Please don't lecture me on policy and behavior until you clean up your own act, thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't lecture me. Onus is on the includer. You have yet to provide a valid reason why you think a Blog source should be used. Perhaps you should step away from your own self-importance for a while. Arzel (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also you forgot this little part about WP:V "However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should use caution. But there's nothing about this material that should raise any warning flags. Despite your bizarre claim that I have "yet to provide a valid reason" that we should include this material, I clearly have: a recognized expert is making an important claim in his area of expertise. And I should note that others have cited Silver's opinions on this matter, including the Atlantic. I will dig up the citation when I have more time, or you can find it yourself via google news. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched, and was unable to find anything that says or would point to him being an expert on RCP's methodology. His site is a Blog, and self-published. He makes it quite clear as you have stated that he is a competitor and thus is a NPOV and Undue weight violation. He even states in his blog that he doesn't know why RCP's chooses some polls and rejects other polls. He is a stated Obama supporter, and is looking for percieved bias against Obama. Seriously, your insistance on including his comments is troubling. [Offensive comments removed] Arzel (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your petulant insistence that I am biased against some website I've never heard of before reading this article is both unfounded and uncivil, but no doubt you will continue to make that claim in the face of both logic and manners. The point I was not making is obviously not that he's an expert of RCP's methodology, but that he's a recognized expert on polling, and thus is eligible for inclusion. Citing the third-party Atlantic should eliminate any complaints about this, and now that I'm back I'll have time to dig up that citation again. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Don't give me that Gamaliel, this is undue weight and primarily sourced from a blog and you know it. So leave the feigned indignation at the door, you have provided me with no respect in the past so don't go calling me uncivil when you know very well that your own treatment of me is no better. Arzel (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't want my contempt? Then stop with the incivility and the constant accusations of bias. I don't need to put up with that kind of shit and neither does any other Wikipedian. Don't blame me for your own behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Nate Silver is an admitted BO supporter. If you want to provide the "truth" why not edit the 538 article to include his obivious bias. It is just so appearingly hypocritical to see this outcry in this article because of a supposed conservative bias, when a similar site's article with a declared bias reads as if it is the most neutral site in the world. If you are going to play one side of the bias card you better be ready to play both or expect to be called on it. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the 538 article if you wish. Lacking omniscience, I cannot possibly be responsible for the content of every article on Wikipedia, and to select other articles I have never edited as "evidence" of some kind of bias or hypocrisy is absurd. If you want to know why I have contempt for you, it's exactly this kind of crap. If you have something else to say about your feelings about me, take it somewhere else (RFC, AN/I) and leave us to discuss the article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Leaning

I hope that we can put a stop to the revert war concerning the terms "right leaning" or "conservative leaning." It is clearly cited from a very reliable source (USA Today) and I have updated the lead to reflect how this national newspaper characterizes RCL. Only if a new, divergent consensus is reached should it be changed.

Two quick points:

1. How they self identify does not matter (used as revert rationale.) I'm sure Microsoft self identifies as "The very best software company in the world" - but that doesn't make it so.

2. What is happening on the MSNBC article, a valid revert reason does not make. It might add to this talk page discussion (a macro view) but we should focus on what we have for sources and let the editors on the MSNBC page do the same. Neutralis (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If they do not self-identify as conservative, perhaps we could all agree on an alternative wording such as "RealClearPolitics is a website that has been described as conservative-leaning". Gamaliel (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like the current wording and I agree with Gamaliel's alternate proposal of "described as conservative-leaning". However, I think this should not be placed at the first line in the article but maybe at the end of the paragraph or something like that. Having the first sentence start with "RealClearPolitics is a conservative-leaning..." irks me, it just doesn't seem that we can definitively say something like that in an encyclopedia just because a source calls it that. --Ubiq (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you can improve the article be re-arranging the wording while keeping the context, I am all for it. Neutralis (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is simply not how things are done. This is Original Reasearch being used to present your point of view. Just because a couple of sources claim that they are right leaning or conservative doesn't make it so, and neither should this article make that link. I used the MSNBC annology because right now there are many more sources that claim that MSNBC is a very liberal organization. This, however, doesn't allow us to say that MSNBC is a liberal cable news network. You may say that they are different articles, but the same rules apply to all. Arzel (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all it is not original research, we are pulling from an article. Secondly, the article source is USA Today which is a highly regarded national newspaper. Thirdly, MSNBC and RCP are apples and oranges with one being a blog and the other a national cable network. Finally, we are not offering a point of view but rather offering an encyclopedic characterization of the organization using the sources available (not to mention RCP is considered one of the most popular conservative websites on the net. [2].) Neutralis (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See section above that shows the quant work I did. The USA Today article clearly states early on in the article, when referring to blogs being discussed, that "most make no pretense of objectivity" and calls RCP "conservative leaning" as Neutralis has pointed out. An automatic quantitative analysis of Google News articles shows that several sources describe RCP as right/conservative leaning - and that none describe it as liberal or centrist (see the section above that I started). Two things: (1) I think that the description does not belong at the end of the first section - it belongs at the beginning, given USA Today's blurb ("Tom Bevan, 34, started this conservative-leaning Web site with a college friend in 2000 and added a blog in 2002.") or at most, in the middle - the wiki intro is much longer than the USA Today blurb, so the conservative mention should come earlier. So I believe if not used in the first sentence, it should come before a description of what the site does, just like in the USA Today blurb (2) There should be more exposition as to what about it is seen as conservative and what is not - its polls should be spared of insinuations of a conservative bias. The selection of third party opinion pieces, and to a lesser degree the founders' philosophies and RCP writer leanings are what make the site conservative leaning. Malibudoc (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead should summarize in a nutshell the full breadth of the composition and thus the inclusion of the founding viewpoint is paramount as it helps define the articles present on the site and the poll selection methodology.[3] Neutralis (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. There is absolutely NO evidence that their polls are biased conservatively, and their commentary covers both sides equally. Compare that to Fivethirtyeight.com which actively supports Obama. I don't see that article being littered with this personal bias. WP is NOT the place to promote your personal biased feelings. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative, but why is it that conservatives do not want something labeled as conservative that is conservative? I assume it would be a badge of honor, not a scarlet letter... 66.186.173.180 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)