Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-07-04/Recent research


 * I'd like to see a similar study about politicians not from the modern Western countries, but from the Nazi Germany. There were left-wing politicians, like communists and liberals, and right-wing politicians, like fascists and conservatives. Would there be more negative covarage of the right-wing politicians? Perhaps 1000% more claims of organizing mass murders and so on? Would the author also write that "these trends constitute suggestive evidence of political bias embedded in Wikipedia articles"? All these studies of left-right bias without considering the reality are such a bullshit. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. By late 1933, the only politicians in office in Germany were Nazis, and it remained that way until Nazi Germany was defeated in 1945. When you ask was there more negative coverage of right-wing politicians, from what time period and from what country do you mean? From inside Nazi Germany, the coverage of Nazis themselves was positive. But the coverage of someone like Konrad Adenauer in (liberal) US and UK sources is obviously far more positive than of the Nazis. Conversely, the coverage in liberal western sources of Dith Pran is going to be more favorable than that of Pol Pot, even though Dith Pran was significantly to the right of Pol Pot. I don't think these extreme examples are going to tell us much about the bias on coverage of common contemporary Democrats and Republicans, none of whom have engaged in mass murder. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias. People who spend all day online usually happen to be younger folk, who in turn happen to be more left-leaning folk. That much is obvious, and tends to be agreed upon. However, what many people don't really agree with is that we really let our biases affect our editing. We tend to use more liberal sources and deprecate conservative ones, while pretending that there is no motive behind it. Hell, the amount of times I've heard the phrase "reality has a left-leaning bias" makes it clear that NPOV gets routinely ignored. When the right attacks Wikipedia, they're completely correct. Not that it should matter, but I am writing this as a leftist. It's embarrassing to be a Wikipedian. Dialmayo 18:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because left-leaning sources are more WP:RELIABLE than right-wing sources? Perhaps because the Overton window has shifted so much that sources considered left-wing are very close to the centrum or even right-wing, and sources considered right-wing are far right? That is the reality in the US, and this wiki is very Americentric. In any case, sentiment analysis is an art, not a science, so we should take this report by conservative think-tank (who clearly has a dog in this fight) with a giant grain of salt. Polygnotus (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Polygnotus, I agree with you completely, but User:Jweiss11 has an interesting counterargument, so I'm pinging him here in case he wants to share it. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was promised an interesting counterargument. Where is it? Polygnotus (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear what I'm arguing against, your claim is that the Overton window has shifted right-ward? In the United States? Over what time period? Any key topics here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Viriditas was referring to. Possibly Talk:Intellectual_dark_web and/or User_talk:Jweiss11/Archives/2023? The Left–right political spectrum is too much of an abstraction to be helpful in any serious discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Polygnotus, yes, the 2023 discussion on my talk page with Viriditas contains much of the argument I would make here. If the "left–right political spectrum is too much of an abstraction to be helpful in any serious discussion", then why did you use it in your opening comment here? Seems it would be impossible to have a meaningful discussion about Overton window shifts without employing some sort of directional political spectrum. This spectrum doesn't have to be one-dimensional, but it has to have at least one! And the more dimensions it has, more difficult it's going to be for participants to conceptualize it, make coherent arguments about it, and follow the arguments of others. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't a serious discussion. Way too sober for that. While LGBT/healthcare stuff has gone in the right direction, there is also a noticeable trend within certain segments of the Republican Party and its base towards embracing far-right/white supremacist ideas, conspiracy theories like QAnon, and other extremist views. So while the Overton window has shifted in the right direction for some topics, there is also a very noticeable shift in a very bad and dangerous direction. Jewish space lasers can't melt gay frogs. Polygnotus (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate Jweiss11 hasn't shared his argument, but you (Poygnotus) were kind enough to link to it from his archives, so thank you. The important point that I'm trying to make here (in a roundabout way, I should have been more direct) is that Jweiss11 (more than anyone else here) understands the overarching argument that David Rozado, the primary researcher of the paper we are discussing, is trying to make.  Unfortunately, I don't think HaeB or anyone else here has addressed it.  For those who don't know, Rozado's purpose here is not to show that Wikipedia is biased towards a left-wing POV.  That's a very old argument that predates Wikipedia, and goes all the way back to the 1971 Powell Memorandum, which is where it all started. In fact, the Manhattan Institute grew out of the concerns discussed in the Powell memo, so it's more than appropriate to mention it here.) Rozado is one of a number of young researchers that have fallen for this old canard and have used it as their starting premise for their research, something we've seen time and time again over the last 25 years.  My point is this: Jweiss11 perfectly encapsulates Rozado's (and the Manhattan Institute's) larger argument, which is that the Overton window has not necessarily shifted to the right, but in fact (according to them) the Overton window has shifted to the left, with the so-called "liberal" news media responsible for this shift around 2010 or so, which Rozado and others have been focusing on since at least 2022.  In other words, the larger argument here that nobody is addressing is not that Wikipedia is biased towards the left, but, according to Rozado and others, Wikipedia is using biased sources that are incentivized to publish partisan news.  Jweiss11 and Rozado are on the same page here.  Rozado and others are simply resurrecting the old "liberal media" meme, which has been shown time and again to be poorly supported.  What is even worse, is that Rozado's research is being used by hard right sources to argue that the news media is promoting "left-wing extremism", and that Trumpism is a "natural" response to the media's "shift" to the left.  In other words, this is yet-another-argument promoting Murc's Law, "the widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics", and that conservatives are being forced to defend themselves by any means necessary.  This is pretty insidious when you take a step back and look at what Rozado and others are doing.  This amounts to "you made us do this [J6, Supreme Court, Theocracy, etc.] because you pointed out our racism, corruption, and violation of the Constitution, and called us out on our lies".  Apologies if that's too convoluted for anyone to follow, but look at who is citing Rozado's research and how they are using it.  It's just one long argument for going after the media for criticizing Republicans and shutting them down.  Wikipedia will be next on their hit list.  That's what this is about. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Polygnotus, I appreciate you granting that the Overtone window has moved leftward on gay marriage and universal healthcare. I don't think Viriditas was willing to concede that. As for gay frogs and space lasers, that stuff is pretty fringe and often not entirely serious. That these are now common memes I think is not evidence of a general rightward shift in American culture, but a function of the internet offering new platforms for fringe nutjobs, and many people just enjoying the freak show. I'm not sure Alex Jones could be Alex Jones without the internet. Could he have existed in the 1970s or 1980s? What's far more robust is the leftward shift within mainstream influential institutions on what can broadly be described as identity politics. Many of America's top universities and high schools, most respected newspapers, and Fortune 500 companies have, at an accelerating pace in the last decade, moved left of liberal egalitarianism into the servicing of leftist identify-based grievance politics with the adoption of DEI bureaucracies. When I was in high school and college in the 1990s, the idea that an ostensibly liberal academy would have racially segregated programing was unthinkable. But that's exactly what Grace Church School did in 2020; see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/27/us/new-york-private-schools-racism.html. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alex Jones' ideas did exist in the 1970s and 1980s, except they were known as the John Birch Society (JBS), whose positions are now considered mainstream conservatism. According to The Atlantic in 2024, Donald Trump’s 2016 election 'saw many of its core instincts finally reflected in the White House,' and the JBS 'now fits neatly into the mainstream of the American right.' FWIW, Alex Jones cites JBS spokespeople Gary Allen and Larry H. Abraham as one of his most formidable influences from when he was growing up, having read their book None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971). Jones calls the book "the quintessential primer to understand the New World Order". The circle, as they say, is complete. Viriditas (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My point in asking that question about Alex Jones (could he have existed in the 1970s or 1980s?), was not that to suggest that right-wing conspiracists didn't exist then or before, but to suggest than none of them made $100 million dollars with their schtick then. Jones could have never made such a fortune pre-internet. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We know that people like Charles Coughlin were promoting similar ideas in the 1930s. As for money, the rise of televangelism in the 1970s and 1980s was made highly lucrative, and the Bakkers and others generated hundreds of millions using the same kind of rhetoric as Alex Jones. It is unclear how Reagan’s tax cuts helped or hindered them, but we do know that evangelicals fought the IRS in the 1970s over segregation (see for example Bob Jones University v. United States), and this fueled the rise of the new right as a coalition wing of the GOP.  Note that both Jim Bakker and Alex Jones generated income using the same revenue stream: marketing and selling emergency survival products to "preppers". It’s the same shtick. Let’s not forget how all of this ties directly into Alex Jones, as he was motivated to start his career in part by the Waco siege on the Branch Davidians, which became a right wing touchstone of so-called religious persecution and alleged government overreach, which neatly fit into their conspiracy world view. Jones is very much a part of the religious, right wing ecosystem. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * So you think it's Wikipedia editor's fault that right wing sources are more likely to put out misinformation and false stories? Our reliability rules are incredibly transparent and they are applied equally. Silver  seren C 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a non-American, I can tell you that the US right and the right wing media in general have gone off the deep end since Trump. It's not that they just become more extreme in their position, it's that they've become an echo chamber simply disconnected from reality because acknowledging anything that makes Trump looks bad is now a sin, because anything that makes Trump look bad is un-American leftist George Soros-backed Communo-Marxism . &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One can argue that being a Wikipedian is itself a rather socialist idea/hobby, so perhaps active editors are to some extent self-selected in that direction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * People who spend all day online usually happen to be younger folk, who in turn happen to be more left-leaning folk. That much is obvious, and tends to be agreed upon. I hate to be the Ackchyually Guy, but the idea that younger people skew left and become more conservative as they age was debunked about a decade ago.  I believe the current thinking on this subject is that people tend to be both hardwired as liberal or conservative and susceptible to environmental influences throughout their life.  It is certainly true that the literature is full of "now that I pay taxes, I'm a conservative" anecdotes from the 1980s and up, but it looks more and more like this was conservative propaganda, not hard data. The fact is, the more you explore this question, the more you find the opposite is true in almost equal amounts; younger people also tend to skew conservative (for reasons) and become more liberal as they get older.  I think everyone here can agree that information, knowledge, and education are a liberalizing influence, which is why conservatives in the US are against public education and are trying to promote homeschooling and private religious schools.  Since the 1980s in the US, conservatism has transformed into a regressive, reactionary, anti-Enlightenment project.  Prior to that time, these elements were mostly confined to fringe conservatism.  However, the desegregation of schools in the US in the late 1950s and 1960s caused white supremacists to form a coalition with other fringe conservative groups.  This includes the rebellion of paleo-conservatives and libertarians against government regulations, particularly environmental restrictions on polluters in the 1970s; opposition by evangelical Christians to taxation by the IRS; and opposition to equal rights for women in the late 1970s.  This fringe coalition became a large voting bloc (although still a voting minority that uses the electoral college and voter suppression to win elections).  They made great use of culture war wedge issues, like the anti-abortion movement, to draw votes to their side.  Prior to this moment, most conservatives in the US supported abortion and were pro-education.  Most Americans are not aware of this history. (Surprisingly, the last pro-choice conservatives lasted in the GOP up until the early to mid-1990s until they went extinct.)  This new coalition of grievance-motivated conservatives then joined the Reagan Revolution, and with the help of the Koch network, replaced the old values of conservatism with the fringe values.  Sadly, most people in the US agree that these newer conservative values are anti-democratic, pro-authoritarian, pro-fascist, and anti-American.  This is where we are today.  Recently, and in an altogether fresh approach, Rachel Maddow has investigated the much narrower history of right-wing extremism during the 1930s and 1940s, greatly expanding our knowledge of how foreign-influence operations have played a large role in US politics on the right. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Think about "The sentiment classification rates the mention of a terms as negative, neutral or positive." There's an underlying assumption that the underlying topic is somehow neutral, and that being negative or positive implies being inaccurate or biased. Where then, is there room for a discussion of the merits of a case, or for viewpoints on a particular topic? People can be both critical and correct. If there is a page on (pick your favorite disinformation- or bogus health-related topic), then I would hope that criticism of that incorrect viewpoint would appear on that Wikipedia page. Does being critical of something mean that Wikipedia is unreasonably biased against that topic? Or does it mean that we are doing our job properly? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that a major goal of disinformation is to undermine trust: in authority, in science, and in information sources, so that people don't know who or what to believe and are incapable of acting effectively. Wikipedia is a major source of information in today's world. We should not take this lightly. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is things are quickly accelerating, to the point where Wikipedia might be under attack in the very near future. Time to start planning for that scenario now. You don’t need Hari Seldon to see that the future is upon us. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * [It] classifies Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan as "journalists with the left". Greenwald and Sullivan are both lifelong Republicans who have identified (I believe) as civil libertarians, or right-libertarians.  Greenwald and Sullivan have built their entire careers criticizing the Democratic Party. The authors of this study should be embarrassed by their research, and it’s safe to say it can be dismissed as flawed. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, while Sullivan has been a long-time Republican, I'm pretty certain Greenwald never has been. I suspect maybe at one point he might have been a Democrat. Greenwald can be difficult to pin down. He's definitely some sort of libertarian, which generally has the effect of making him seem right-wing on domestic issues and left-wing on foreign policy. Greenwald took effectively right-wing (or libertarian) positions on mandates and other measures during Covid. But on foreign policy, he like many libertarians, is almost indistinguishable from the "progressive" left in that they paint the United States as some sort on uniquely evil force of death and destruction around the globe. I recently attended a debate in NYC with Greenwald and Alan Dershowitz, in which Greenwald ran significantly to the left of Dershowitz, an actual life-long Democrat, on the topic of US military intervention with the respect to Iran's nuclear program. See: . Jweiss11 (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Betsy Reed in 2021: "He's become a practitioner of manufactured controversy in the service of the hard right in this country." Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The left has a strong tendency to eat its own when one among its ranks steps out of line. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't the opposite true? In 2003, Bill Clinton said: "...Democrats want to fall in love. Republicans just fall in line." Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The left doesn't "eat its own". It engages in circular firing squads based on who is the biggest victim.  That's very different than eating its own and falling in line. Obama in 2019: "One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States...is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I'm sorry, this is how it's going to be' and then we start sometimes creating what's called a 'circular firing squad', where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues." Viriditas (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Obama here. That's what I meant by "eating its own". Jweiss11 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My error, then. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a hat tip to for another thoughtful summary and analysis. Routinely my favorite part of the Signpost. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I recall seeing an interview that John Stossel did a couple years ago with a prolific Wikipedia editor about political bias on the site. That Wikipedia editor offered a similar conclusion! &#129300; Jweiss11 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The same Stossel who is "faculty member of the Charles Koch Institute"? Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The very same! But that Wikipedia editor is not paid by the Kochs! Jweiss11 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See above: manufactured controversy. This is what the culture wars are, and it's the only platform the right has. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The opening bit about "failing to live up to" NPOV should be enough to write this paper off, we do not have a responsibility towards balance between the left and right sides of the Overton window any more than we do towards balance between historians and Holocaust deniers. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the writer like many accounts that get indeffed very fast has just read the title of the policy and then made assumptions about what the title means. TarnishedPathtalk 01:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course a research piece for a American think tank is going to confuse left-wing with liberals. Calling the Democrats, who are strongly is support of capitalism and engage in continuous wars, left-wing is wrong-headed when considering global politics. That the research found positive sentiment for Scott Morrison (a conservative Australian former prime-minister) just makes a joke of the whole argument. Tarnished</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We then extract the paragraphs in which those terms occur to provide the context in which the target terms are used and feed a random sample of those text snippets to an LLM (OpenAI’s gpt-3.5-turbo), which annotates the sentiment/emotion with which the target term is used in the snippet. So, it's all bullshit, then. Good to know. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Or, at least, not for that reason. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I still can't believe the professor went to a right-leaning media tank instead of a more credible academic journal. I can't help wonder this would affect the professor's or the study's credibility. Does anybody here fully trust what the study says? —George Ho (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very believable, and there are literally hundreds of similar examples. Please read the book Dark Money (2016). It explains how groups like the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research came to be highly influential with US universities and professors.  This has been going on for four decades. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make the study reliable by any means. Too bad certain persons can't differentiate reliability from appeal (especially to one-sided values), and too bad certain ones aren't skilled enough to figure out which is credible and which is not. Ones can call the study "credible" or "reliable" only because the study fits their "values" maybe without fully reading what the study says or without looking up meaning of words. George Ho (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, that was the intended purpose of the Powell memo. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * George Ho, it's possible that Rozado shopped this to one or more academic journals, but no-one wanted it. He had a similar study published in the Journal of Computational Social Science' in 2021: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42001-021-00130-y. I haven't delved deeply into the this study, but on the face of it, I see no reason to doubt its reliability. Right-wing think tanks have little to no influence on academia in the US. AS for dark money going to universities, I'd be far more worried about it coming from places like Qatar than the Koch bros. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Right wing think tanks interface with, fund, and employ academics who work in right-wing funded university programs and departments. There's a lot of them, but the most notable ones inlcude the Gus A. Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education at Florida State University; the Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies and the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University; the Marriner S. Eccles Institute for Economics and Quantitative Analysis at the David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah; the Institute for an Entrepreneurial Society (IES) in the Martin J. Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University; the Center for the Study of Free Enterprise at Western Carolina University; the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise at the University of Kentucky; the Eudaimonia Institute at Wake Forest University; and selected programs at Whitman College and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.  Although it is highly complex in its social engineering designs, it basically works like this: the conservative funding network (first established in the Powell memo) spent hundreds of millions of US dollars promoting academic programs that ostensibly uphold laissez-faire economics.  These programs then publish ideologically-biased academic papers which call for government deregulation, particularly when it comes to industrial polluters, call for the elimination of social programs, and most importantly calls for the elimination of taxes on the wealthy, particularly the same billionaire class who are in fact funding the conservative network. The right-wing think tanks then use these papers to promote policy changes at the congressional level, all the while creating a revolving door, where the people they fund at the academic level end up working for them at some point at the think tank level, with these people very often going back and forth between academia, the think tanks, private industry, and even government.  So when Jweiss11 says "right-wing think tanks have little to no influence on academia", he may not be aware of the complex relationship involved.  The most common relationship we often see while writing articles on Wikipedia, is the example of a researcher who is mostly unknown, but publishes a book that criticizes climate change science and government efforts to mitigate it, for example.  It turns out that the researcher received a fellowship from a think tank (although this relationship is rarely explicit) to work on their book, and after it is published, the media touts the book as "Academic contrarian at university X disagrees with government Y about policy Z".  This formula is so cliche at this point, that most people here are fully aware of it.  It's an echo chamber. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And left-wing think tanks don't also do this? Can you explain why, in spite of whatever level of influence there is from right-wing think tanks, why American academia is overwhelmingly left-wing? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that somewhat distracts from the subject here, and we are covering the same points up above again, but if someone else wants to respond, that would be fine. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my last set of questions is a clear request for intellectual honesty. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, they are a clear set of distractions from the topic based on the tu quoque variation. I will leave your questions for others. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, you don't get to unilaterally decide what's on-topic and what's not. You're putting up a smokescreen to avoid having to address the weak points in your augments. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My purpose here in this discussion is to discuss the topic under discussion. We are not discussing allegations of "left-wing" hypocrisy, or why you think the US academia is "left-wing".  I already addressed the latter part up above, where I wrote "information, knowledge, and education are a liberalizing influence, which is why conservatives in the US are against public education and are trying to promote homeschooling and private religious schools."  I'm afraid that's as far off-topic as I'm willing to go. I will leave your other questions for others. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't get to unilaterally decide what's on-topic and what's not. You can try, as you have, but that move is intellectually and civilly unsound. It's quite ridiculous that you repeatedly ping me into discussions, and then won't address my straightforward questions. Arguments like "reality has a liberal bias" or "information, knowledge, and education are a liberalizing influence", two statements with which I generally agree, don't engage with the question of left-of-liberal influence and ideology on academia, replete with its postmodern undermining of objectivity and the scientific method and its neo-Marxist reductionism of everything into the oppressor vs. the oppressed. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean how you never addressed the argument I originally pinged you for? Love me some Jweiss11 in the afternoon.  Gets the blood flowing. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I clearly did. My view of the Overton window shift in the US in recent decades is discussed above. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't. Another editor had to link to the discussion, and you just talked around it.  I think our time in the dojo today is finished. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I clearly did. I asked Polygnotus for clarification on his position (because I didn't just want to assume his was identical to yours), and he responded with a link to our 2023 discussion, which I then discussed and amplified here. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I had to address your claim directly, your argument that the Overton window has moved to the left, not the right, which is very much aligned with Rozado's research interests which show (according to him) that the Overton window moved left around 2010.  That was the argument I pinged you for, and you never once discussed it.  Anyway, I will bow to you now and say goodbye.  You can have the last word. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, as I was exchanging with Polygnotus, you jumped back with your own thoughts (which was fine in and of itself) before I had a chance to understand where Polygynous was coming from and respond. I clearly reiterated my view that the American Overton window in the 21st century has moved decidedly leftward, with three example topics: universal healthcare, gay marriage, and identity politics. I think the third one there is the biggest and more far-reaching cultural development of the century thus far for America (and many other places in the west). Contorting your eagerness to jump back into conversation into evidence that I never "never once discussed" my view of the Overton window is either a bald-faced lie or utter delusion. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading... or rather skimming the published article, his study looks rather skewed to historical figures and political figures and media establishments, especially in the Results section. Also, mostly US-centric and Western-centric, less non-Western examples. I dunno what Rozado wanted to accomplish other than to present himself as mostly concerned about Western civilization or to make Wikipedia look bad. George Ho (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The English version of Wikipedia itself is disproportionately focused on the west, because all the sources that ever been written in English are disproportionately focused on the West. I'm not sure what you mean by "skewed to historical figures and political figures and media establishments"? As opposed to what? Is it possible Rozado just wanted to adjudicate political bias on Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "skewed to historical figures and political figures and media establishments" Hmm... Perhaps "skewed" isn't the right words to describe this. How about "narrowed down" instead? To put another way, Rozado narrowly used those figures to exemplify his point. As opposed to what? How about TV and web shows, natural species (especially of flora and fauna), mathematics, microorganisms, events, culture, communities, etc.? Is it possible Rozado just wanted to adjudicate political bias on Wikipedia? Is "adjudicate" the right word to describe his intent? How about "determine"? Anyways, if that was his intent, then why go to a right-leaning think tank rather than a central- or left-leaning establishment? Despite the project's possible political bias, I still am uncertain whether to trust the article's determinations (of study results). —George Ho (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well there's unlikely to much be political bias in articles about flora and fauna or mathematics. And if there was, it would be meta-level and much harder systematically detect. Yes, he's narrowed the investigation down to overtly political topics. His study doesn't suggest that there is political bias on each and every article on Wikipedia, but merely that it may be pervasive bias within certain topic areas. The majority of my editing focuses on American college football and related topics, and I can testify that there's virtually no political bias in that topic area. But I do think there is a serious bias problem when it comes to many elements of contemporary politics, media, and sociology. Again, it's possible that Rozado shopped this study to a lot of places, but only a right-leaning think tank was interested in publishing it. Do you think a left-leaning think tank, journal, or periodical would be eager to jump on this? And if Rozada has published this with a centrist outlet like Heterodox Academy, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, Quillette, or The Free Press's, that venue would be (or already has been) branded as right-wing or unreliable or both by the community here. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)