Talk:RealClearPolitics/Archive 2

is conservative vs. described as conservative
I have a problem with the following statement in the lede: "While its poll averages are seen as relatively objective, its selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers and philosophy of its founders makes RealClearPolitics conservative-leaning."

When I read this for the first time, this sentence seemed carelessly bold to me; we're stating that RCP is without a doubt conservative-leaning for the reasons listed. I decided to look at the sources to ensure that the statement presented matches what the sources say. But I was disappointed; each source for it simply describes the site as conservative and neither discusses why. This fact alone makes this sentence original research. I have no problem with stating in this article that RCP has been described as conservative, discussing the founders' political views and intentions with their site, or anything relevant to this article, as long as we have sources to back up our statements. But we do not have sources that verify this particular statement and we shouldn't be stepping out of bounds as editors and including sentences like this. I am going to remove this in hopes that it will not be reinserted. Wikipedia policy is very clear on original research and I hope the editors here understand that. --Ubiq (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A few points. First, how does one distinguish between "conservative" and "described as conservative"?  What original research can be done in this regard other than actually pointing out where a preponderance of sources stand on this issue?  Do we need to say "has been described as" to qualify every claim in Wikipedia?  There is no objective scientific test of conservatism or liberalism.  "Discussing why" a site is conservative is like asking a person why (not just if) they find one person more attractive than another - it is a subjective assessment, that comes from a mental, instant, global assessment of that observer.  However when we aggregate the subjective opinions of many, their collective leanings tend towards objectivity.  That is the basis of polling and data aggregation.  I performed the closest original research I could - a quantitative analysis of how news article writers see RCP, using the archive of Google News, a completely automated and comprehensive news aggregator.  See the analysis above.  So we cannot expect or require from these sources to provide a detailed of analysis of "why" they called RCP conservative.


 * Second - you are correct that my sentence might have been "carelessly bold" - but I was trying to separate the non-partisan aspect and creditworthy aspect of RCP's quantitative help to the public on polls, and the clear leanings of its in-house writers. I was trying to segment what is seen as slanted - polls are harder to slant, even if some partisan cherrypicking is going on, especially when aggregation of those polls is your brand's claim to fame.


 * I'll try to compromise. What I will do is reinstate the statement, while introducing a "described as" element to it, even though I think that my quantitative analysis should be adequate to not need that qualifier.  Malibudoc (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. To answer your first question, the difference is when we state "described as" we are stating something that is true and that can be sourced as true. When we call something "conservative" outright we run into the same subjectivity problems you discussed. As for your second question, no I don't think we need to qualify every subjective term on this site, but an adjective as debatable as conservative/liberal as a descriptor for the subject of our article needs to be taken very seriously.


 * The new sentence is "While its poll averages are seen as objective, the selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers and founders' philosophy may have led publications such as USA Today to describe RealClearPolitics as a conservative blog." I'm not sure if I have misread your post but it seems you have admitted that this sentence is a result of original research done by you. If so, you need to remove it. If not, you need to use whatever sources you've found that supports it. One that says specifically that the "poll averages are seen as objective" and that "the selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers and founders' philosophy may have led publications such as USA Today to describe RealClearPolitics as a conservative blog." Otherwise, this statement looks like mere conjecture from original research (not allowed). I don't want to edit war over this. I hope that you or another editor will adhere to wikipedia policy and either remove it or find a source that supports it. --Ubiq (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to throw in that RCP is only "seen as objective" concerning its poll selection methodology by conservatives. Everyone else knows there is a GOP house lean to their aggregate, which is why RCP is one of the top 20 most popular conservative websites on the net. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ubiq, I would agree that using "described as" would be appropriate if a majority of sources were pointing in one direction. Let's say 70%.  However if close to 100% of the aggregate opinion points that way, using "described as" becomes overly legalistic, and in fact falsely suggests there may be more doubt about this adjective in the population than there actually is.  If one cannot unearth a significant percentage of sources describing RCP as liberal or centrist (I didn't find any) the need for this qualifier does not exist.  In what I called "original research" I showed how there isn't even a debate on this issue other than on this page, by counting up number of articles in the Google News archive (the previous discussion section).


 * That takes me to the "original research" issue and also to your core issue with that sentence. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's terms, but have a good sense for what is appropriate and what is not.  I used the term "original research" improperly in this context - what I meant to say is that I had done some quantitative research on sources (which I guess automatically makes it secondary research).  But academics who are doing research on the media might call their own work original...so it's a bit fuzzy.  More so than getting hung up on terms, the point is to make sure we are accurately reflecting the body of knowledge out there.  You won't find the exact words I've used in that sentence in other sources - absolutely true.  But while we are not allowed to bring in original research, we are allowed to think (on how to combine and present the info), right?  Otherwise we would only be using a list of quotes and not paraphrasing or synthesizing anything.    Even journalists doing straight reporting of the news, have to figure out how to describe events in their own words, ask and answer hypothetical questions their audience might have, given the issues at hand - and not just rely on quotes from their sources. When we are dealing with subjective matters, we have to assess how to merge differing descriptions of an attribute - how to weigh quantity and the credibility of each source - and since this is an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to synthesize the viewpoints out there in the real world in a concise way, instead of listing them all.  There is some intelligence that needs to be used in that process.  That sentence is an attempt to answer why RCP is seen as conservative, even though its claim to fame may be poll averages, a fairly neutral feature.  Many readers might reasonably think - why is this site seen as conservative when it's known for poll averages?  My sentence is an effort to answer that valid question.  And if we know that the sum total of the site is seen as conservative (which no one here, including you, is disputing) - it's not conjecture to point out what the subjective elements on the site are (hence likelier to be conservative, given the inherently objective nature of poll aggregation elements).  In fact it's almost tautological.  I've just spelled out something that is implicitly embedded in the article already, and in the process, answered a relevant question for the reader.  Now some editors, like the editor above, see even the polls as skewed.  But they are inherently harder to skew, when averages are used.  And any skew on averages is usually swallowed up within the margin of error.  If RCP's polls were very biased, they would lose credibility given the predictive job of the metric - and there's a natural reluctance for the site operators to bring their personal politics to dramatically endanger the crown jewels of their credibility.  Malibudoc (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with most of what you said, but at the same time it's mostly irrelevant here when deciding inclusion/exclusion of the content in question. What I'm saying is that the statement is going a bit too far in terms "[synthesizing] the viewpoints out there in the real world in a concise way, instead of listing them all" If you had your own website or some platform that you used to provide what wikipedia would refer to as credible information, we could cite your research as a source for the statement in question. Otherwise, it's considered original research because you have nothing besides your own work to support why it's being described as conservative.


 * Let's start from the beginning and figure out what we can include according to wikipedia guidelines. Here's our statement: "While its poll averages are seen as objective, the selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers and founders' philosophy may have led publications such as USA Today to describe RealClearPolitics as a conservative blog."


 * 1. We need to find a source or sources that discuss the poll averages' objectivity.
 * 2. We need a source that supports the notion that the site has been described as conservative because of the selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers, and founders' philosophies.


 * I can find a source that discusses the philosophy of one of the founders, and I can also find a source that mentions political leanings of the founders, but I cannot find a source that describes the site as conservative or right-leaning and cites either of these reasons as why. I agree that it is only intuitive or logical to conclude the site is conservative or right-leaning given what we know from the sources. This is not the issue at hand. The issue is that we're piecing together bits of information to make a broader statement about what might be true when a. we lack a source to back it up and b. we can just as easily include all the information about the founders, the polls, and the article selection without stringing them together to conclude something for the reader. I guess what I'm saying is I think it would be more encyclopedic to include what we know for sure and leave out things that will lead the reader on.


 * I will say that it's quite possible I could be looking at this from too narrow of a perspective and thinking too much about the guidelines. It would be helpful to get some more experienced editors like Gamaliel to come in and offer their view. I think a set of fresh eyes is always helpful to the encyclopedia and I'm grateful that you've come in to offer your help on this and you're able to argue intelligently. I guess we'll just have to see where this will go--it's a borderline statement. Not one I think is worth edit warring over, but definitely one I think ought to be given serious thought in deciding inclusion/exclusion. --Ubiq (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The double critique of conservative has no place in the article. There is absolutely no evidence that the site is conservative other than the work of a few editors hell bent on proving that it is.  I'll won't argue the "conservative-leaning" in the lead right now, but the second statement is overkill and I have removed it.  I hear RCP referenced extensively on CNN, MSNBC, and FNC every day as the election draws near, and never are they referred to as conservative.  RCP is far less biased than 538 in their commentary, why not go over to that article and say that 538 is run by am admitted Barack Obama supporter?  Seriously the partisanship expressed on WP gets worse on a daily basis.  Arzel (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's the case that it gets worse every day, like you say, it's probably because of editors like you who demonstrate a consistent inability to work with anyone, always accusing people of inserting their political views in articles without proof of such behavior, and doing things that you did just now: unilaterally removing content with bizarre accusatory edit summaries even though there is an ongoing discussion about what to do with the content in question. And then you go on to claim that your own experiences of watching cable news is all the proof you need to justify your own personal view that the site doesn't have a conservative tilt. What a joke. --Ubiq (talk) 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is a joke is the continued attempt by many editors to introduce their own political bias into many WP articles, and the lack of editors to treat WP like the encyclopedia that is supposed to be. Just because a cadre of left-leaning editors wish to make a point because they dislike RCP doesn't validate their biased original research.  I have tried to assume good faith, but unfortunately the only good faith I have seen is when the minority agrees with the biased majority.  There is no proof that RCP runs a conservative site, and I really wish that others would stop trying to prove that it is.  If RCP were conservatively biased it would be obviously evident via reliable sources.  Given the frequency that RCP is referenced on a daily basis there should be numerous sources making the claim, as well as numerous liberal source complaining about the conservative bias at RCP.  Since they don't exist then deductive reasoning would indicate that RCP is pretty much non-partisan.  There is no reason to make this more difficult than it should be, my edit history shows no pattern of trying to label liberal-tilting organizations as such, because in general those that are obviously biased have a wealth of evidence to make that statement.  However, the pattern for supposedly conservative tilting organizations is not the same.  Editors come into the article with a predetermined belief and then try to prove that belief by looking for anything that supports their personal view.  From a statistical point of view this is exactly the wrong way to go about research (as Malibudoc has already done).  What you do is try to prove your hypothesis wrong, and if you can't then you have evidence that it is true.  Since the overwhelming evidence is that RCP is non-partisan in their presentation then to present the opposite is undue weight, and bad research.  Arzel (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not here to do research. And no, not being able to disprove a hypothesis does not always constitute evidence that that hypothesis is true. I find your logic quite comical, because one would think you'd use the same rigorous standard in determining the political views of editors on wikipedia as you do all the media outlets you so adamantly remove article content from because of what you believe is a lack of evidence of any political biases or leanings. It's puzzling because you have far less information about editors than you do these media outlets to base your wild conclusions on. You almost always insist that other editors approach articles with a mindset that they will make the article match their personal views and that makes you pretty much impossible to work with because you come off as arrogantly assuming and dismissive. Please, for all of us, take a different approach to other editors here. It gets tiresome, it's not helpful in the least, and every time you do it you're running the risk of turning away editors who genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia because you not only hastily lump them into a category of editors who you think have some master plan to ruin the credibility of WP, but you also treat them as such, and it's utterly pathetic to witness, and annoying and distracting to have to deal with when you're on the receiving end of it. --Ubiq (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Then stop doing research an leave in a neutral form. Arzel (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You must have downs. Either that or you're incapable of reading anyone's post past the first sentence. I haven't once done research on anything related to RCP. --Ubiq (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice, I bet people that actually have Down's appreciate that. My original statement was actually in response to Malibudoc, and my discussion has been in response to his arguments to which I thought we were debating.  Your latest attack on me was your own personal research into my approach.  But in retrospect I wasn't completely clear.  Now here is some research.  I looked at the previous news articles regarding RCP.  In the past month there were approximately 1,500 articles.  94 of which also had "conservative" only three of these actually claimed RCP was conservative.  Seven claimed "non-partisan".  Over 120 linked with "Independent" of which at least 10 claimed RCP was independent.  Well over 1000 articles that made no connection.  Now, please tell me why RCP whould be labeled as conservative when the vast majority of sources make no such connection?  Arzel (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to pay attention to who you are arguing against then because you've been on a strawman rampage ever since you've come across me on this talk page.


 * I guess I would care to argue against you on this if I was actually ever for labeling RCP as conservative in the first place, but seeing as you've demonstrated a consistent inability to distinguish me from editors that come to this article in hopes of applying this label, I will point you here so you can remind yourself of where I stand on content decisions in this article. If you don't care to sift through my contributions page, I will sum it up for you:


 * 1. I was and am for including quotes from the founders of RCP on things concerning the founding and philosophy of their site.
 * 2. I was and am against applying a conservative/liberal descriptor to RCP unless the founders explicitly identify their site with said descriptor.
 * 3. I was and am against inclusion of Malibudoc's sentence citing OR concerns.


 * The "research" you just did is quite meaningless anyways. I'm sure there are thousands of articles that mention or cite Fox News that forgo the opportunity to arbitrarily label them as conservative or neo-con, but that obviously has little bearing on how the average viewer judges their political leanings. If you'd really like to know why people consider a media outlet conservative/liberal, my best advice is to go directly to the media outlet and examine the content. That being said, most of this talk is irrelevant to this article. It's not wikipedia standard to apply such labels even when an overwhelmingly large percentage of people see a media source as leaning in the political direction that that label would be best fit to describe. And hopefully we can maintain this standard when it comes to this article. --Ubiq (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, PEW research shows FNC to have been the most balanced during this presidential election while much of the rest of the media is biased left (MSNBC in particular). That said I am glad you agree with me regarding Malibudoc's OR, and agree completely with your points 2 and 3, and concede concensus on 1.  Arzel (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, with gobs more people paying attention to the cable news networks on election night, I can see why they'd want to appear neutral for 1 night out of every 2 years. --Ubiq (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR
There is no reason to keep going in circles on this issue (or edit waring.) USA Today is a rock solid source and they clearly state that RCP is a conservative leaning site. Also RCP was founded by conservatives to fight a perceived bias against conservatives in the media and RCP is regarded as one of the top conservatives sites on the internet.  Out of all the comments posted thus far on this talk page, the majority advocate including mention of the conservative lean displayed by RCP. This is clear cut and unless an alternative consensus is reached, the lead should remain untouched. 66.186.173.180 (talk)


 * some of the Recent Non-Partisan and Independent Sources              google link to these and more
 * We do not typically define or label organizations and there are clearly numerous articles which label RCP as non-partisan or independent, not to mention the thousands of times they are referenced without any classification. To leave them labeled as conservative is cherry picking and undue weight given the vast number of times they are mentioned.  Concensus does not mean a vote, especially in situations like this where the common view in the real world is that RCP is not biased.  Unless it can be shown unequically that they are a conservative organization then this label must be left from the lead.  Arzel (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arzel, interesting list of sources. However, taking a quick glance I notice you have listed organizations with well documented conservative bias, i.e. Murdoch's WSJ, The AZRepublic and Chicago Tribune, as part of your argument. Obviously they all have a stake in saying that a conservative leaning poll aggregator is actually neutral. It helps them push the right wing agenda they are attempting to sell to the public by claiming it is middle of the road. It only takes 5 minutes on Real Clear Politics to realize that it is a staging area for Republican talking points and blogs. That being said, you did bring to light that the Chicago Tribune has its conservative lean clearly listed in the right hand infobox. Maybe we should follow the example set forth and create an infobox with the pertinent information instead of putting the affiliation in the lead. No matter how we go about it, the common view by Democrats and Independents is Real Clear Politics is a conservative leaning blog. Neutralis (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think any of this matters. Chicago Tribune is different in that it has expressed its philosophy in their statement of principles. RCP has not gone that far in asserting a political philosophy. We already have in the lead that it's been described as conservative and I think that's enough to represent the view you're speaking of. The content that is being edit warred over right now is original research, however true the statement might be, and I don't think we should be reinserting it. --Ubiq (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the lead is good as it is. Neutralis (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)All you have done is reiterate your original research and that this is all your opinion. Making this statement in the lead is clearly undue weight.  NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.  Based on this alone I could simply add that they are labeled non-partisan and throw out 30 reliable sources if you want.  The fact is you are attempting to do Original Research by picking a couple of sources that fit your personal belief.  On a side note, the USA Today article you claim to be the base of your logic doesn't state the the Daily Kos is a liberal blog site. Arzel (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quoting directly from a source is not original research. Neutralis (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly agree with Arzel or his rationale but the statement I was referring to that I believe is OR is "While its poll averages are seen as objective, the selection of third party opinion pieces, political leanings of in-house writers and founders' philosophy may have led publications such as USA Today to describe RealClearPolitics as a conservative blog." The sources for this merely describe RCP as conservative and don't say anything about the rest of this stuff including the reasons why, so under wikipedia definition, this is considered original research. This is what has been edit warred over and the only thing in the article that was OR. Like I said above, the statement could certainly be true but it's not been discussed at all by a third party that we can cite so I think we should leave it out. If you were talking about something else in the article, let me know. --Ubiq (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was never a fan of the statement above. I assumed the edit war was over the "conservative leaning" characterization, which I do feel should be included in some form or fashion in the lead. Right now the lead does seem a bit tortured and I have always advocated including it in the same format as the Drudge Report article, i.e. how it was 3 weeks ago, Real Clear Politics is a conservative leaning... Neutralis (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll say it again. There are numerous reliable sources that clearly refer to RCP as a non-partisan group, if you are going to insist on stating that they are conservative I will simply source that they are non-partisan, which will result in a conflicting tag.  Then end result will be that it is all OR.  So why don't we simply avoid this whole process and remove the labels completely from the lead.  To answer your final point about the past three weeks, well I have just not felt like belaboring the point given the election, it wasn't until the second section was put in that I decided it was time to remove the POV approach.  Arzel (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading the Drudge talk page Arzel. Like was so eloquently stated there, why in the world would someone feel there was POV pushing by applying a conservative tag (like Drudge) or liberal tag (like Huffington Post) unless you wanted to try and hoodwink the public into thinking that it was a non partisan site? If they were truly neutral, we would not be having this conversation. The fact that there is such heated debate is a very good sign that the well sourced lean is in fact true. As for Original research, you don't seem to understand what that is so I am not going to try to explain it. USA Today states, "Conservative Leaning" and that is what is being used. There is no OR, SYNTH, etc there. It is a verbatim 2 word text grab. If you think that we should have a WP:RFC, I am all for it as I think the previously formed consensus will prevail...but, being you seem to think the older version of the article was a better approach, I'll move forward and return it to that state for the time being.Neutralis (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what HuffPo or Drudge have to do with this, they are entirely different types of sites. Perhaps you don't understand undue weight.  There are far more sources that identify RCP as non-partisan than there are those that claim them to be partisan.  To assert that because a couple sources out of thousands claim them to be conservative is presenting that fact with undue weight to the entire view.  As for the USA today report, I don't have much faith in an article that fails to call The Daily Kos a liberal website, when the partisanship there is far and away more evident then anything you would find at RCP.  Arzel (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. The HuffPo and Drudge have nothing to do with this, but how USA Today categorizes The Daily Kos does? Your logic defeats itself. Obviously we are not getting anywhere with this discussion. There is the point of view you are pushing and what the rest of the editors that have taken the time to voice their opinion here believe to be the correct away to approach the lead. There is not much else to be said. You want it written your way and the consensus that has been formed on this talk page over the last 2 years speaks otherwise. Instead of edit waring, please take this to dispute resolution (WP:RFC) if you want to make further changes against what has been discussed at length here. Neutralis (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just read over your arguments and I will make this comment and leave it to you two on how you want to handle dispute resolution. I hope Arzel doesn't make me regret this, but I kind of have to agree with him on a few things, and I'm going to try and restate what I take to be his argument and put it in more pragmatic terms. Suppose our article is about X and that it is not possible for a thing to be both good and evil. When we use a source that writes "This evil X is whatever" to say in our article that "X is [certainly] an evil thing", we are going to run into obvious problems if we can find slightly less, an equal amount, or more sources that write "This good X is whatever". I believe this is as apt a comparison for this article as I can think of, with the possible exception that it could be argued that a media source, while in its intent it attempts to be non-partisan, is actually conservative/liberal in its appearance. I think this is perhaps the only thing that explains the dichotomy of description both in the differing sources and the differing personal views of the editors of this page. One observer may go by its appearance to describe the subject and another observer might go by the subject's declared stance to describe the subject. In cases like this, I think it's in our best interest to state "X has been described by Y and Z as evil, but it has also been referred to as good[A][B][C]" because we are stating something that is ascertainably true and I believe this is what an encyclopedia should be limited to doing. I don't think we should state something that is debatably true such as "X is evil" when we have no reliable way of verifying or being certain of this statement (I understand I'm treading into deeper arguments here but I ask you to spare me the epistemological debates, I've had enough Descartes and Nozick swirling around in my head at one point to give me serious migraines). --Ubiq (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we had already done that (about a month ago.) The previous version used that philosophy and it was deemed unacceptable by Arzel. Actually, we have had about 6 different versions that all tried to address different concerns of Arzel. The thing is if you go beyond the two words we are taking from the source, conservative leaning, you are most likely doing original research. I have a feeling no matter how we word it or point, counterpoint it Arzel will object.....but please rewrite it if you feel you can offer a more NPOV and still keep the core sourced materials in place. My only humble request is that we use common sense and properly characterize this wildly popular conservative site, following the example set with the Drudge Report - which contains very similar right wing editorial content and has already had a WP:RFC concerning putting conservative in the lead. Neutralis (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Using "described as" wouldn't be OR. In any case, I will leave this up to you guys to decide--I don't think it's worth edit warring over. --Ubiq (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess what I am saying is we had it as "described as" and he reverted it, which is how this entire edit war seems to have started. I am personally fine with the statement as it was or how it is now. Neutralis (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, believe me when I say I can definitely relate on the Arzel thing, but from what I've gathered he's willing to concede to census the "described as" language. --Ubiq (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was gone for a while, but I don't agree. There are far more sources which describe then as non-partisan, so the adjective of conservative-leaning is undue weight regardless of the fact that a few people are hell-bent on describing them as such.  I have listed numerous sources identifying them as non-partisan, so I really don't see why this is even an issue.  Arzel (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

RCP bias in introduction
I was tempted to undo the revert by, but instead I struck up a compromise. Reading over the debate here, it would be remiss to ignore the quality references that explicitly call RCP conservative- or right-leaning. However, there are many incidental mentions of RCP (or more commonly, the quoted RCP data) being nonpartisan, especially when RCP is being quoted by right-leaning sources. I used two sources for each assertion (that they've been described as right leaning, and that they've been described as non-partisan). While everyone is welcome to improve the references, please take care not to cite the same publication twice (i.e. USA Today, WSJ) or to cite an article that calls only one of the RCP's pieces centrist/right/whatever. I added a fact tag when I wrote "The site itself professes to be non-partisan." If 68.13.209.118 would be so kind as to support his edit summary's assertion with a reference there, that would nicely round out my addition. Hopefully this is a more accurate representation of the sources than what we had before; remember that the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability, and the fact that RCP has been called both right and centrist is easily verified.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is right leaning. It is called "non-partisan" by those on the right want the views espoused on the website to appear centrist. Of course the Wall Street Journal thinks it is "non-partisan" and I am sure Fox News does as well. Heck, I promise you Rush Limbaugh gets his polling data from RCP. That doesn't take away from the fact that when spoken of by a centrist source, it is referred to as right leaning. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Guilt by association. You assume that FNC and the WSJ are partisan, ergo RCP must be partisan as well.  We cannot define an organization as conservative, particularly when the overwhelming references refer to RCP as a non-partisan website.  Please leave the partisan bickering out of an encyclopedia.  Arzel (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be careful who you accuse. I, for one, care very little for U.S. politics one way or the other. I realize you did not reply directly to me, but note that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not fact. A website is not usually the best source for contentious information about that website, and your prior demand for a source from RCP's own website for their bias is unreasonable. Now I have made no assumptions in my edits here, I have only judged sources and comments others have provided. If there are good citations to dispute the one given, please present both sides of the matter rather than removing only that which you disagree with. This is what I attempted to do in this version of the article. Present information from reliable sources and let the reader make a decision. Once we have done that, if there is a problem with how each side is presented, that can be addressed.  Big Nate 37 (T) 10:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously I was not referring to you. As for your assertaion that I am using the RCP website as evidence that they are not conservative, I don't believe I have.  I have presented earlier evidence that references to RCP as conservative are outweighed by orders of magnitude to those that call them non-partisan or nothing at all.  Making the limited claim that they are conservative because a couple of people made that claim is undue weight within the lead.  Just because something can be verified to have been said, does not automatically equate to it fulfilling weight aspects.  If a thousand people say the world is round and a couple say it is flat must we make a rediculous claim in the lead of Earth that some claim the world to be flat?  In essense this is what is happening here.  The problem you see here, and in far too many articles on wikipedia, is that some editors have a political agenda they wish to put forth.  They find isolated references to prove their point and then present them in equal light.  A bad solution which would allow it to remain would be to clarrify that most observers view them to be non-partisan, unfortunately, the word 'most' will result in rediculous discussion.  So work with me here, it is clear that evidence shows without a shadow of a doubt that most references to RCP make no political connection, and the article should reflect what the world is.  Arzel (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the assertion which I refer to is here: "Unless you can find something where THEY say they are a conservative blog then you can't put they are a conservative blog into their lead." On to the point, no, it is not even close to as clear as you say it is that the evidence shows that RCP is neutral. Perhaps if I were only counting links, but I have read several of yours and others' comments on this talk page, and have looked at many of the "references" tossed around during the discussions. I found that many of the sources which supposedly had RCP as being non-partisan were actually only incidental mentions of one poll from RCP being non-partisan, or some other silly relation like that. Most of the time the articles allegedly supporting RCP's neutral bias do not make any commentary on the website itself. What was left was plenty of sources calling RCP right-leaning and plenty of sources calling them non-partisan. If you care to look back yourself, I found Neutralis' dissection of your list of references rather well done. In fact, you are the one who appears to have an agenda, based on your willingness to make assumptions about others. Consider this: what would the consensus be if you were to stop editing and everyone else continued? Your history here has shown that you are unwilling to truly compromise. Compromising is not just talking in circles until you like what the article says, but giving in a little even when you think everyone else is wrong. No doubt that will sting a little, and I apologize if it feels like a personal attack, but I felt it necessary to be said. As a concession, I'm taking this page off my watch list. I will not concern myself with RCP's bias anymore; the only reason I cared in the first place was due to an anon IP's edit that I saw while watching Recent Changes.  Big Nate 37 (T) 07:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So now you are judging the phrasing of the comments within the links that support your assertation? Right now they have links to articles from Markos (Daily Kos) Slate, Salon, Huffington Post, The NYT, ect.  They provide commentary from all spectrums.  That a few editors feel that any commentary from the right equals a conservative site is simply a relection on their own personal bias.  WP is not a place for political turf battles, so lets please leave this crap out of here.  Arzel (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you do this same thing when you talk to people in person...just completely disregard what they say and talk to them like they're someone they remind you of? If you don't, then why do you keep doing that here? This is like the billionth time someone has called you out for passing off your baseless judgments of others as knowledge/evidence that they're biased. You'd think after so many people seeing the same flaws in you that you'd change something. You disregarded completely what he said about your assertion that the neutral references greatly outweigh the ones referring to them as conservative (that was the most important thing to respond to). And again, you're resorting to the same tired accusation like you do to everyone else that disagrees with you that he's using wikipedia to express his political biases. He's already stated he doesn't have much interest in U.S. politics. Just take his damn word for it and learn to listen to what people have to say. You and your childish behavior are the only reasons this article turns into a political turf battle. --Ubiq (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great response, do you throw bricks through your glass house on a regular basis? Arzel (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No I throw bowling balls, couches, and vending machines. Bricks are for pussies :) --Ubiq (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the New York Times is not identified as liberal in its first paragraph, i don't see why RCP should be identified as conservative. If anything, RCP has a more equal partisan balance of columnist views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.202.56 (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RCP a reliable source?
Has this been discussed elsewhere, and, if so, does someone have a pointer to the discussion?

I ask because this came up when I attempted to use a quote from RCC in an article. Another editor objected, calling RCP a blog. As it was a minor point, I didn't pursue it.

By "reliable source" I mean, a non-blog publication that can be used without jumping over the (nearly impossible) blog-use hurdles. Reliable for the columnists opinion, iow. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * RCP is not a blog in the blog sense. They are a news and polling aggregator and also have columns by well known commentators and journalists.  Arzel (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative in Lead
This is getting a little old. The vast majority of sources make no ideological link towards RCP. RCP also does not make a specific link to conservatives or Republicans. The fact that their are a couple of sources that say they are conservative leaning is in no way enough evidence to make the classification within the lead. Arzel (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added numerous citation showing the independent nature of RCP as viewed my the MAJORITY of MSM. Arzel (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you have NOT. Please put a few here for discussion before changing the page again. The sources you gave did mostly not even mention RCP. ► RATEL ◄ 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious?


 * 1) "I’m pulling non-partisan data from Real Clear Politics.com, which " Ref 1 2nd Para
 * 2) "Instead of closing the gap in the campaign's climactic final weeks, McCain has fallen further behind, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of registration trends, voting histories and polling data compiled by the nonpartisan Real Clear Politics." Ref 2 11th Para
 * 3) "An average of New Mexico polls by nonpartisan Real Clear Politics has Obama leading by seven points." Ref 3 2nd Para
 * 4) "An average of recent polls by the nonpartisan Real Clear Politics has Sen. Obama up only one point, making it a statistical dead heat." Ref 4 3rd Para
 * 5) "Sen. Obama leads by more than six points in Colorado, according to an average of recent polls by the nonpartisan Real Clear Politics." Ref 5 3rd Para
 * 6) "That analysis is considered a snapshot of the political moment, not a prediction of outcome. Still, other nonpartisan tallies, including one by the Real Clear Politics Web site, calculate an even wider margin." Ref 6 6th Para (New York Times!)
 * 7) "Real Clear Politics, a nonpartisan Web site that tracks major polls, reported Thursday that Sen. Obama led Sen. McCain by 49.5% to 42.7%, based on an average of 13 national surveys taken in the past week." Ref 7 Section 3 5th Para
 * 8) "Real Clear Politics (www.realclearpolitics.com), a contributor to Yahoo's Political Dashboard, also is a leading source of independent political coverage online." Ref 8 Page 2 1st Para
 * 9) "An average of five recent polls compiled by the independent Web site Real Clear Politics shows Obama and McCain in a dead heat in Florida." Ref 9 12th Para
 * 10) "Real Clear Politics, an independent organization that takes polls of national polls, finds that on average, Sen. McCain is trailing Sen. Obama by 6.9 percentage points among potential voters nationally." Ref 10 Last Para

Every single source I listed mentioned Real Clear Politics and either identified them as non-partisan or independent. How many more freaking sources do you need? Arzel (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem — I can find hundreds of sites saying that RCP is "right-leaning" or "right of center" or conservative" or "conservative-leaning". The NYT citation you have above comments on the poll listing activities of RCP, as do most other cites you have. It appears that in this respect, it is independent. I suggest a compromise, along the lines of "seen as conservative[cite, cite] or independent[cite, cite]". Not too many citations, just the best two, not blogs if possible, and not referring to polls if possible. Please post the sources you think would fit best. ► RATEL ◄ 23:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, I challenge you to find 10 reliable sources outside the two cited that refer to RCP as conservative or right-leaning or right of center. I can find literally thousands of reliable sources that either make no distinction or refer to them as non-partisan or independent.  As will notice I have NOT been trying to label them as independent or non-partisan.  Based on the vast amount of evidence and reliable sources I certainly could, but I think it is best to not define an organization based off of the ideological views of editors when they themselves do not.  The exception would be when the vast majority of sources do make some ideological case.  That is simply not the case here. Arzel (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to refocus on what's good for the article. Look at this talk page for evidence that we need to find a formulation that works, not one that perpetuates the edit wars. I ask you again to come up with a sentence that shows opinion on the site's leanings divided between conservative and nonpartisan. That not only reflects the truth and is fully supportable with citations, but it may also end this endless squabbling. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First you claimed that most of the sources I listed did not mention RCP, to which I have shown you to be incorrect. Then you claimed that you could get hundreds of sources to back up a conservative attributation to RCP, to which I state Prove It.  The facts are the facts.  There are very few sources that make any such statement to the point of a fringe belief in clear violation of Neutral point of view policies and more specifically WP:UNDUE.  Previous discussion regarding this long-standing dispute was based on the the statement that since there are a couple that make the statement then it is true, and since a majority of editors here feel that RCP is biased this page is currently being ruled by a vote.  To be completely honest I grow tired of debating this situation.  I have clearly shown, by a substantial number of sources, that RCP is viewed to be non-partisan or independent.  Not on single editor has been able to show that a majority of even a significant minority of source claim that RCP is biased.  You claim to want to show the truth, I have already proven the truth.  The article is currently reflecting orginalresearch which backs up the perception of a few editors that hold sway on this article.  What is good for the article is to not support a fringe belief, so why do wish to do so?  Arzel (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I said your sources were wrong because I scanned the pages for "realclearpolitics.com" and not the strange "Real Clear politics.com".
 * I'm not going to prove that many sources call RCP right-leaning / conservative. Simply do a search yourself to find the answer.
 * The facts are that there are numerous reliable sources that see the site as center and/or right. It is accurate and sourceable to include that in the article. I will support that formulation. You appear to only want one view represented.
 * If you insist on labelling it nonpartisan only (ie center), I can guarantee you that someone else will revert you within days/weeks, as has happened many times before. Experience has taught me that little is achieved by trying to force one view into a page and exclude legitimate other views.
 * So that's my best advice. Go ahead and do what you want. It appears you are not interested in consensus or inclusive editing. Bye. ► RATEL ◄ 06:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Two reliable sources refer to the organization as conservative. They are not blogs and no  OR / SYNTH violations are needed to derive that statement from the sources.  It stays in the lede.Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually one of the sources descibed only the commentary (blog) section as conservative leaning. Arzel (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what about the majority of sources that claim they are independent or non-partisan? Arzel (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither of those actually contradict calling the group conservative. For example Council of Canadians is independent and non-partisan in that they are not affiliated with any party. They are also center-left leaning.Simonm223 (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So if I can find a single reliable source that calls any newspaper or organization conservative or liberal I can subsequently label that organization as conservative or liberal regarless of the majority of sources? Arzel (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat that for those who subscribe to selective hearing Independent =/= centerist. Non-partisan =/= centerist.  A group can have a position anywhere on the political compass and also be independent and non-partisan.


 * Let me repeat for those that simply can't read. If I find ONE reliable reference prescribing to a particular line of thought even though 99.9% of all references make no similar link I can still support the WP:FRINGE belief?  Tell me, did we land on the moon?  Additionally, you cannot be a non-partisan and lean to the left or right.  That simply doesn't make any sense at all. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a civics course. Of course you can be non-partisan and lean to the left or right.  I'm through with this debate.  Conservative is properly sourced from non fringe sources and it stays in the lede.Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted a perfectly acceptable compromise. Ratel, I find it ironic that you use a liberal voice from RCP to define a conservative, yet continue to push that RCP is a conservative website. Arzel (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)