Talk:RealClearPolitics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RCP's Conservative Ownership

I've re-inserted the line in the lede about RCP's ownership being self-proclaimed conservatives who are concerned about liberal bias in the media. This is not POV because it is a direct quote from the site founders and because it is counterbalanced within the same sentence by pointing out that there is indeed non-conservative content on the site. This statement is not undue weight because, as part of the reason for the site's existence, this zphilisophical background is quite important; thus, it should be mentioned up front in the lede, then detailed further in the body of the article. Also, we aren't implying bias, we're simply stating acknowledged fact; the readers can decide for themselves whether the site is biassed. Before reverting, please discuss further changes to this line here. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the line about "anti-conservative, anti-christian bias" because the issue of perceived conservative bias is addressed in the intro with the link to the Time story. The quote is therefore excessive in the intro since, again, it's already included in the philosophy section. Also, this is the POV of one of the founders, not the stated goal of the site. If you want to more appropriately address the goals of the site, you could use another quote from the same interview:

"We think debate on the issues is a very important thing. We post a variety of opinions."

As it is, you are offering a misleading depiction of the site. As you said, readers should be allowed to decide for themselves what they think about the site, and therefore, the intro should be as objective as possible and not lead in one direction or the other. Therefore, a suitable compromise is to keep the "while some have suggested the column section is conservative leaning..." line while removing the mention of the "anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias" quote.Kadams810 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The site does indeed post a variety of opinions--in fact, I rely on RCP for the majority my news myself, and I believe they honestly attempt to provide editorial balance in the columns selection. I don't think they succeed, but whether or not their selection is biassed is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide. Our job is to simply present the facts; and the fact is RCP is an acknowledged conservative-founded, conservative-run site. It is a fact that they describe themselves as conservative. And that is an important enough issue to mention in the lede. Thus, I am re-inserting the line. Yes, it is also a fact that they post a variety of opinions--which is why we mention that in the lede as well. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is this fact that it is a conservative-run site? The current wording is highly POV in its presentation and very suggestive that the article is biased. Arzel (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is sourced to a statement by the site's founders as quoted in a reliable source. That's not pushing a point of view, that's a statement of fact regarding site's founders' own opinions. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this info would be better suited in Tom Bevan or John McIntyre. This appears to be their personal belief, not necessarily reflecting on how the business is run. Not to mention that the cite is from an article that is over 7 years old. We don't spend half of the lede exploring Nate Silver's personal political beliefs in an article like FiveThirtyEight.com. Adding this old quote of questionable relevance to the lede is definitely undue weight.RWR8189 (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What we do in Fivethirtyeight.com is to use Nate Silver's description of his political leanings in the first line of the article. My proposal is and has been that Bevan & McIntyre's descriptions of their own political leanings should be used in exactly the same way. Consistency. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm. the Fivethirtyeight.com intro paragraph includes nothing about politics. besides, RCP is much less of a one-man operation than 538. neither new york times nor CNN get a word about the political biases of their owners in the first paragraph. i don't see why 538 should either.

Non Partisan/POV

At this point anybody stupid enough to buy this claim can be allowed to do so. The statement of the site being founding by an options trader is sufficient. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

While that may be true, nonetheless I've placed the tag. The protestation by a person with a conflict of interest that they don't have such a conflict is bullshit. The very name of the sites conveys a conservative bias, "The Real America", etc. The prior text stating accurately the self-evident fact of the right wing orientation needs to be restored. This is an interesting case as a far as wiki policies are concerned so I will follow up on this while I can. Lycurgus (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, the absurd "non-partisan" was what caused the above. It is ridiculous but it is balanced by the "conservative leaning". That and the statement of who the principals are will be sufficient for all but the terminally deluded. Lycurgus (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How is the blog still conservative? It is now co-run with Time magazine.

Perhaps for you conservative means something different. Certainly Time magazine, whose readership at this point is doubtless overwhelmingly over 60 is conservative and always has been since its founding by Luce. Look it up, do some research, open your mind. Large corporate interests are by definition conservative, however they may be able to spin a propaganda model of "conversative" vs. "liberal" into the peculiar understanding of those terms current especially among less well educated Americans. Over and above that however, Time/Life moreso now than in their heyday (when at the height of American culture a "liberal" consensus prevailed) are especially conservative. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also it's an aggregator not a blog. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Both sides of the spectrum" refers to the narrow MSM discourse channels of the United States where everything is confined to the straightjacket of the two big business parties and thier common bourgeois perspective, taken as universal. This doesn't make it any less "conservative". For example one will not see what the editors doubtless consider fringe or far left voices who, ironically, are often the ones giving the most trenchant analysis of events as would be expected. Also this kind of split the difference approach as recently I heard Bill Moyers say seldom reaches the truth but rather seeks mediocrity of opinion. Lycurgus (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonpartisan does not mean non-biased, it simply means they are not officially associated with a political party, which they aern't. This format is used in other political blogs as well. Ink Falls 21:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good, and yes that's right. "Non-partisan" in this case is construed to mean not siding with either the Democrats or Republicans, which there's no need to do when they both represent your interests. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it a misnomer to describe a political site as "nonpartisan"? RealClearPolitics has hopes of being nonpartisan, in the same way that the New York Times might call itself nonpartisan. But it's simply not true. Therefore, I would advocate for removing the word "nonpartisan" altogether, and end this discussion. Just call it a "political news and polling aggregator." Farwest1 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the site today, and today's content (2010-08-25) confirms especially well the conservative bias. The current lede here has weasel wording about this fact which deserves a pushback. Lycurgus (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected again

I've had to protect this for another week. Please be aware that we can't keep doing this, and that edit warring when protection is lifted could lead to blocks. As a matter of interest, what is the objection to: "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias ..."? It seems to be reliably sourced. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll echo Arzel's points, because he/she is right on. Adding the quote is an attempt to paint RCP as a biased site, when in fact (as I've noted repeatedly), the founders have been quoted extensively saying their goal is ideological diversity. Also, as he/she writes: "As a point of comparison, you don't see the leads of other news organizations littered with POVish statements about the supposed political intent of the founders of the organization." Again, right on. I'm not sure how anyone can contest this.

Also, a separate point: if you (not just SlimVirgin, but everyone) look back at the history, you'd see that there was a version of the site without the "anti-conservative bias" quote that existed from at least the beginning of the year through May 28, when Aelffin added it. That's when the back and forth began. Therefore, viewing the current version of the page as the default version is ridiculous. The other side added the quote to the intro, and therefore should have to gain consensus before their version becomes a stable version of the page. There's no reason that this version of the page should be locked. That doesn't set a great precedent for wikipedia. It gives power to people trying to make controversial changes to pages and shifts the burden of proof to those seeking to retain the more balanced versions.

Aside from that, however, the main point is that the controversial quote paints a misleading picture of the organization. Citing the accusation of conservative bias is sufficient to get the point across. Hammering the point twice in the intro just makes it look like you have an agenda.Kadams810 (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, why don't you discuss on the NPOV message board? I presented several issues why I feel this is problamatic, and I have yet to see anyone in favor of the current POV version to address any of them. Arzel (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of the points in Arzel's post on the NPOV board, and I would suggest every editor to read it. Many people here are mentioning that including founding philosophy in the lede is not undue weight. And they're right, it's not. But it's quite unclear from that source article how much RCP's conservative sympathies contributed to the site's philosophy, if at all. Again, here's the quote taken in context from the conservative spotlight article:

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."

The initial part talks about philosophy, then variety of opinions, before coming to the quote that can't seem to escape this article. With that quote being its own standalone paragraph, I just don't see how we can be putting this in the lede on the "but it's the site's philosophy, of course it's important for the lede" argument anymore.

It's an interesting, relevant quote for the article, but its home does not belong at the second sentence of this article, and I have serious doubts that anyone here can provide a good argument as to why that quote should stay in the lede but leave in nothing about how the site is based on "freedom" and "common-sense values".

I hate to say it, but looking at the lede just now, this article makes wikipedia look like it's screaming to tell the world about RCP's conservatism, which I find extremely distasteful; encyclopedias are supposed to better than that. Ubiq (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that I wasn't expressing support or opposition for anything; I was only asking. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, the lede summarizes RCP founders' conservative leanings as well as their desire for ideological diversity. It's balanced, clear, and reliably sourced. I've offered several different versions, but the sticking point always seems to be the mention of RCP's conservative roots. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your version focuses on making sure that RCP is viewed as a conservative organization. Several editors have already stated that that sentence is undue weight for the lead. You have yet to address any of the conserns I have stated on the NPOV message board. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern is accuracy. Balance is in the eye of the beholder. And yes, I did address your concerns on the message board, although I had been witholding comment, as I'd requested you to do, in the hopes that noninvolved editors would comment without you and I polluting the well too much. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is the current version the one that gets to stay up until we come to a consensus? As I noted above, the controversial quote was added on May 28. Before that, it wasn't in there. It seems more logical to revert the page back to a version without the controversial quote and then have Aelffin and others see if they can get consensus for a change. The way we're doing it now gives all the power to people who want to make controversial changes. Basically, you enlist two or three people to back you up, you make a controversial change, and then when anyone reverts the page, you claim that they should discuss on the talk page and gain consensus before reverting back to a more balanced version. Doesn't seem like a very effective way to create accurate pages.Kadams810 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be the fact that previous versions were polluted by shameless SPA warriorism, but it's far more likely that the admin just used The Wrong Version. You should notify the protecting admin of her mistake with haste!  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can scoff, but you're ignoring a valid point. More importantly, though, in terms of the substance of the lead paragraph, two major problems remain: 1) You mention conservative bias twice in one sentence. As others have noted, this doesn't mirror pages for sites like fivethirtyeight or Huffington Post. One mention of "conservative-leaning" column selection is sufficient. 2) The quote in question cannot be directly tied to the motivation behind the site. It's a statement of opinion by one of the founders and is already included later in the entry. Without indisputable evidence that this viewpoint was a motivation for the creation of the site, you shouldn't put it in the lead. Also, if you're concerned about presenting the motivation behind the site, why haven't you added quotes from the founders about how they seek "ideological diversity"? The lead as it exists now is misleading, incomplete and selective and, frankly, appears designed to paint RCP as a biased organization.Kadams810 (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Point by point reply below. Emphasis of the major points isn't intended as SHOUTING, but rather to help avoid WP:TLDR concerns.

1. "I" don't mention anything. The overall language can be streamlined such that information isn't repeated; you can't argue for exclusion of specific content because you don't like the current language. The only thing for which I advocate is including the founders' stated philosophy in an interview about the site's philosophy; please don't try to personalize the debate, construct strawmen, or imply false dichotomies. I don't have any experience with the 538 article, and very little involvement with the THP article; in either case the comparison is irrelevant -- we don't make content decisions here based on what is done on other articles. Content decisions are evaluated against Wikipedia policies, not other articles.
2. I find it incomprehensible that you want us to agree that a quote by one of the founders directly about the founding impetus and philosophy is irrelevant without "indisputable evidence". One, I can't imagine what "indisputable evidence" could mean beyond the founders' statements; two, whatever you think about what is true or "proven" is utterly irrelevant. Content must be reliably sourced, neutrally presented with proper weight, and devoid of synthesis of thought or original research. We're welcome to discuss objections based on these policies (which indeed we have, and each of those objections has been answered); however we have no obligation to meet some arbitrary and inconceivable burden of proof invented by a suspicious single purpose account intent on ideological advocacy.
3. Several of us have agreed that inclusion of the "seek ideological diversity" quote is fine, and I personally believe that inclusion of both quotes/concepts is required to give a sound encyclopedic treatment of the subject.

What's the problem with the compromise? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you've done absolutely nothing to show how the quote in question is "directly about the founding impetus and philosophy", instead electing to keep insisting it's about the founding as if that's going to make it become true.

Please explain how this part of the lead gives an accurate description of the site's philosophy, "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias [5] and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning,[6] the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum." Also, please explain why you keep insisting that this paragraph is necessarily about the founding of the site or the philosophy of the site:

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

I imagine you won't be able to do so. But I'm looking forward to another retort full of Wikipedia Policy links to substitute for a good argument. Ubiq (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

When the founders are being interviewed about why they founded the site, I don't think anyone can argue that it's anything other than a quote by the founders about why they founded the site and its philosophy. If you are having trouble understanding what those words mean, I don't think anything I can say is going to help. All of your concerns have been addressed by multiple editors above; I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum in multiple forums. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems we have a case of you don't know what you're talking about. Nice try with this gem: "When the founders are being interviewed about why they founded the site, I don't think anyone can argue that it's anything other than a quote by the founders about why they founded the site and its philosophy."

Reading is fundamental. The source article you are referring to can be found here. I'm sorry, but I don't see where you see that this article is an "interview about why they founded the site". Can you point me to this interview?

In reality, the source article mostly informs the reader about RCP, spending just a single, short paragraph quoting a founder about the site's philosophy. In short, you're wrong in suggesting this article is about the philosophy. This article is about what RCP is and what they do. Within it, there is a small mention about the philosophy of their site, which is not even included in the lead.

"All of your concerns have been addressed by multiple editors above" Really? Mind pointing them to me? My only concern right now is that everyone who's wanting inclusion of the quote in contention is claiming that it should go in the lead based on a blatantly faulty argument about how philosophy is important for the lead. Then I'm obliged to point out easily noticeable facts like: the quote about philosophy isn't even in the lead, AND the quote that's in the lead isn't about founding philosophy. Then I'm met with brilliant arguments like "since this is clearly an interview about RCP's founding philosophy, you have to be an idiot not to see how this quote is about the founding philosophy". Sadly, that's as good as the arguments for inclusion have gotten. Ubiq (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow... I've seen plenty of editors take issue with things like reliability of sources and neutral presentation, but this is the first time in 6+ years of editing that I've seen an editor argue that a source isn't really about what it seems to be about. Let's deconstruct the source a little bit, and examine the meat... First off, it's titled "Conservative spotlight: Real clear politics" -- sounds like it's doing a featured "spotlight" on the RealClearPolitics website and acknowledging the conservative roots. So far so good! First sentence with content:

Since its beginning in August 2000, RealClearPolitics.com has won admirers for its straightforward organization, comprehensive culling of English-language media around the world, and election information.

Great information for the lead, and leaves no doubt that this article is about RCP's beginnings and what it does. Excellent context.

Bevan and John McIntyre, co-founder of RealClearPolitics, "get up every morning and comb through major metro newspapers and some world newspapers," said Bevan.

Introducing both founders -- obviously this isn't an unsanctioned or ill-gotten interview. It's clear the founders are talking with a reporter about why RCP is, and what it does.

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."

Here we have the real meat -- the founders are offering the "philosophy behind the website" (direct quote from source), and then proceeds to give a direct quote by the founders about that subject. I have no idea how you believe you can credibly argue that the article is about anything other than the founding impetus and philosophy of the site. (You can't).

With regards to the rest (specifically "...based on a blatantly faulty argument about how philosophy is important for the lead." This is the closes you come to a valid argument. We can certainly disagree on what is appropriate in the lead section, however the policy is pretty clear -- the intro should be able to stand alone as a summary of the subject/article, covering all major points and topics. You may believe that the site's philosophy isn't important to a holistic treatment of the subject (though I don't see how). We may just have to disagree on that point... I just don't see how you can honestly believe that the founders' stated philosophy and motivations aren't extremely relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Careful with your strawman arguments. I never argued that the philosophy isn't important for the lead. I do believe it is important for the lead. You argued that philosophy necessarily should go in the lead (I disagreed, like in the instance the philosophy is ambiguous, poorly covered, or just doesn't quite fit in some way such that it should stay out of the lead). I believe your reasoning for inclusion is "based on a blatantly faulty argument about how philosophy is important for the lead" because you have yet to demonstrate how the quote in question has necessarily to do with their founding philosophy. Your best attempt was your previous one, where you conveniently, but inappropriately, conjoined the paragraph concerning their philosophy with the paragraph about their frustration with bias in media, as if they belong in the same paragraph. The writers kept these paragraphs separate intentionally, and I know that sounds nitpicky, but it means all the difference in the world about what we're able to conclude concerning the quote about their frustration with bias in the media. You keep insisting it's necessarily part of their founding philosophy. I'm sorry, but it's not. All we know for certain is that it's a view on bias in the media. That's it. Nothing more can be concluded. There is no amount of twisting of the source article you can do to prove your point here. And again, just for clarification, the article is not an interview and it is not a piece on their philosophy. It's introductory and informative, briefly mentioning the founder's self-described philosophy. An article that is about a subject that briefly mentions philosophy and an article about the subject's philosophy are two different things. If the article were primarily about their philosophy, we'd likely have much clearer, easier to use information concerning the philosophy of their site for the lead. That's not case; all we have to work with are ambiguous quotes with little to no elaboration. Ubiq (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm capable of the nuanced interpretation of sources necessary to restate your point, much less respond to it. The source is clearly on-topic, relevant, and is what it says it is; I simply don't buy into your overly meticulous analysis of paragraph structure to discern the "real meaning". Perhaps it's time to let uninvolved editors without a history with this article to weigh in? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your argument, I don't think you quite understood my point, or perhaps you didn't read it, evidenced by "I simply don't buy into your overly meticulous analysis of paragraph structure to discern the 'real meaning'". If you'd paid attention, I argued that the "real meaning" cannot be known with what little we know, if we're referring to the "real meaning" as some hidden meaning beyond what's evident from the quote. If those two paragraphs had been lumped together in the source article initially, it would at least make it more reasonable to believe the authors intended to make them part of the same general idea. But in my view, it would still not necessarily mean much in terms of what we're able to conclude concerning the quote on their frustration with media bias and how it could have influenced the founding of their site. Your summary of the source deceitfully lumped the paragraphs together, I was just pointing out that they are separate paragraphs in the source article. Call it overly meticulous, but it's a perfectly valid point; we dont' know that these ideas go together necessarily.

On another note, I don't appreciate your condescension, your edit summary (yes, I speak Spanish quite well too), or your implication that I'm editing tendentiously. I feel I work hard to improve this encyclopedia when I get the opportunity and insults like that only make me regret helping with the project. Unfortunately, due to your latest behavior, I don't think it would be wise for me to continue going in circles with you. Ubiq (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all take a heaping spoonful of WP:AGF. At any rate, I think Blaxthos makes a very clear argument and I don't find Ubiq's case as strong. I do quite value a meticulous analysis of articles, but given the bulk of context supplied by Blaxthos, I don't find the inclusion or exclusion of paragraph breaks to make any significant difference in meaning. This is a conservative spotlight on a conservative website acknowledging its conservative view. If there's any question about this, then a nice fact-check can be provided by scanning down the current headlines at the actual frontpage of RealClearPolitics.com. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Editors arguing for inclusion of a contentious quote into the lede have argued that the quote is a founding philosophy of the website, RealClearPolitics. As such, they believe it important and relevant enough to stay in the lede. Other editors argue that the quote is not necessarily about the website's founding philosophy. Is this quote demonstratively about the founding philosophy of their website, and if not, what remaining justification might there be to keep the following part in the second line of the lede, "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias [5] and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning,[6] the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum."? Ubiq (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Poison the well much? At the very best, that's a poorly constructed strawman -- certainly not the neutral statement prescribed by WP:RFC. Why not try again by first plainly stating the issue, and then stating why you feel the resolution should be X. Leave the opposing viewpoint to be stated by those with whom you disagree. Also, you should include specifics and references, not casual allusions to previous discussions. No objection to having an RFC, but I'm removing the RFC template until such time that a properly formed and neutrally worded presentation is achieved. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove the tag again. I've requested help from other contributors, per your own request and per my own desire not to edit war or be a baby about things. That summary is about as accurate as it gets, and reflects the arguments shown here on the discussion page. If any uninvolved editor agrees with you that I've somehow strawmanned your arguments (which I find to be laughable considering you consistently strawmanned mine over the course of this discussion page and the NPOV noticeboard), they are free to change the summary of the issue to something they feel more accurately reflects the debate at hand. Regardless, other editors are welcome to read through this discussion page, as well as the NPOV noticeboard to get a full understanding of the debate. Ubiq (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand the point and norms of an RFC. Some points:

1. Your statement of the issue is framed in such a way that you're trying to predetermine the outcome -- poisoning the well. The actual issue is something like

   Should the introduction include the founders' stated philosophy and motivations for starting RCP, with citation #5 as supporting evidence?

   Reasons for why you believe it should not be included should be part of your opinion during discussion, not stated as part of the issue.
2. An editor responding to an RFC should be able to evaluate and comment based solely on discussions and supporting material within the actual RFC -- the purpose is to get an outside perspective, with as little bias from previous discussions as possible. The onus is on you to enumerate your positions here (and let others enumerate theirs themselves)... the onus is not on the responding editors to read through lengthy previous conversations strewn all over different namespaces.
3. I was previously very careful to not represent your position at all, most importantly because doing so is prone to strawman problems; I don't see much validity to your accusation.

By giving a biased summary and then stating your believe that respondants shhould have to "read through this discussion page, as well as the NPOV noticeboard to get a full understanding of the debate", you've effectively started the RFC with an obvious tilt. I request (again) that you take another stab at it in a more neutral and appropriate way. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to predetermine the outcome. Thanks for accusing me of that, though. As well as implying that I misunderstand the RfC process. Your proposed "actual issue" presupposes/implies that the introductions already "include the founders' stated philosophy and motivations for starting RCP", something I and other editors disagree with. That's the actual issue here. We are contending the quote in question is not as much to do with the founding philosophy as you are claiming. I summarized this in the RfC. I'll try to expand it a little bit on this discussion page just to make you happy. Please add your argument below mine so that others can view your side.

On another note, careful with your strawman arguments yet again and for future reference you don't have to link to the strawman page every time you use the word:

"and then stating your believe that respondants shhould have to "read through this discussion page"

You said I believe respondents "should have to" read through all this. I welcomed other editors to do so, in order to determine for themselves if I've inaccurately summarized the debate, as you continue to accuse me of. Welcoming and requiring are two different things. Besides, it really wouldn't hurt for someone to read through previous discussions, if they feel it would help to understand the debate more. Regardless, I never said it was required or that I would expect everyone to. Ubiq (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ubiq's argument:

Taken from the source article, this quote is purported by opposing editors to be a statement about RCP's founding philosophy: "The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias [5] and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning,[6] the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum."

Example of opposing argument: "When the founders are being interviewed about why they founded the site, I don't think anyone can argue that it's anything other than a quote by the founders about why they founded the site and its philosophy." -Blaxthos

My contention is that the founders' stated philosophy is actually found elsewhere within the source article, one paragraph above: "'McIntyre described the philosophy behind the Web site 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.'"

In short, my contention is that the quote in the lede describing a founder's frustration with media bias cannot be shown to be necessarily about the founding philosophy of the site, and we are making judgmental leaps as editors by saying it is. Since this exact quote is covered elsewhere in the article, including it in the lead, as is, would be giving undue weight to this quote, and not due weight to the quote that actually mentions their philosophy. Ubiq (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

By your own admission, one must either accept your biased account or go hunting elsewhere for balance... that's a bastardization of the RFC process. I have no idea what your point regarding "presupposes/implies that the introduction..." is. Once again, your nuanced lawyering is far above my head -- I have no idea how the summarized issue is inaccurate, non-neutral, or contains any suppositions at all -- it's as simple as one can get: Should the introduction include the founders' stated philosophy and motivations for starting RCP, with citation #5 as supporting evidence? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a poorly constructed question. You shouldn't imply for the reader that the quote is "the founders' stated philosophy and motivations for starting RCP" because that's what we're debating is either true or false. Sorry that you just don't get it. Please don't accuse me of wikilayering, thanks. Ubiq (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, the quote (from the source) is:

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."

Saying the above quote isn't actually about "the philosophy behind the website" is simply beyond credibility. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good try, but no. The quote used in the lead is simply just, "We have a frustration that all conservatives have," said McIntyre, "which is the bias in the media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives." All that other stuff (you know, the part about the philosophy) has been mysteriously been left out of the lead, and that's what I take issue with, which you should know by now. Don't attempt to lump that part in with the part about the philosophy and tell me I'm trying to say all of it together is not about the philosophy. That's not what I'm saying, have ever said, and that's about your 5th strawman now, not that we're counting. Ubiq (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated earlier, I believe both parts of the quote must go in the introduction for balance. See this diff, edit point number three. So, if your issue is "All that other stuff (you know, the part about the philosophy) has been mysteriously been left out of the lead, and that's what I take issue with", if we include the other half of the thought (regarding seeking ideological diversity) you'll be satisfied? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading isn't your strong suit I guess. I have already stated why I don't think either parts are suitable for the lead. I take issue with the fact that you guys have been repeatedly referring to what's currently in the lead "founding philosophy" as your justification for inclusion, even though the real part about their philosophy is clearly not currently in the lead. I'm sorry but I just don't believe that it's taken you this long to realize what my argument is. I have stated it quite clearly both on this page and the NPOV page, and my inclination is that you're doing this to tire me out.

I know I shouldn't, but I will accept that. I really should be focusing my edits/efforts on improving academic articles anyway, as I feel my efforts here have become quite meaningless. This will be my last edit on this article. Peace and happy editing. Ubiq (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really hard to hit a moving target here... so if your issue is that "[you] don't think either parts are suitable for the lead", then why did you even bother saying "All that other stuff (you know, the part about the philosophy) has been mysteriously been left out of the lead, and that's what I take issue with"? Wouldn't you just say there should be no mention of any of it at all, then? You keep moving the target and changing your objection... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ubiq, but it doesn't appear that we're going to reach consensus anytime soon. While we continue to debate, I think we need to make the intro paragraph a little more neutral by including the stated goal of the site. I propose this edit. Please let me know if this is OK and I'll make the change:

RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. The site's founders are self-described conservatives who are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the spectrum. The founders have said that the site's goal is to give readers "ideological diversity." It also compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race.Kadams810 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I like it. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the compromise that we (Aelffin and myself) have been offering for weeks? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. However, if the leading statement of self-described conservatives is going to be forced into the article, then the compromise should be that the true philosphy be stated prior. Furthermore, the statement as stated, makes a factual claim which cannot be applied in the current tense. The source is from 2003, and we can't use that statement to say what the ARE now. Per MMfA and other sites to which I know Blaxthos has had similar views we should use the "about us" section within RCP within the lead as the definiative statement about their site. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, Arzel. And, just to be clear, I don't think the 'anti-conservative bias' piece should be in the intro, and I'm not suggesting we concede or end debate on it. I think it would be preferable, however, to debate while a more balanced, and accurate, version of the intro is up. How about this:

RealClearPolitics is an American non-partisan political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. The site's founders say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity." Though they have said they are frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias, and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum. The site also compiles averages of major political polls on various elections throughout the United States to give a national view of the race.Kadams810 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we're trying to get too much into that "Though they have suggested..." sentence. Perhaps we could break it up into smaller chunks? Below, I've tried to clean it up and make it more concise (for example, we don't have to mention that it's American since we already mention it's Chicago-based and we don't have to have that last line about poll averages because we've already said it's a polling aggregator).

RealClearPolitics is a non-partisan political news and polling data aggregator based in Chicago, Illinois. The site's founders, Tom Bevan and John McIntyre, say their goal is to give readers "ideological diversity." They have described themselves as frustrated with anti-conservative, anti-christian media bias, and while some have suggested the column selection is conservative-leaning, the site does include columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum.

Note that balance is mentioned thrice ("non-partisan", "ideological diversity", "both sides of the spectrum"), as is conservatism ("anti-conservative", "anti-christian", "conservative-leaning"). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I say we go ahead and use that version for now. If there are no objections, feel free to make the change.Kadams810 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest that "does include" be changed to "includes" for better readability. Arzel (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Weasel Tagging

is for the "some people have suggested" when the fact is very plain and well supported, e.g. as I noted above by today's content for example. Why can't these people simply accept and own their own political perspective? Is it a real attempt to foist the idea that they are non-partisan, that the inclusion of commentary slightly to the left of the American center makes them so, or have right wing positions finally come to be recognized as the disaster they really are? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I myself am I bit stumped at the intro. I don't understand how they can be 'non-partisan' yet be motivated by what they see as anti-Christian and anti-conservative bias in the media? 174.114.231.69 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you seem to think that 'wanting a non-partisan news source' and "motivated by ... anti-conservative bias in the media" are contradictory is illuminating. Noel (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Bone of Contention Removed from the Dog Run

I read through the lovely Mobius-strip/Strange-Loop discussion above. The only thing that became clear from the MY POSITION! NO, MY POSITION!, NO, MY ...... " merry-go-round was that non-partisan" in its current usage needed to be entirely deleted from opening.

1. The term is subjective - to say the least. It's use in NYT and other newspaper articles is not sufficient justification for it being a Wiki classification of the nature of the site. NYT and such attach the term to citations of Real Clear's releases to give their use of the Real Clear material - and hence, their article - the cachet/credibility of being "non-partisan." NYT and such calling Real Clear "non-partisan" is a way of quietly making this unspoken claim: "Since we at NYT are using non-partisan sources it must be clear that our article is non-partisan itself." It's a case of them citing an authority whose credibility they themselves have assigned. It’s not a classification to be relied on.

2. The argument has been both unproductive and, to the purpose of the article itself, irrelevant. Were the founders and operators of Real Clear to say, for instance - for attribution in a documented venue - "Our site is non-partisan," editors here would certainly take care to ensure that that such a quote was not to be taken as an objective evaluation of the site that Wiki accepted, but, rather, evidence of what the operators claimed about it. Since the characterization "non-partisan" comes from third-party sources (NYT article cited, etc.) with their own agenda, turning that evaluation into a Wiki article statement of fact is a serious error.

3. The proper frame for presenting "non-partisan" in these circumstances - cf NYT use of term, etc. - would be something like: "Real Clear has been cited by major media as a non-partisan source of ..." with the appropriate citations.

4. When/as/if the operators of Real Clear state outright something like "we/our site is non-partisan", that should certainly be included in the article - in quotation marks, with reference and in a frame such as "Og and Ook, the current operators of Real Clear, have said 'Real Clear is a non-partisan site ...'."

Overall, it's best that such subjective evaluations as "Non-partisan" be left out of articles like this until such time as there is a Wiki standard for the use of the term in Wiki articles' classification of the addressed matter (a standard that can be cited, BTW - at least on the discussion page).

On another note, combatants - consider this: winning the room is not the same as winning the argument; winning the argument is not the same as being right.JTGILLICK (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)