Talk:RealClearPolitics: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RealClearPolitics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 100 days

Websites: Computing Unassessed

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

This passage: "and while some have suggested the commentary is conservative-leaning," is cited by an eight year old story. Is a snapshot from eight years ago, three years prior to the purchase by Forbes, particularly relevant for the lead? Seems better suited in Origins or maybe a history section. If it stays in the lead perhaps we ought find "some"one else to back up this claim in present times and under present the ownership arrangement, or at least note that the observation is rather dated?--RWR8189 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still conservative. Consider http://www.topsite.com/best/conservative or http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/the-50-most-popular-conservative-websites/ I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored the quote because it compactly explains their motivations in their own words. The stated reason for removal was its age, but I don't see how that's relevant, especially since it speaks of their initial motivation, not anything ongoing. Perhaps we can discuss this further. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Turner is a liberal. Why isn't that fact mentioned on CNN's page? Answer: Because it's not relevant. Whether or not RCP's founders are conservatives is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You guys are totally blowing your alleged "neutral" credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.247 (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Ted Turner said "I founded CNN because I thought television news was too conservative", it would certainly be relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's NOT what they said. They didn't say they founded RCP because they are conservatives. You're totally taking them out of context, Gamaliel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.240.247 (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user 24.18.240.247. There's no reason to mention anything about political orientation of founders. It's non-germane... and also curious that Gamaliel (self-admitted Democrat) is so keen on identifying them as conservatives. That sounds politically motivated, if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.138.22 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Real Clear Politics has been repeatedly accused of bias in its polling averages, leaving out documented polls from Public Policy Polling and other sources. There was the October 25, 2012 PPP poll of Virginia. This poll indisputably does not appear on the Real Clear Politics polling average for Virginia. The Ipsos/Reuters daily tracking poll indisputably does not appear on the Real Clear Politics polling average nationally. Both polls show leads for Obama.

This is an important issue for Wikipedia readers to be aware of and investigate themselves, as RCP promotes itself as an unbiased source of polling information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.84.218 (talk) 02:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I reverted your edit because you did not include verifiable third party sources to support your claim. If you want your edit to be included please provide third party sources to support your claim. Vinnyv (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I linked directly to the PPP polls website, and to Real Clear Politics itself. PPP put out a poll of Virginia, which is publicly available. Real Clear Politics did not put that poll in its average. It's not as though RCP systematically excludes PPP, since it included PPP's poll of Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.84.218 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with 173.66.84.218. It is difficult to find a third party source for this, as it has not made it to any big news outlets. However, the facts are the facts and if you go to RealClearPolitics for Virginia you will see that those polls are still missing until this date. I added my own version of this topic and linked to one report I could find for it. However, I would not have believed this website, if I had not been able to check it myself like 173.66.84.218 suggests. Rwh85 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: less than 24 hours after I added the section on the Virginia poll, RCP has decided to update and include the PPP poll for Virginia (looks like somebody there is watching their Wikipedia entry). Therefore I have no objection to the removal of the bias section. Rwh85 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of bias have never been substantiated by a 3rd party source. There has been a lot of whining, however, by people who seem to have some sort of problem with RCP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.138.22 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure its Arzel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.127.75 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]