Talk:Rasmussen Reports/Archive 1

?
That may all be true; however, is there anyone who does not agree?? This article is as if they are only good.

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BIASED poll -- often skews in favor of republicans.... "most accurate poll" bubkus 130.91.98.31 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

According to SurveyUSA Rasmussen polling was not at the top of the list regarding poll error accuracy. (http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/2008-pollster-report-card-hilevel-summary-011908.JPG) 71.206.32.103 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SurveyUSA is one of Rasmussen's rival polling firms. It is not a reliable source on this matter. ·  jersyko   talk  21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor sourcing here. The articles that support the argument that Rasmussen is "one of the most accurate" give them only the slimmest trivial advantage, and not even consistently. The Wall Street Journal article actually uses quotes from Scott Rasmussen himself claiming that they did the best job; hardly an unbiased source. jkwilson —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Basic company data
The article is lacking some fundamental data which should be expected from an encyclopedia article about a company, such as the number of employees, approximate revenue/profit numbers (if available), ownership, company seat and the year of foundation.

(From a Google News archive search, it appears that the company was founded in 2003.)

It would also be useful to clarify the relationship with other opinion poll firms founded by Scott Rasmussen, such as Portrait of America / GrassRoots Research Inc (founded in 1996 ), Maricopy Research, Rasmussen Research (bought by TownPagesNet.com in 1999 for about $4.5 million in ordinary shares ).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sense...
"updates its President's job approval rating daily other indexes"

-What is that supposed to mean? Somebody please make sense of that. Maybe a comma or an "and" somewhere...PokeHomsar (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"For example, After Downing Street commissioned a poll on the impeachment of President Bush. [11]." This is a sentence fragment and doesn't state anything. It's reference is nothing. Please fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyEyedGrrl (talk • contribs) 12:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re GreyEyedGrrl's comment, above: The sentence wasn't really a fragment but was easily mistaken for one because the subject "After Downing Street" looked like a prepositional phrase adjunct. I changed the wording to "anti-war organizatin After Downing Street," but someone who knows more about that organization may want to adjust the descriptor. I also added changed "commissioned a poll" to "commissioned a Rasmussen poll" to make clearer the relevance of this sentence to the preceding one. 99.231.15.10 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Further to above: I changed "a poll on the impeachment of George W. Bush" to "a poll on support for impeachment of George W. Bush." The original wording suggested that Bush had been impeached, where in fact he never was. The poll in question asked whether people would support such an impeachment.99.231.15.10 (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edited Criticism Section
I edited the criticism section to add balance to the article. All of the information was taken from Scott Rasmussen's Wikipedia entry. There seems to be more information about Rasmussen Reports on Scott Rasmussen's personal entry than there is on the Rasmussen Reports Wikipedia page. The entry on Scott Rasmussen's page should be abridged, and then link to the Rasmussen Reports entry. Much of the criticism on this page was addressed and countered by articles on Scott Rasmussen's entry. I have added those articles and sources here where appropriate. --Goosedoggy (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone cleaned up my edit today. Thanks mystery editor! Reads even better. And you moved my comments to the right spot too! --Goosedoggy (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey Method
Someone should write in here somewhere that Rasmussen Reports surveys "likely voters" as opposed to "all adults". Everyone knows Republican turn-out tends to be higher than that of Democrats, thus giving the "likely voters" method a slight edge towards the Republicans. Explaining that would balance the article a little better since Rasmussen Reports isn't the only firm to use a 1,500+ sample size (see Gallup.) -- 24.127.96.47 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Paid consultant Vs. opinion polling
I removed, but then put back on a different line, the fact that Rasmussen commissioned a poll for After Downing Street. I don't see how it's relevant to the criticism that Rasmussen was a paid political consultant to George W. Bush and the RNC during the 2004 elections. There is no relation between being a paid political consultant and who hires your firm to commission a poll. Polling firms have the right to accept or reject any job offer, but if you are a paid political consultant it's your job to help who hires you to win an election or advance your cause. Two totally separate things are being lumped into one category here. DD2K (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't strike me as separate things.— DMCer ™  21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to not see that they are totally separate. You can be hired, as a firm, to poll any question that the people who hire you want you to ask. That doesn't mean you agree with the question, and you only have to take the results back to the people who hire you. If you are a paid consultant, your job is to help the person who hire you improve their image, message and your goals are the same as the people you are working for. There is no way that anyone can claim they are in any way related.DD2K (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not quite impossible. My issue is that, unless you're looking at a different source, it's not possible from the source listed to discern whether the polling company was hired to do anything but poll, which isn't necessarily different from the way a hired polling firm would help After Downing Street with its agenda. I don't really care either way though, since you only moved the Downing Street info down a bit. Whatever the case, both sides are at least represented.— DMCer  ™  06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see your point, as the link doesn't go into detail about the differences. But if you look at the definition of what a paid political consultant is, you can see there is a huge difference between taking on that particular job and one that you are paid to just poll for. The difference is as if you worked in the home improvement industry and someone of a political ideology(AfterDowningStreet) you disagreed with asked you to remodel their bathroom, and you did, and taking a job to help someone(Bush/GOP) get elected. Two distinctly separate actions. And I can't let the claim of which isn't necessarily different from the way a hired polling firm would help After Downing Street with its agenda go unanswered. Rasmussen wasn't 'helping' ADS with their 'agenda', they ran a poll for them. The same as when Research 2000 runs polls for DailyKos. Rasmussen is listed as a paid consultant by the Center for Public Integrity. A paid political consultant is described as "advis[ing] campaigns on...research...field strategy...candidate research, voter research, and opposition research for their clients". The Center for Public Integrity lists paid consultants as a "professional or firm that provides inherently political services, including creative or strategic advice". Also, the Center lists the activities that were paid to Rasmussen as not only for conducting surveys, but for survey research and providing voter data information. In any case, my apologies for not giving a more detailed explanation above.DD2K (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph regarding "glaring errors" under Reputation
I deleted this paragraph because I believe each of the three sentences in the paragraph are incorrect. Specifically:

Sentence 1: "However, Rasmussen's polls have had some glaring errors before." This may be true; but if it is, there should be some examples (other than the next two sentences) provided.

Sentence 2: "In 2009, Fox and Friends displayed a polling graphic created from a Rasmussen poll that added up to 120%." It's true that Fox and Friends displayed an inaccurate polling graphic based on Rasmussen polling data, but the original data as reported by Rasmussen Reports were correct; it was Fox and Friends which made the error in the graphic. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_toplines/december_2009/toplines_climate_change_december_1_2_2009 )

Sentence 3: "The mistake was, in fact, in the first paragraph of a Rasmussen report titled 'Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming'." The first paragraph of this report is not related to the Fox graphic; the fourth paragraph of the report is the relevant paragraph, and it reports the survey data correctly.2rock (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was rightly deleted. The mistake was from FNC(even though they claim otherwise) and not from Rasmussen. I have my own opinions on Rasmussen and their polling(I think they purposely tilt the results in favor of conservatives so they are used more in conservative outlets), but the charge that was deleted is false. That graphic was correct(but misleading), and was a product of Fox News, not Rasmussen.DD2K (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think the Fox News graphic was both misleading and incorrect. I blogged about this at http://www.lancebledsoe.com/fox-news-mangles-stats-denies-error/ .2rock (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Okay, fine, the fourth paragraph, but did you bother reading the fourth paragraph?  Here's the report :


 * Okay, you got that. Now, go to Start, Run, and type in "calc".  Add those three percentages together.  What does it add up to?  120%!
 * Next time you start deleting paragraphs, make sure you're actually doing it for the right reasons. I'm bring back the paragraph, and yes, I will correct the error on which paragraph it is.  SineSwiper (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your reading of the paragraph is incorrect. Here is the question(as asked) and the data described in the paragraph you cite:
 * 3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?
 * 35% Very likely
 * 24% Somewhat likely
 * 21% Not very likely
 * 5% Not at all likely
 * 15% Not sure'''
 * When the quote states--
 * --they are referring to the combined numbers of 35% that state it's 'very likely' and the 24% that state it's 'somewhat likely', which equal 59%. Which is qualified by the bolded qualifier of 'at least'. It's sloppy wording to then go on to list only the 'very likely' respondents in the next sentence, but the paragraph is technically true and you are misreading it. I am removing the claim, as it is obviously false, and any revert should to be discussed and explained in talk. DD2K (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake, though it's really bad wording on their part. I could easily see how somebody on Fox would screw that up. SineSwiper (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, very poor wording. And it seems misleading, although technically correct. The paragraph should have been worded this way:
 * Oh well. I can definitely see why people would suspect falsification, or at least bias by misleading, from either Rasmussen or FNC. DD2K (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I can definitely see why people would suspect falsification, or at least bias by misleading, from either Rasmussen or FNC. DD2K (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fordham University study
The sentence about the Fordham study reads as follows: "A paid Fordham University analysis ranked Rasmussen Reports as the most accurate national polling firm in Election 2008." And it cites this one-page google doc as the reference.

The reference does not indicate that the analysis was "paid," as if to imply that some interest group commissioned the study and therefore discredits it. Is there source that suggests otherwise? I'm deleting it for now because it is not sourced and looks like it may be a subtle attempt to poison the well.Treefingers1206 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of blogs, reputation section's undue weight
There's been a complaint about my removing blogs such as MyDD, Daily Kos, etc, in my rewrite. I figured we should open to discussion as to why those unreliable sources should be used, and why the current version is lacking. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First I will note that prior to your edits yesterday the article was arguably in need of some improvement. However, in your mass rewrite of the article, you have hastily misinterpreted WP's policies and guidelines regarding blogs. You've rewritten the article with an obvious POV in support of Rasmussen Reports, removing 12 sources and virtually all the reliably sourced material about some of the widespread criticism of Rasmussen's methods, and also the material about RR's conservative political leanings and affiliations. IIRC, among the RSs which have asserted Rasmussen's conservative political leanings are Nate Silver (yep, the same Nate Silver that is cited in support of Rasmussen's excellent results in the presidential election), while many others have asserted an outright conservative bias in both the survey questioning methods and in the way Rasmussen presents its survey results to the public. Frankly, the result of yesterday's edits (e.g., here) could hardly have been written better by a professional PR firm. ..... Therefore I'm going to revert it back to the basic long-standing form of the article, and request that you take the sources one at a time here on the talk page if you believe them to be unreliable as to either the facts they present regarding the types of questions RR asks in its polling or as to the general political affiliations and conservative leanings. I'll have a chance to deal with this in more detail over the weekend. ..... Here are the WP rules for dealing with the kinds of sources you've removed on the basis that they're "blogs" From IRS:"'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. "From IRS: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a 'blog' style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more 'traditional' 20th-century format."From WP:SOURCES, part of the core policy page WP:V: "Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. 'Jane Smith has suggested...'). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."Please articulate on the talk page the basis for your edits, taking the issues one point at a time, and also articulate the specific reasons for removal of any of the sources used in the article if you think they're irrelevant or unreliable. I'll be able to deal with this further over the weekend, and will willingly discuss the issues, including your assertion about WP:WEIGHT, point-by-point over the weekend. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * MyDD, Media Matters, and Daily Kos do not meet any of those standards. Talking Points Memo and 538 I have kept due to their nature (one is now associated with a newspaper, one won a journalism award).  I have otherwise not removed any negative information that is clearly and reliably sourced, and have adjusted the weight to better reflect reality and to not have the entire section about reputation dominated by negative information, which is unfair.  Your wholesale revert did not actually reflect any reason as to why those should remain included against Wikipedia policy on sourcing.  You can add them back if and when you can justify their inclusion - we cannot have this article defying policy based on your bad faith regarding my motives. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree primarily with Kenosis. DailyKos and MyDD are problematic, but those are only used for a small fraction of the sourcing. Removing that or using other sourcing for those details could easily be accomplished without the massive rewrite done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't account for the weighting issue, nor why we're reverting to a version with duplicated information or bad sources (which account for a significant portion of the criticism, not "a small fraction." Why agree, exactly?  What problems do you see with the rewrite, and do you agree with his application of motives toward me? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick count shows that 9 of the sources in the "response" section are from blogs that do not meet the standards of the sourcing requirements here, right and left wing. My rewrite keeps some noteworthy blogs (TPM, 538), replaces bad sources with good ones (Media Matters -> MSNBC), and eliminates many of the duplicates and much of the weighting issue.  Please explain. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So no response, Kenosis? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the last mass deletion. You've given some of your conclusions, Ed Wood's Wig, but no facts in support of why you think any of the sources you removed are unreliable as to the statements in the article which they support. This will not be adequate with a one-user mass rewrite when many editors have contributed this material over a long period of time. We'll need specifics, not generalities about what conclusions you personally think might apply. So, let's get started reviewing each of them, one by one. I can do this today and tomorrow at various times throughout. Be back at about 16:00 UTC. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no mass deletion, it's a significant rewrite because those sources do not meet the standards for inclusion. Since you want the sources, why don't you tell us why they should be included instead of edit warring and misrepresenting the situation? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted by Kenosis, it will be much appreciated, and better for the encyclopedia, if you address each issue separately. To deny that there was a mass deletion is rather an odd move in light of the preponderence of the evidence.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've explained why those sources don't meet the requirements. Why are people not willing to explain why I'm wrong?  9 self-published blogs!  No relevant information removed! Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You say there are nine self-published blogs (I imagine you're not counting the two you explicitly said you chose to keep). Kindly name them, because I count only a couple. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep adding them back, so tell me what they are and why you're keeping them. You are adding them, after all. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be reading what you wish into the guidelines/policies etc. If, however, you believe there to be an undue weight issue, address it here, logically, cogently and without rancor.
 * My personal opinion is that the tone of this article could be a bit more balanced to present a clearer picture in re the positives and negatives, but that balance can only be achieved by collaboration, not by wholesale changes that introduce their own bias. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What bias was introduced? And why are you refusing to address the sources you insist on including?  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits you introduced were glowing reports of Rasmussen, while you deleted much of the less positive reports. It's pretty straightforward. I have no problem with both being included as that will balance the article, but we can only do that via collaboration and cooperation.
 * Note that I requested that you address each cite/item you find to be objectionable separately, logically and cogently. When cogent arguments are presented I shall respond appropriately.  I will not however get into a pissing match and resupply all of the info Kenosis already provided you.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I included zero new "glowing reports" of Rasmussen, instead restructuring the existing ones. I also added, which was in a source being used elsewhere, information about the Wahsington Post noting Ramussen catching Scott Brown's rise early. Given that the article had not seriously been edited since his election, it seemed logical to include, but I'm open to discussion.  As for deleting the "less positive" reports, I only deleted the sources which came from unreliable sources such as Daily Kos, MyDD, and Media Matters, as well as deleting positive reviews from Hot Air and Right Wing News - sources you keep including in your blind reverts.  The complaints being made remain, but sourced only to reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS.  Since you are someone trying to keep the sources in place, the burden of proof is on you to justify their inclusion, using policy and logic.  If you don't want a pissing match, start justifying your edits or they'll continue to be reverted based on policy.  Remember, the burden of evidence is on those who want to include or restore information, and any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, my good man, as you deleted long-standing content, which has since been restored by several editors, the burden of proof is on you. You have asserted that the content is not valid and, as we all know, he who asserts must prove.  Of course, I am speaking from a strictly logical standpoint, not a wiki one.  Nonetheless, the items you decry as being "self-published" are clearly nothing more than supporting documentation by Rasmussen itself.  If we are to write an article about Plato, would it not be prudent to cite his works?  Seems pretty logical.
 * The sources you claim as being unreliable are generally seen to be so by one side of the political spectrum, but even the NYT, one of the world's most respected papers, is seen as being unreliable and biased by those on the right and the WSJ is seen in the same light by those on the left: such is journalism
 * Note too, that with the decline of standard news media, blogs have become increasingly reliable and one needs to look into the background of the writer to discern his/her qualifications. I realise that this requires a bit of work, but so be it.
 * Now then, I have asked twice that you address each issue and make an attempt to work collaboratively on improving the article. Are you willing to do so?  If not, we are wasting time and bytes.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I quoted the policy.  The burden of proof is on you, not me.  Are you willing to do so? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad, so very sad. You seem to want to eat your cake and eat it, too. I believe that I have already explained your flawed logic sufficiently.  When you decide that you'd like to explain just what sources you consider to be "self-published", please do let us know.  Until such time, this discussion is sterile and sere.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've explained numerous times - Daily Kos, MyDD, MEdia MAtters, Right wing News, Hot Air. Get it yet?   Do not remove tags under discussion!  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you said they were bad because they are blogs, remember? Additionally, you removed cites from Rasmussen using the self-published logic. Please do aim for consistency.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you're not interested in discussion and do not understand the policies in play here. I'll go to RFC with this. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ROFL. I am more than willing to discuss and to move the discussion along. Merely reiterating one's viewpoints, as you seem wont to do, is not discussion, just mere repetition.  I have asked you to expand on your arguments, yet it seems that merely restating them is as much elucidation and expansion as one can expect.
 * As for understanding policies, as I have four featured articles under my belt I'm fairly sure that I must in fact be able to comprehend policy in its entirety.
 * Also, I'd be very keen to discover -- just for the sake of argument mind you -- how a blog that features multiple writers is "self-published" but a newspaper featuring multiple writers is not. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you cannot comprehend policy in its entirety. From WP:IRS: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs."  From WP:SOURCES: "Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think maybe there's some confusion between online articles by reporters or commentators with bylines, which are often followed by or associated with a chat forum, and on the other hand self-published and group blogs. AFAICT, most or all of the sources are by online reporters or commentators with bylines using their real-life names. In any event, I'd like to see what sources are argued here to be unreliable as to the statements in the article for which they're cited. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I have repeated them numerous times to you: Daily Kos, MyDD, Hot Air, Right Wing News, etc. These are not sources to be used in an article, especially when the point can be made using reliable sources. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me go dig them up and put them here, along with the statements in the article for which they're cited, for examination and discussion. Be back in awhile. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're finally willing to play ball on this, but what they're cited for is irrelevant, because this is not an article about them and they are not to be used as sources per policy. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, you've already given your personal conclusion, and have now given your conclusion again. Obviously I'm wasting my time here. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given the policy conclusion. If you can argue for inclusion, which is what is required, do so.  If not, don't stand in the way of improving the article any further.  It's up to you. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've given and regiven your interpretation. Period.
 * Now, when Kenosis provides the data we shall discuss it, yes? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He's had days to do so. He's actively edited the article in the meantime.  I'm not holding my breath.  And I have not given my interpretation, I've provided the clear text of the policy. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already indicated what's next for me. Nothing, since I'm obviously wasting my time with Mr. Wig. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you won't be standing in my way of improving the article, I assume. And Jim?  Any chance of you defending the inclusion of what you're reverting to?  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring the rewrite. If people want this unbalanced, poorly sourced material here, it's up to them, per policy, to justify their inclusion.  We've gone around in circles enough. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fordham analysis removed
I've removed the Fordham ranking by accuracy in the 2008 presidential election here. That ranking, which can be found here, was only a preliminary analysis which set the spread at 6.15% and was itself off by over a percentage point from the final election tally (7.2%). If someone can find a comparison of relative accuracy of predictions by different polling organizations it might help here. I wasn't able to find one with a quick search. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've restored my rewrite since you were done complaining about it, and I've added information to reflect this issue. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've reverted you here. You've been reverted by at least four editors thus far by my count. I recommend you desist from the presumption that your analysis of the WP policies and guidelines regarding sourcing is necessarily correct. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reverted you again. Stop edit warring and start cooperating, or this can be escalated further. You have ye tto explain why you believe policy is on your side, especially since you quoted the policies that support my edits. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what you're referring to as "cooperating" is actually a demand to accede to your POV, something you already made quite clear with your comments two sections above. At this stage I'd just as soon spend the time analyzing your behavior and misrepresentations here. You've failed to state specifics. Then after I remove faulty sources such as a citation to a Wikipedia article, replace a progressive source with a "centrist" source, etc., you engage again your blanket, largely unexplained rewrite. If you wish to, as you say, "escalate", by all means. I do have an hour or two more this particular evening. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've stated here is true. Again, policy does not allow self-published blogs per WP:V. Your version still references HotAir, Daily Kos, RightWingNews, Think Progress, Politics Daily, Media Matters. If you want me to applaud you for removing MyDD, fine, you've got it. But you're the one who wants to include those blogs, and the burden is on you to explain why per policy. You'll note that, in restoring my rewrite, I adjusted the Fordham information per your note because you were correct and it made sense for accuracy. I'm more than willing to cooperate - I came to talk first, I'm trying to get as much outside input as possible. We can make this work, or we can keep battling it out. The ball's in your court. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You see, it was not, as you say, my version. Rather it was the sum of contributions of many editors before your mass rewrite and deletion of material critical of Rasmussen. Moreover, you strangely seem to have missed bad citations which were in support of Rasmussen, for instance a citation to a Wikipedia article, and unilaterally chose instead to decide which self-published sources to include and which to delete. More, you've given at least three or four different excuses for your mass rewrite and deletion of critical material, repeatedly moving your goalposts--your self-decided interpretation of WP policies and guidelines--to suit your POV. But for now, since the article has been edit-protected and returned to the last version prior to your mass rewrite, I'll gladly go do something else. Good evening to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I call it "your version" because you kept restoring it. You are responsible for the edits you make.  Second, my rewrite did not include a citation to a Wikipedia article.  As for protection, I requested it in order to get you to discuss as opposed to edit war.  If you leave the article for 4 days and do not bother to talk about it, that's not going to reflect well on the situation, especially when you accuse me of various false things. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the citation to the WP article, I stand corrected and now see it was among the many sources you removed. As to the rest, I stand by what I said. Again, good evening. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (Back to this section again on 9 July) It turns out the cited "Fordham analysis" "(1) is a self-published source, (2) is not a 'preliminary analysis' but rather a proposal for a paper, and (3) it also turned out to be incorrect as to Rasmussen's accuracy rating in the 2008 presidential elections."This "Fordham University analysis", which is cited in support of the proposition that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate in the 2008 presidential electioin, was actually taken [from pollster.com by Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D. I highly recommend taking a closer look at the Fordham "analysis" by Panagopoulos (here). It's actually titled "Initial Report, November 5, 2008" and happens to be just a page put up by the professor on the Fordham website, a preliminary proposal for a paper he later published. Professor Panagopoulos says right in his "initial report" where he got the list ranking pollsters by accuracy. He explicitly says it's "as reported on pollster.com". So it wasn't a "Fordham University analysis", but just a preliminary list picked up from pollster.com. And, since the pollster.com results were only preliminary results that were off by over a percentage point, Rasmussen wasn't one of the top two in accuracy. ..... "Polls and Elections: Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections" is Panagopoulos' final paper, published in Presidential Studies Quarterly in Dec 2009. In this paper, Panagopoulos doesn't appear to even mention Rasmussen at all. So, there's one passage in the article that ought be stricken, the one that says "A Fordham University analysis ranked Rasmussen Reports as one of the two most accurate polling firms in the 2008 Election. [6] The Fordham analysis is a preliminary analysis based on projected vote totals. The final vote margin of victory was 7.2 points compared to the 6.15 used in the Fordham analysis.[6][7]" This passage is just plain wrong; it doesn't accurately reflect the source, and even the list (the "preliminary list" that was actually generated by politico.com) was off by over a percentage point. Meaning Rasmussen wasn't one of the two most accurate in the 2008 presidential election. According to FiveThirtyEight.com (reported by Alex Isenstadt in Politico.com here) Rasmussen was only the third most accurate pollster in 2008. Isenstadt says: "'Last year, the progressive website FiveThirtyEight.com’s pollster ratings, based on the 2008 presidential primaries, awarded Rasmussen the third-highest mark for its accuracy in predicting the outcome of the contests.'"Either way, it appears the "Fordham" analysis will likely need to be stricken and replaced with Eisenstadt or FiveThirtyEight.com, both of which have Rasmussen as in Third Place as far as accuracy in the 2008 elections. Which is pretty good, of course. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting analysis. You'll note that the final paper, as linked, does not list the tables.  It does mention Rasmussen on the first page of the report, and does not mention any polls in the report itself.  It does note later that it uses the polls mentioned in the NCPP table report, located here.  The analysis from that report, which is noted as preliminary but is obviously good enough for academic work, has Rasmussen faring among the best.  You'll note the version that you continued to revert from noted the following: "A preliminary analysis from Fordham University ranked Rasmussen Reports as one of the two most accurate polling firms in the 2008 Election," which was factually true.   Using the full paper plus the NCPP report would appear to source a more accurate statement that they were among the top polling firms without any problems, barring anything weird coming from the unseen tables.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Interesting perhaps, but also demonstrably accurate upon further examination. Anyway, according to your link to here (skipping the question "Is-the-NCPP-report-a-WP:Reliable source?" for the moment), Rasmussen does appear to get a bronze medal in the 2008 Presidential-Election-Relative-Predictive-Accuracy event. I now do continue to wonder, after all this research, how this fits into a section title called "Reputation" or even how it reasonably fits (as it is in the article at present) under a WP:Summary style rendering of Rasmussen's "History". ..... Perhaps a statement like "Rasmussen was among the most accurate polls in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 national elections" or "third in accuracy in the 2008 presidential elections" might be a reasonable rendering of the RSs w.r.t. this particular issue. If kept in the "History" section, it seems to me that perhaps a statement like "In 2004, 2006, and 2008, Rasmussen demonstrated a relatively high degree of accuracy compared to other polling organizations in predicting the outcome of presidential, senatorial and congressional elections as compared to most other polling organizations" might well be appropriate in the article. (It ought be clear, of course, that this issue is distinctly separate from the issue of Rasmussen's reputation as a "conservative" polling organization w.r.t. issue-based polling and interim presidential-approval ratings as related by numerous reliable sources.). .. Kenosis (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it belongs in reputation because a polling organization's reputation is predicated on its accuracy in what it does. It has a reputation of being a strong pollster.  I'm opposed to boiling it down to one sentence because we have multiple reliable sources from different areas stating as much, and the detail doesn't provide any undue weight toward one direction, just as much as one sentence saying "some see Rasmussen as conservative" wouldn't pass the test on its own - the detail matters.  The responsible way to do it is to tell the full story using quality sources. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask, which sources, as of 9 July 2010, does Ed_Wood's_Wig think are "quality sources"? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ones that are not self-published blogs per WP:V. The discussion above goes over this already. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputation section: The actual reputation is as a "conservative" polling organization
As of 5 July 2010, it seems to me what we're missing is the obvious. Which is: Rasmussen has a reputation for being a polling organization which produces issue-based statistics and approval ratings that favor conservative political positions. Currently the section cites an article in TIME Magazine which "describe[s] Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group", cited to here. Additionally though: "--The June 2010 article in the Washington Post by Jason Horowitz (here, currently in footnote #1) takes as granted that there are '... those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers, ...'. --Alex Isenstadt writes, in Politico.com (here), that Rasmussen regularly produces presidential approval numbers 'about 5 percentage points lower than other polling outfits'. Among the other indicators of Rasmussen's conservative leanings in the Isanstadt article is a statement by Mark Blumenthal, a polling analyst and the editor and publisher of Pollster.com: “Rasmussen produces a lot of data that appear to produce narratives conservatives are promoting' Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, a progressive research center, says: “His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC [Republican National Committee].” etc. --John Marshall of Talking Points Memo said in February 2009: 'The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls.' --Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said in June 2009 that Rasmussen '... frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys.' And in April 2010 Silver referred to Rasmussen's 'house effect' ('the tendency of certain polling firms' numbers to tend to lean in the direction of one or another candidate') and said: 'to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong.'"No doubt there are other sources for this basic conservative skewing of the polling results, the "house effect" as Silver says. I presently think we ought find a way to say this in WP:Summary style in the summary paragraph (first paragraph) of the Reputation section, perhaps even in the lead. The agreement among reliable sources on this issue seems to me to be a basic aspect of Rasmussen and a bit too important to ignore. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Both versions - the policy version and your version - mention this. No need to pile on further, as this already suffers from weighting issues. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. It's actually an issue of summarizing the statements of many RSs, which is what we do when countless sources agree on something about a WP topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which it's summarized fine in both versions. Beyond that, their reputation is of being one of the most accurate pollsters in the nation.  Should the opinions of mainstream, reliable sources be used to note that some believe they have a conservative lean?  Absolutely.  Should it overwhelm the section as it does in your version?  Of course not.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no weighting problem at all. We are merely reporting how they are described in reliable sources as described by Ed Wood's Wig.  TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The weight problem is on the already-overwhelmingly negative tone of the article, especially in the current version. Such criticism should not overwhelm the section since the reputation of the organization, according to reliable sources, is one of strong results.  Again, no protest in noting it - the rewritten version does so, and I would not be against listing off the organizations of note that agree with it as well - but not the way it's currently constructed. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, that section title was changed from "Criticism" to "Reputation" in this edit on 23 December 2009. But "reputation" is in its own way as loaded a word as "criticism". "Reputation" begs the question "among whom?", and carries implications of "good" or "bad" reputation. We aren't wedded to this section title. This title could easily be something like "Commentary on Rasmussen's polling methods", "Assessments of Rasmussen's polls" "Reactions to Rasmussen's methods", "Reviews and commentary" or other such section title. If, however, the section title is kept, it appears clear from the RSs that its most prominent reputation is as a conservative polling organization. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reliable sources clearly show it to be an accurate firm, albeit with different methods. A better assessment of the reputation would be a) details about how their methods are different (i.e., likely voter screens and robocalls), b) their accuracy, and c) using reliable sources per WP:V, the fact that some believe that they're a conservative outfit/lean Republican.  Once you weed out the blog rants, this idea that they're a "conservative outfit" gains significantly less weight.  I tend to agree, however, that the section title could use a change. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll be darned. I notice that among the many critical sources in the article which dispute this assessment, Ed Wood's Wig decided to also remove here the subsequent assessments by Nate Silver. (And this sort of criticism of Rasmussen's methodology and consistent conservative "house effect" isn't limited to just Nate Silver. ) Wig's edit handily quotes a February 2009 statement by Nate Silver that Rasmussen is "probably the one I'd want with me on a desert island", but [Ed Wood's Wig]'s edit removed Silver's more recent 2009 and 2010 assessments. In June 2009 Silver said: "[Resmussen] frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys. [cited to ]|undefined"And Ed Wood Wig's version also conveniently neglects the text about Nate Silver's assessment in April 2010: "' ... since the end of the 2008 election cycle, Rasmussen's 'house effect' was skewing its polling numbers and that 'to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong.' Silver also disputed Rasmussen's suggestion that the difference between his results and those of other polls can be explained by Rasmussen polling only 'likely voters' rather than all adults.' [cited to ]|undefined"Silver also said in the same April 2010 assessment:"'Rasmussen does not appear to be applying an especially stringent likely voter model '"I'm sorry, but that "Rasmussen-has-a-reputation-for-being-accurate" dog don't hunt here. But to be sure, the POV presented by Ed Wood's Wig is wholly unsurprising at this stage of discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your cherry picking is noted here. I have no issue with including that Silver's found that his results seem to get more conservative responses - I'm sorry I had to deal with your poor sourcing and edit warring as opposed to any significant improvement - but his "model," which shows a "house effect" without explaining how he gets there in any detail that's useful, is something that should be put to greater discussion.  Regardless, reliable sources tell us that he is incredibly accurate - Silver's analysis, as good as it has been, is not enough to say that "reliable sources" do not note his accuracy or that the consensus of those sources is that they're conservative leaning.  That's simply not true by any honest measure. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, IOW Silver's good enough to cite when Rasmussen hits a bulls eye but ain't good enough to use when Rasmussen repeatedly misses the whole broad side of the barn (LOL ... gol dang pollster seems to keep missin' it to the right--maybe the guy oughta just turn 'imself around left a bit or change his throwin' motion--. But, lo and--gol-dangit, Fox News 'd probably stop usin'im so much.). ... Kenosis (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Silver's good enough to note when he's noting their accuracy, not when he's coming up with his own calculations. We can remove him entirely, though, we don't need him for either statement.  But then again, you have this mistaken assumption that Rasmussen is missing the broad side of the barn - that hasn't happened. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Directly quoting Silver, one of those self-published blog writers EdWood'sWig selectively chose to keep in his unilateral mass rewrite: "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong."  ... Kenosis (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to quote Silver, then. It's no big deal to me, everything he says can be said by other higher quality sources anyway. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So where are we standing at this point? Are there any other issues we need to work out, or can we start implementing? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated a number of the edits discussed above. Hopefully we're all set on this. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, I think you should be more cautious before reverting a massive revision that was clearly well intentioned and not vandalism. Certainly there was something redeemable in Ed Wood's Wig's edit that you could have kept. I also want to add that I think Rasmussen Reports' reputation is primarily one of accuracy and secondarily as a conservative pollster. But the political leanings of a polling organization are almost irrelevant as long as they are accurate, and to be fair, the only time I am aware that people have questioned RR's accuracy is now on Obama's approval ratings and generic GOP versus Dem. congressional matchups, when nobody can prove them wrong except by saying "well, certainly everybody else can't be wrong"! I also note that articles like Zogby International do not mention a liberal bias even though it is widely alledged. -Cwenger (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that you've reverted an entire edit that incorporates your changes along with mine. If you have other problems with it, how about sharing?  You haven't edited this talk page in a week. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please tell me why Nate Silver's pontifications on this are being treated as gospel? I keep reading sentences that begin with "Nate Silver wrote..." or "Nate Silver says...".  So what?  Treating Silver as if he is an impartial observer and reporter of facts is a complete joke.  He isn't.  A perfect example is Silver's statement concerning the so-called house effect of Rasmussen's polls. We are told that Silver disputes Rasmussen's "likely voter" explanation and it is just left at that, as if Silver is an infallible arbiter of polls and what he says requires no further explanation.  The fact of the matter is that Rasmussen has been highly accurate over the course of the past four elections.  Such a fact is indisputable.  But one would have a hard time figuring that out by reading this article as that fact is buried under a bunch of bullshit spouted by left-wingers who have a vested interest in claiming Rasmussen's polls are bogus.  Quoting hacks like Eric Boehlert and people who write for Slate adds absolutely nothing to this article.  There are numerous studies out there detailing who the most accurate pollsters are.  Rasmussen is always in the top quarter of those pollsters; often times he is in the top two or three.  Media Matters can throw a tantrum until they are blue in the face and it doesn't change that fact.   Devoting a whole section to what they and other liberal bloggers and writers have to say adds nothing to this article, and it certainly makes it less than encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Can someone please tell me why Nate Silver's pontifications on this are being treated as gospel?" Since they aren't, no one will be able to tell you why they are. Dlabtot (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Dlab.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that Nate Silver is a direct competitor to Rasmussen it is inappropriate to use his critism. You wouldn't go to a page about Target and put up a negative statement from Walmart would you?  No, because coming from a competitor it isn't reliable.  I'd also like to point out that, unlike Rasmussen, Nate Silver does NOT publish all of his methodology (e.g. how pollster ratings and house effects are calculated) and NEVER publishes the numbers underlying his results making them impossible to verify or reproduce.71.175.13.145 (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Given that Nate Silver is a direct competitor to Rasmussen " that is simply untrue. Nate Silver is not a pollster. Dlabtot (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Blog sources in the Reputation section
Are self-published blogs good sources for a reputation section? Some extra input would be helpful. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might wish to re-write the question of this RfC, which is not worded neutrally. The proof of that is the reader can tell by the question that you wish to exclude these sources (and I have not even read the discussion page).  You should state the specific sources to which you object.  TFD (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reworded. The sources are in the Reputation section, per above - Daily Kos, MyDD, Media Matters, Right Wing News, Hot Air, etc. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant that you should withdraw the RfC and re-write it in a neutral tone. It might be re-phrased, "What types of sources should be used for the article about the Rasmussen Reports, which is an American public polling company?"  The trouble I find with articles like this one, is that people form their opinions about them based on popular media then use those sources for the article.  But better sources should be used.  There are academic sources of information for opinion polling,  and it should be possible to find reliable sources for Rasmussen.  TFD (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That, however, isn't the source of the conflict. I don't disagree with you on quality sources, but I'm trying to find a resolution to the conflict at hand. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's funny: I stated in the previous section that this article could be improved with the aim of it being balanced, and requested that discussions be undertaken toward that end. Alas, to date that has yet to happen. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the "positives and negatives' in an article of this type.  Rather than remove/rewrite as was done a few days ago, or raise specious objections to the use of blogs, perhaps we should look at providing, for the reader, a complete, balanced picture in re Rasmussen Reports.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How does my version not do that? How does using a version that's poorly written, has significant weight issues, and uses poor sources do so? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the critique os both the current version and your exemplary rewrite. Now, there is a middle ground that needs to be reached -- are you willing to work on reaching that middle ground? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about explaining what is gained from your version that is lacking from mine, since you're insistent on keeping this version in place? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The RfC begs the question by assuming that there is agreement that the sources the author disagrees with are self-published blogs, which is the issue in dispute. However, a more helpful discussion might involve the quality of sources required for the article. TFD (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with resolving the conflict. We already have the answer to what you think the "helpful discussion" would be. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your last comment was just a bit too snarky -- please refrain from such behaviour. Period.  I assume we understand each other, yes?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about you actually worry about fixing the problem here as opposed to playing whatever game you're playing. Contribute to the discussion or leave it to people who want to fix it. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, are you really clueless or just incredibly stubborn? Did it ever occur to you that people can be indisposed for a time and not have access to a computer? (Really, it can happen). Do you always jump to contusions?
 * You have not, until I commented today, posted a single comment on this page nor have you discussed anything, rather you waited and made wholesale changes. Also, please, do not even try to lecture me as I have no time for peurility or noetic nullity.
 * As for games...nope, I don't play games as they are pointless, time-consuming and rather boring. Capisce?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's weeks worth of discussion from when you left above this section. You may want to review those before you claim I didn't post a single comment of discuss. As for lectures, the same goes to you - if you want to have a discussion, let's have it, but if you want to play a game about who's being more snarky, it's not one you'll win.  Now, do you have anything of value to add to this discussion and to this article, or do you plan on simply continuing to edit war to bad versions with bad sources? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but not to the relevant discussion...and your comments to the four deuces was absolutely unhelpful.
 * Dude, you really don't want to get into the whole snarky thing...
 * Edit war? Good grief you seem to have that concept honed to perfection based on the warnings you've received.
 * Now, I asked you two weeks ago to go throught the article point by point. Care to try or shall we just dance a silly spasmodic dance?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've explained the problem with the sources. The person who wants to includethe information is to justify them. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive tagging
I'm not seeing a reason for section tags. Typically, when an article has problems like this, we attempt to fix it, including rewrites, removal of disputed material, and verification of references. What we don't do, is revert those fixes and add more tags. Now, could the user who added a tag to each section, briefly explain the problem and how to fix it, and I will donate my time as an editor to help out. And, please remember what we do here: We write articles and resolve disputes on the talk pages. This isn't rocket science. Since the person adding the tags has the burden of proof, I've removed them pending an explanation of why they were added and what can be done to remove them. In its place, I've added the POV-check template to the top of the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tried to fix it. You want the bad version, you justify your edits. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please accept my help. Describe what needs fixing and I will promise to fix it immediately.  You can use this thread to explain in detail if you like. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Read above. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why an ANI incident report was filed. You complain, but refuse to explain the complaint.  Please stop editing this article if you can't respond directly to request for discussion and to queries asking you to justify your edits.  The pattern of your disruptive behavior has become increasingly obvious and it needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have answered this question numerous times. Perhaps if you speak to people like human beings, theyll be more willing to cooperate.  Everything you want to know is written above - familiarize yourself with the dispute before interjecting yourself into it. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question here in this thread. What is wrong with the current article and what can be done to improve it?  Choose one example to illustrate the problem you see, and use that as a starting point. Sometimes you have to repeat yourself to get an outcome that you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Show some effort and scroll up. When you have done so and begin speaking to me like an adult, I will engage you on the matter further.  Not before.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you an adult? If you are, then you will answer my question in this thread because that's how we use talk pages.  I am not going to hunt down answers to my questions, answers that most likely do not exist.  I am asking you to specifically justify your use of the maintenance tags.  If you can't, then you must not add them.  If you can, then you should be able to explain what the problem is and how it can be fixed.  This is very simple. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. I don't know how your condescension toward people you're in a dispute with has helped you in the past, but it's not a game I play.  When you decide to make an effort and start treating people as you'd like to be treated, I'll come back to these discussions with you.  Not before.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at this and other discussions, you seem to be quite fond of games. If you can't address the problems in the article that you claim need to be fixed, then I consider your use of the maintenance tags to be a closed topic.  You are welcome to reopen this thread at any time with the addition of reasons and explanations for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fordham University analysis
This is supported by a self-reference to Rasmussen Reports not by a secondary source. Since this claim is outside of the website, we require an additional secondary source that has covered this "analysis". As far as I can tell it is self-published. Now, I personally don't have an objection to including this source in the article if it can be shown that the author is an acknowledged expert in his field and is widely quoted or published in the literature. The claim as it stands right now should be compared to others and placed in the correct context. The problem is that the source is primary, but Rasmussen is not secondary, yet is being used as a secondary source to support it. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is discussed in some depth above at . First off, it's not a "Fordham University analysis". It's actually a proposal for a paper by Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D., that was later published without any final tally of the 2008 pollster accuracy. And as Costas Panagopoulos explicitly notes in his "Initial Report", the ranking was actually taken from Pollster.com, which also appears not to have published a final tally of the 2008 pollsters ranked by accuracy. In short, it's basically a bogus claim--self-promotional hype by Rasmussen itself. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I initially suspected. Well, since there are secondary sources regarding the accuracy of pollsters, we should just stick to those, no? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kenosis, you think Panagopoulos is from Rasmussen? Where's your evidence? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "self-promotional hype" I was referring to this Rasmussen website page, the wording of which is remarkably similar to the wording used in this WP article. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. If you are concerned about inclusion, all you have to do is find a good secondary source that supports the paper. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it matters. Kenosis is denegrating a  source based on speculation.  Above, had you read the discussion, you'd have seen the final published paper in a scholarly journal that resulted from this preliminary report.  Again, this has been discussed, so please scroll up, read, collaborate, and discuss like a human being. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, it doesn't matter. What Kenosis is doing or not doing has nothing to do with the fact that you lack a secondary source supporting it.  Get it?  Of course you do, but you're just engaging in obstructionism, again. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A scholarly journal is a secondary source. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Presidential Studies Quarterly (Dec. 2009). According to Kenosis, there's nothing about Rasmussen in the final report, and it was only mentioned in the unpublished, preliminary analysis.  Is that true? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So you have not read the report. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just told you that below, so why are you saying it again in another part of the thread? And, I asked you to verify per WP:V that the material in the initial, unpupblished report appears in the final report.  Please do that, now. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "self-promotional hype" I was referring to this Rasmussen website page, the wording of which (specifically the words "Fordham University analysis") is identical to the wording used in this WP article. I can only reasonably think that most likely the Rasmussen website is where the article text originated. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we can easily reword it if that's the case. The Fordham link, however, is not self-promotional and should not be removed based on that. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please prove that it appears in the final, published report. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you've read it? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only read the unpublished report online. Is the Dec. 2009 version online?  If you have a link to the relevant passage, page, or text, please paste it over here, as that would be necessary per WP:V.  I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The link is above for your perusal. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "link" above. What are you talking about?  Stop with the nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. In case you haven't noticed, I'm looking for you to read back about this entire dispute so you know what's in dispute.  When you say things like "there is no link," it's proof to me that you are not, in good faith, attempting to assist in resolving the issue.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally admitting that you are being purposefully obstructive. I appreciate your honesty.  You claim that a link to the Dec. 2009 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly appears somewhere on this page, which I have not been able to find.  I have asked you to reproduce this link so I can verify it.  You continue to refuse as before.  Therefore, I am now within my right to remove the material from the article unless and until you provide the reference or the material I have asked for per WP:V.  Thank you for concluding this thread. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot find it because you have not looked for it. Your continued stonewalling on this dispute is old, the version you reverted to is terrible, and if you're not willing to deal with the situation, this battle will continue because of your dishonesty and lack of cooperation.  You made your bed, you lie in it. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When asked for a link, you provide one. The pattern of your deliberate obstructionism on this matter is clear, and it's obvious why you are doing it.  The material does not appear in the source as Kenosis has said.  All that the published report says is: "Several polling organizations conducted daily tracking polls in 2008; Gallup and Rasmussen tracked preferences daily for at least six months leading up to the November election."  Now, do you have anything more to add, or can we now remove the unsupported material as lacking a secondary source and close this thread? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did provide one. That you chose not to find it is not my problem.  Now, did you look at the tables? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Raggz, is that you? It sure sounds like it.  Do I need to remind you that at 03:44, 9 July, you wrote, "the final paper, as linked, does not list the tables."  Since you already knew that, and pointed me to a reference that did not include the tables, why did you ask me that question without pointing me to a source that does?  What part of provide a source is not making sense to you? Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I have this right. It seems to me that Ed Wood's Wig is advocating that we continue to cite this preliminary proposal for a paper by Costas Panagopoulos on the Fordham website, which happens to reproduce Politico.com's preliminary analysis based on the speculated outcome of the election prior to when the final results were tallied, which turned out to itself be off by over a percentage point, thereby changing the final relative accuracy of the pollsters. You're advocating that we use this source in support of the statement in the article that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 presidential elections? Based on what originated in a preliminary speculative ranking at Politico.com done prior to the final vote count? Am I correct about this? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If even half of that is true, lacking a good secondary source, we should just remove it now. It's true that RR is using this report to boast about their accuracy, but surely we have other sources we can use? Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not. I want it to be as accurate as possible. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then cite the material per WP:V, here and now. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, here is a ranking from mid-2010 by FiveThirtyEight.com (Nate Silver). Looking at the table provided by Silver, Rasmussen appears to be fairly good, roughly in the top one-third or one-fourth, basically in the upper middle of the pack. I've been unable to find a definitive ranking as to pollster accuracy in the Presidential elections, either by the simple difference method or by other more complex statistical analysis such as Silver's PIE. There's one source mentioned in the discussion above at which appears to have Rasmussen as being fairly accurate in the 2008 presidential election, though it's unclear what their numbered ranking might be. (Here's the link, which requires a Google password--the numbers do not reflect ranking, just order of presentation). ... Kenosis (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be helpful to merge this thread into the original one. Any objections? Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I think I'd prefer to keep it as the most current thread until this issue is no longer at center stage here. BUt either way's OK really. I was actually preparing to remove the Fordham thing per WP:V, which may elicit further comments as one or more editors might choose to do. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed it and replaced it here with a statement that Rasmussen's 2008 presidential-election polls "closely mirrored the election's outcome", cited to here. I'm certainly open to seeing other sources in support of this or a similar statement giving Rasmussen proper credit for fairly accurate overall numbers for the 2008 popular vote. On the flip side, though, some of the sources seem to indicate something more like to a mediocre-to-good performance in general, rather than "tied for best" as was previously asserted. As I said, I'm open to suggestions. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph in Ranking section concerning Nate Silvers April 2010 blog
I removed an out of context paragraph in the "Rankings" which was undone by somebody who claimed it was not problematic. I removed it again and will provide more detailed reasoning.

The Rankings section begins with a October 2008 comment from Mr. Silver claiming that Rasmussen would be his choice poll if he had to pick only one poll to follow. The removed paragraph went on to state that Silvers opinion had changed. It cited an April 2010 blog post in which Silver analyses and questions why Rasmussen has show what appears to be a republican slant since the 2008 election.

I see three major problems with the removed paragraph.

First, Silver never at any point in the Blog expresses a change of opinion concerning Rasmussen's polling. In fact, he reiterates that Rasmussen's track record in past elections is in his words "formidable".

Second, it takes a quote which Mr. Silver clearly meant in the third person and attributes it to Mr. Silver directly. The quote in the removed paragraph read: "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong". The complete quote read: "If, on the other hand, this is a feature rather than a bug, it requires a more robust explanation from Rasmussen. It is not sufficient, after all, to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong". The two clearly have a different context.

Third, Mr. Silvers analysis had nothing to do with rankings of any sort. A problem given its included in the "Rankings" section. It reads like an attempt to rebut the sections first paragraph.

The first paragraph in the "ranking" section is a good example of how this should be handled. Mr. Silvers opinion is clearly expressed, properly quoted, based on solid data, and compared to actual election results.

I left the reference for anyone who wishes to examine the article themselves. Its reference number 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabville (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference is . Like Dlabtot before, I had some trouble verifying your objections:
 * About the first objection: Your quote of Silver's "formidable" is misleading. The full quote makes it clear that this only referred to previous election pollings:
 * Citing Rasmussen's success in past election outcomes, which is formidable, is also somewhat non-responsive, since their house effect was not so substantial in past election cycles.
 * Contrary to your assertion, this would be fully consistent with the statement that "By 2010, however, Silver's view of Rasmussen had changed." I have reworded that sentence, however, to a less general statement.
 * I don't understand your second objection, as the quote is not in the third person (also not in the wider sense that Silver would have attributed it to someone else). I also don't see a significant difference between the full quote and the partial one. But I have now included the full quote to address your concern.
 * Your third objection is a bit disingenuous - the section also contains other statements which are not strictly speaking about rankings, and in any case a mismatching section header is not a valid reason to exclude relevant information from the article. Still, I have modified the section header to address your concern.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT consistent with the claim that his opinion on Rasmussen has changed. Your not paying attention to what he is actually saying. He draws no conclusions and does so for a reason. This is speculative mid-stream analysis. The only conclusion he draws is that the likely voter model alone doesn't account for the "house effect". And he leaves open the possibility that this is a valid result, which it turned out to be. Today, six months later, Rasmussen's results from earlier in the year now look prophetic. They didn't move. Everyone caught up with them. Thats why you don't draw conclusions from analysis-in-progress.

You don't have to attribute a quote to another person for it to be a third person reference. It only has to come from a generic third person perspective, which is exactly what he does. You do this to illustrate a point without taking the position yourself, which he also does. Silver has clearly NOT drawn a conclusion.

The "section" argument was more of an issue with placement than content. Had the content been valid. I simply would have moved it.

I will remove it AGAIN, and this time I ask anybody who disagrees to find a real example of Silver expressing this actual change of heart. IF that is his actual position, than it will not be hard to find multiple blog post.

Maybe I am wrong about Silver. But this April reference doesn't cut it.

All that said, I thought the individual who reformatted that section it did a nice job. It looks a whole lot cleaner.

Cabville (talk) 2:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is you who is not paying attention - the disputed claim "By 2010, however, Silver's view of Rasmussen had changed" was already gone from the article, as I pointed out above. I have reverted your deletion to give you some more opportunity to read what is actually in the present version, as well as the above comments.
 * The current version doesn't "draw conclusions" from Silver's statements, it just cites them alongside each other. On the contrary, it is yourself who is presenting personal opinions and observations (praising Rasmussen as "prophetic" and asserting that "Everyone caught up with them") to draw conclusions. Please read WP:NOR.
 * I also don't think that Silver is required to steadily repeat the same statement for it to become acceptable (and how come the same objections don't apply to his "desert island" comment?).
 * Another thing: please take a bit more care when editing this talk page - you accidentally removed my signature in this edit.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting the signature. Posted at 3am, if I remember correctly. Was quite tired. Insomnia and all.

The difference between the desert Island blog and the later one is that he states a clear opinion in the desert Island blog. The April blog is too speculative and he never states a clear opinion other than to dismiss the likely voter model as the only explanation for Rasmussen deviating from the average of other polls.

Also he never actually takes ownership of the criticism. That's a big deal to me. A person can analyse a position without holding that position. And he has not repeated this critique to the best of my knowledge.

I have thought about removing the "Desert Island" reference, and would have no issue with someone else doing it. I'm not sure it's appropriate either. But it does have the virtue of being a clear opinion on the part of Mr. Silver.

My problem with the "Desert Island" blog is that he is assessing pre-election polling. I originally thought that was a post 2008 election analysis. The difference being speculative analysis vs analysis of hard results. I'm not sure the former should ever be used in this context.

Cabville (talk) 1:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted the whole Nate Silver passage entirely. There has to be better material to draw from Silver guessing. That is about all either paragraph was.

Cabville (talk) 1:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism vs. Accuracy
I note the Accuracy section is a short 4 line paragraph of pure fact. On the other hand, the Criticism section is 5x larger and full of unsubstantiated allegations (they may me footnoted, but they are still pure allegation). Wouldn't accuracy be FAR more important for a polling organization than some flippant comments from politically motivated groups who aren't happy that the polls are accurately predicting the demise of their candidates/issues??

Criticism sections in Wikipedia are fine, but let's please spend some time validating vs. just footnoting the criticisms. If there's no real data behind the criticisms, just leave it out. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightandverity (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Electoral-vote.com as a source
An editor added Electoral-vote.com, I removed it, and another editor added it back. The site is a personal website of Tanenbaum's and thus does not meet the standard of a reliable source (not to mention that he is a self-described partisan). If reliable sources cite his website, then those sources should be used in place of E-v.com. Drrll (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your concerns more clearly. For the record, the disputed statement and reference are:
 * Agreeing with Silver was Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the founder of the poll-analysis website Electoral-vote.com. He compared major pollsters' performances in the midterm Senate elections and concluded that "Rasmussen was the most biased and least accurate pollster", with polls that were an average of four percentage points more Republican than the actual results, and a mean error of six percentage points.
 * As I already said in the edit summary, the site has been cited and/or recommended by multiple reputable mainstream media (e.g. Salon.com called it "good", CBS cited it, BusinessWeek recommended it, singling it out "among the variety of electoral-vote tracking sites"), and it can be concluded that Tanenbaum (in addition to his unquestionable status as an eminent computer scientist) has come to be regarded as an expert on subject of opinion poll analysis in the field of US elections - exactly what the site is cited for here.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The site appears noteworthy from those recommendations, but it still doesn't appear to be a reliable source, being a personal website of an individual (from WP:RS, it appears to be a questionable source: "no editorial oversight"). I'd say that his assessment could be mentioned if it was provided in a reliable source. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Drrll (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to fail a narrow interpretation of WP:SPS unless Mr. Tanenbaum has been published in third-party RS on the subject of polling. Dlabtot (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find where Tanenbaum has been published on polling (plenty of published articles on computer science topics). I'm going to remove it until someone can show that he's published on polling or a reliable source included his analysis. Drrll (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Electoral-vote.com is one of the two "principal resources" that this academic paper is based on, and Tanenbaum has also published about voting topics (here in "the flagship publication of the IEEE Computer Society"). I fully respect the initial concern about the reference, but I think the good reputation of the source has since been established very clearly; wikilawyering about formalities does not improve the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the question of it being a reliable source is a formality or technicality. It's a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia. The first reference, not being published by Tanenbaum, again illustrates the value of Electoral-vote.com, but not that it's a reliable source. The other reference, published by Tanenbaum, demonstrates that Tanenbaum knows what he's talking about on the issue of voting systems, but it's not about polling. I think that you should bring up this issue on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. If it's clear there that it is a reliable source, I won't object to using e-v.com as a source. Drrll (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not wikilawyering, it is a straightforward reading of policy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

How exactly does editorial oversight make a source reliable? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is a constant give and take regarding the ongoing back and forth between the company and the media outlet. There are references to the Times writing negatively about the company's work, and the company polling about the Times's viewpoints. There is still a larger amount of criticism than praise in this piece. If neutrality of this entry is in question, overall it still leans in an anti-company position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandagent (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?
This article seems to take WP:NPOV and flush it down the toilet. Look at the "New York Times criticism" section. It just reads like one long criticism of the NYT. At the beginning of the section:
 * "In 2008, after public controversy about what the Washington Post referred to as the “Gray Lady's smear piece on John McCain”[22] Rasmussen reported that just 24% of U.S. Voters had a favorable opinion of the New York Times and 66% said the publication was trying to hurt the McCain campaign rather than reporting the news[23]."

How is this at all relevant? It goes on to attack Paul Krugman:
 * "In 2009, Rasmussen polled about several assertions made by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and found that fewer than one out of four Americans agreed with the columnist’s point of view.[24]"
 * "Rasmussen also polled on Krugman’s favorability ratings that year and found that few knew the columnist by name but that his unfavorable ratings increased when people learned he wrote for the New York Times.[27]"

Completely irrelevant to the article. And the next paragraph:
 * "In 2010, when Rasmussen became the first pollster to indicate that Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race(see Evaluations of Accuracy section), the New York Times downplayed the results stating that the Rasmussen poll did “not meet the polling standards of The New York Times.” and that “A Brown win remains improbable.”[28] Brown beat Coakley 51.9% to 47.1%.[29]"

This isn't a criticism of Rasmussen at all. It's a criticism of the NYT.

I could go on and on. After this the article moves on to talking about Nate Silver, but not before a bit of praise for Rasmussen:
 * "In 2008, FiveThirtyEight.com blogger Nate Silver wrote that Rasmussen’s Presidential tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island.”[30]"

And then the slam:
 * "The conservative blog RedState.com, wrote “Nate Silver puts partisanship over math.”[39]
 * Pollster.com noted that Silver includes factors in his ratings that have nothing to do with a firm’s accuracy, including giving bonus points to firms that use practices Silver likes.[40] In 2010, Silver wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” [20] like Rasmussen who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[41]"

The section finishes on a nice, neutral, relevant note:
 * "In 2010, Silver also erroneously reported that “Rasmussen Reports' founder, Scott Rasmussen, is a Republican”.[46] Rasmussen is a registered independent.[47]"

So there's that. I don't think this section is neutral at all. Any thoughts? Actually, looking at the rest of the article, the whole thing seems to be pretty biased. Note that there is a "favorable" section for accuracy evaluations but no "unfavorable" section. The rest doesn't seem quite as bad as this section but I still think it needs to be looked at. And the whole thing needs some cleanup. -- Paiev Discuss! 04:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you've got a pretty good take on it. Dlabtot (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is dominated by POV-warriors, and I highly doubt you will find them amenable to reason. Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Having seen older versions of the entry, this seems more balanced than earlier versions. -- The citing of the ongoing back and forth with the NY Times shows criticism from both sides and gives a cause-and-effect structure that shows each entity taking shots. Earlier versions had a heavy-handed hammering from the Times. This version suggests that there is more of a public dialogue going on between the two companies. Ultimately, there is still much heavier criticism than praise for the company on this site. One favorable headline and two entitled Criticism? If anything, it would be biased in an anti-company direction. The typical corporate entry doesn't offer so much negativity. Brandagent (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC) BrandagentBrandagent (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think, however, that one needs to go from a heavy-handed hamming from the Times to a heavy-handed hammering of the Times. It should find a happy medium, presenting NYT's criticism and a response, and should not get into some kind of cat fight between the two. Paiev Discuss! 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the NYT is relevant. NPOV is an odd stance to take when all the article reports are the results of the company's polling on the NYT. What's the problem with reporting facts? Do facts have a point of view now? PokeHomsar (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Something can be written as a collection of facts and not be neutral. Imagine if every defense of Rasmussen was pulled from this section, leaving only the criticism. The tone would be quite different. Which facts are included is what determines the POV of an article, and all the facts


 * Criticism of the NYT is not relevant. It belongs on the NYT article, not here. A Rasmussen or third party response to the criticism is fine, but this does not require attacking the NYT or its columnists. Paiev Discuss! 00:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

With as high-profile a pattern of dialogue between two entities as there is here, it's not just criticism, it's part of the company's history and public reputation. In researching the brand entries of several media companies, including polling firms, and tracing press coverage, this situation seems unique to this firm, and therefore the story told by the "catfight" is relevant. Because if the company potentially contributed to some of the ongoing NYT criticism with its polling, people should know that, and if the company was provoked by the NYT, people should know that, too. So long as it's presented in, as Pokehomsar points out, a series of comments backed with factual references, it presents a broader picture of the company's reputation in the marketplace and how it developed. And when people research on wiki, that's relevant to their evaluations. Brandagent (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)brandagent
 * I disagree. People and companies criticize each other all the time; I don't see what makes this special. The fact remains that this section is not written from a neutral point of view, and with all due respect, nothing in this comment really addresses that. Any other editors like to chime in? -- Paiev Discuss! 05:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Rasmussen party affiliation
Regarding the statement:

"In 2010, Silver also erroneously reported that “Rasmussen Reports' founder, Scott Rasmussen, is a Republican”.[46] Rasmussen is a registered independent.[47]"

The second half makes a claim that is not backed up by its citation. I believe that this more accurately describes what was said:

"While Rasmussen was a Republican earlier in his life, he now describes himself as an Independent[47]."

The old wording was misleading in its omission of the fact that Rasmussen was once a Republican, since it makes it sound like Silver had constructed that claim from whole cloth. It is also simply inaccurate to describe Rasmussen as a "registered independent". One does not register as such, as Independent is not a party. Regardless, Rasmussen himself says no such thing in the cited article. It is much more accurate to simply say he self-identifies that way. On Thermonuclear War (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempt to cleanup the article somewhat.
The article as it is is sort of a mess (much larger than pretty much any other pollster wiki article - see PPP's in comparison), and is not very active(as opposed to active war zone), so I'm attempting to do some fixes/deletions, and putting my reasoning here as opposed to squeezing it into the edit summary. For the favorable Ras evaluations section, regarding the Mass-Sen race, the current reasoning is quite misleading and pro-Rasmussen biased in that it omits that several days after Rasmussen's poll (D+9), PPP gave a much more stunning result (R+1), which drove dialogue for a while; as is, the article implies incorrectly that everything was from Rasmussen which is definitely not the case. I also removed pro-Rasmussen evaluation from Rasmussen itself. Seleucus (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the NYT criticism section, I removed specific criticism of the NYT and Mr. Silver (which should go in their articles, and sources like Redstate and Huffington Post shouldn't really be mentioned unless absolutely necessary), and focused it on Rasmussen. In general, the section as is was ridiculously long and reads as a "he says, she says". Additionally, most of the citations in the section seem to be for Rasmussen's paid content articles and can't be easily verifiable - these really need to be replaced with public content accessible references, if possible (I'm not removing them only because there isn't much better available that I know of.) There were several sections in which a claim was made, but the 'source' was on a completely different matter; I attempted to fix these. In other sections, it seems like whoever was writing it had an agenda against Mr. Silver. For instance, they cited a blog post named "Is Rasmussen Biased?" which they left without comment - conveniently ignoring that Silver had asked the question rhetorically and mostly *defended* Rasmussen throughout the post. They also conflated the idea of Rasmussen's semi-unique polling techniques (single-night, no recalls, etc.) with the idea of robopolling in general. If you disagree with specific edits, please respond here or edit the article. Seleucus (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Third edit. I'm removing specific criticism of robopolls too (this is supposed to be about Rasmussen, after all - we don't see those same criticisms in, say, PPP's wiki page.) I'm also removing Dailykos criticism, as well as TPM - the latter is usually reliable, but not really needed for this article (since it's saying basically the same thing as Silver with the added issue that some people will cry biased source.) Overall, I'm fairly satisfied with my changes to the article which have slimmed it and made it quite a bit fairer in my opinion. I'm guessing that there will be people who are unhappy with my major changes, so please feel free to respond with your opinions. Seleucus (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support your efforts. Dlabtot (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support your efforts as well. I removed several statements that I felt weren't relevant. The section now is much more neutral but unfortunately doesn't read very well. It's dominated by discussion of Nate Silver and not much from the rest of the Times. It's also not very cohesive at the moment, so we need to work on that. Paiev Discuss! 22:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose NPOV dispute tag removal
I'm not sure how to do this officially, but since the article has been cleaned up a fair bit in my opinion, I think the neutrality issues are for the most part gone, and it should be okay to remove the tag. Thoughts/comments/agreement/disagreements? Seleucus (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I've removed it. I also added a heading for criticism and put the NYT criticism section under it, since it didn't seem to make sense that "Other Criticism" was a subheading of "New York Times Criticism". Paiev Discuss! 16:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Some random, unsigned comment from an IP
This article is laden with a disturbing level of bias that some other users have already pointed out. This does not read like an encyclopedia entry, but is more akin to an opinion article in a tabloid newspaper. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.180.245 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Question re. dead links
I recently removed a portion of the article that was referenced with a link that did not verify the stated info (it was about the Center for Public Integrity reporting that Rasmussen was a consultant for George W. Bush). This info was then re-added to the article. I would like to better understand the protocol for cases like this. As I currently understand it, all info in an article should be verifiable. Without a citation that corroborates the info in the article, I don't see how info can be verified. In this particular case, I did quite a bit of searching for references that would verify that Rasmussen was a consultant for Bush. I found a few things (blogs and message boards), but they all quoted Center for Public Integrity as their original source, and the Center for Public Integrity doesn't seem to have anything on their website about that (I searched their website too). Could someone weigh in with thoughts on what to do in this situation? It seems to be that if we can't find a link to verify this info, it doesn't belong in the article. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: whoops, I see that the link now uses the Way Back Machine and verifies the information. Sorry I didn't check that before, and thanks for adding that info. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, note that WP:DEADLINK specifies that material should not be removed even when its citation's dead link cannot be replaced with an archive link. Rostz (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I did not know that and I will read up. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)