Talk:Rasmussen Reports

?

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

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

According to SurveyUSA Rasmussen polling was not at the top of the list regarding poll error accuracy. (http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/2008-pollster-report-card-hilevel-summary-011908.JPG) 71.206.32.103 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SurveyUSA is one of Rasmussen's rival polling firms. It is not a reliable source on this matter. · jersyko talk 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Basic company data

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

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

It would also be useful to clarify the relationship with other opinion poll firms founded by Scott Rasmussen, such as Portrait of America / GrassRoots Research Inc (founded in 1996 [1]), Maricopy Research [2], Rasmussen Research (bought by TownPagesNet.com in 1999 for about $4.5 million in ordinary shares [3]).

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

This sentence doesn't make sense...

"updates its President's job approval rating daily other indexes"

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

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

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

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

Edited Criticism Section

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

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

Survey Method

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

Paid consultant Vs. opinion polling

I removed, but then put back on a different line, the fact that Rasmussen commissioned a poll for After Downing Street. I don't see how it's relevant to the criticism that Rasmussen was a paid political consultant to George W. Bush and the RNC during the 2004 elections. There is no relation between being a paid political consultant and who hires your firm to commission a poll. Polling firms have the right to accept or reject any job offer, but if you are a paid political consultant it's your job to help who hires you to win an election or advance your cause. Two totally separate things are being lumped into one category here. DD2K (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

They don't strike me as separate things.—DMCer™ 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to not see that they are totally separate. You can be hired, as a firm, to poll any question that the people who hire you want you to ask. That doesn't mean you agree with the question, and you only have to take the results back to the people who hire you. If you are a paid consultant, your job is to help the person who hire you improve their image, message and your goals are the same as the people you are working for. There is no way that anyone can claim they are in any way related.DD2K (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not quite impossible. My issue is that, unless you're looking at a different source, it's not possible from the source listed to discern whether the polling company was hired to do anything but poll, which isn't necessarily different from the way a hired polling firm would help After Downing Street with its agenda. I don't really care either way though, since you only moved the Downing Street info down a bit. Whatever the case, both sides are at least represented.—DMCer™ 06:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point, as the link doesn't go into detail about the differences. But if you look at the definition of what a paid political consultant is, you can see there is a huge difference between taking on that particular job and one that you are paid to just poll for. The difference is as if you worked in the home improvement industry and someone of a political ideology(AfterDowningStreet) you disagreed with asked you to remodel their bathroom, and you did, and taking a job to help someone(Bush/GOP) get elected. Two distinctly separate actions. And I can't let the claim of which isn't necessarily different from the way a hired polling firm would help After Downing Street with its agenda go unanswered. Rasmussen wasn't 'helping' ADS with their 'agenda', they ran a poll for them. The same as when Research 2000 runs polls for DailyKos. Rasmussen is listed as a paid consultant by the Center for Public Integrity. A paid political consultant is described as "advis[ing] campaigns on...research...field strategy...candidate research, voter research, and opposition research for their clients". The Center for Public Integrity lists paid consultants as a "professional or firm that provides inherently political services, including creative or strategic advice". Also, the Center lists the activities that were paid to Rasmussen as not only for conducting surveys, but for survey research and providing voter data information. In any case, my apologies for not giving a more detailed explanation above.DD2K (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph regarding "glaring errors" under Reputation

I deleted this paragraph because I believe each of the three sentences in the paragraph are incorrect. Specifically:

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

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

Sentence 3: "The mistake was, in fact, in the first paragraph of a Rasmussen report titled 'Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming'." The first paragraph of this report is not related to the Fox graphic; the fourth paragraph of the report is the relevant paragraph, and it reports the survey data correctly.2rock (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was rightly deleted. The mistake was from FNC(even though they claim otherwise) and not from Rasmussen. I have my own opinions on Rasmussen and their polling(I think they purposely tilt the results in favor of conservatives so they are used more in conservative outlets), but the charge that was deleted is false. That graphic was correct(but misleading), and was a product of Fox News, not Rasmussen.DD2K (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the Fox News graphic was both misleading and incorrect. I blogged about this at http://www.lancebledsoe.com/fox-news-mangles-stats-denies-error/ .2rock (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Okay, fine, the fourth paragraph, but did you bother reading the fourth paragraph? Here's the report [4]:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Okay, you got that. Now, go to Start, Run, and type in "calc". Add those three percentages together. What does it add up to? 120%!

Next time you start deleting paragraphs, make sure you're actually doing it for the right reasons. I'm bring back the paragraph, and yes, I will correct the error on which paragraph it is. SineSwiper (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your reading of the paragraph is incorrect. Here is the question(as asked) and the data described in the paragraph you cite:

3* In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?

35% Very likely

24% Somewhat likely

21% Not very likely

5% Not at all likely

15% Not sure

When the quote states--

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.

--they are referring to the combined numbers of 35% that state it's 'very likely' and the 24% that state it's 'somewhat likely', which equal 59%. Which is qualified by the bolded qualifier of 'at least'. It's sloppy wording to then go on to list only the 'very likely' respondents in the next sentence, but the paragraph is technically true and you are misreading it. I am removing the claim, as it is obviously false, and any revert should to be discussed and explained in talk. DD2K (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, though it's really bad wording on their part. I could easily see how somebody on Fox would screw that up. SineSwiper (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, very poor wording. And it seems misleading, although technically correct. The paragraph should have been worded this way:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least "somewhat likely", (35%) of which say it’s "Very Likely", that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Just 26% say it’s "not very" or "not at all" likely that some scientists falsified data.

Oh well. I can definitely see why people would suspect falsification, or at least bias by misleading, from either Rasmussen or FNC. DD2K (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fordham University study

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

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

Use of blogs, reputation section's undue weight

There's been a complaint about my removing blogs such as MyDD, Daily Kos, etc, in my rewrite. I figured we should open to discussion as to why those unreliable sources should be used, and why the current version is lacking. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

First I will note that prior to your edits yesterday the article was arguably in need of some improvement. However, in your mass rewrite of the article, you have hastily misinterpreted WP's policies and guidelines regarding blogs. You've rewritten the article with an obvious POV in support of Rasmussen Reports, removing 12 sources and virtually all the reliably sourced material about some of the widespread criticism of Rasmussen's methods, and also the material about RR's conservative political leanings and affiliations. IIRC, among the RSs which have asserted Rasmussen's conservative political leanings are Nate Silver (yep, the same Nate Silver that is cited in support of Rasmussen's excellent results in the presidential election), while many others have asserted an outright conservative bias in both the survey questioning methods and in the way Rasmussen presents its survey results to the public. Frankly, the result of yesterday's edits (e.g., here) could hardly have been written better by a professional PR firm.
..... Therefore I'm going to revert it back to the basic long-standing form of the article, and request that you take the sources one at a time here on the talk page if you believe them to be unreliable as to either the facts they present regarding the types of questions RR asks in its polling or as to the general political affiliations and conservative leanings. I'll have a chance to deal with this in more detail over the weekend.
..... Here are the WP rules for dealing with the kinds of sources you've removed on the basis that they're "blogs"
From Wikipedia:IRS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

From Wikipedia:IRS#Statements_of_opinion:

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

From WP:SOURCES, part of the core policy page WP:V:

Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs; these are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

Please articulate on the talk page the basis for your edits, taking the issues one point at a time, and also articulate the specific reasons for removal of any of the sources used in the article if you think they're irrelevant or unreliable. I'll be able to deal with this further over the weekend, and will willingly discuss the issues, including your assertion about WP:WEIGHT, point-by-point over the weekend. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MyDD, Media Matters, and Daily Kos do not meet any of those standards. Talking Points Memo and 538 I have kept due to their nature (one is now associated with a newspaper, one won a journalism award). I have otherwise not removed any negative information that is clearly and reliably sourced, and have adjusted the weight to better reflect reality and to not have the entire section about reputation dominated by negative information, which is unfair. Your wholesale revert did not actually reflect any reason as to why those should remain included against Wikipedia policy on sourcing. You can add them back if and when you can justify their inclusion - we cannot have this article defying policy based on your bad faith regarding my motives. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to agree primarily with Kenosis. DailyKos and MyDD are problematic, but those are only used for a small fraction of the sourcing. Removing that or using other sourcing for those details could easily be accomplished without the massive rewrite done here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't account for the weighting issue, nor why we're reverting to a version with duplicated information or bad sources (which account for a significant portion of the criticism, not "a small fraction." Why agree, exactly? What problems do you see with the rewrite, and do you agree with his application of motives toward me? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick count shows that 9 of the sources in the "response" section are from blogs that do not meet the standards of the sourcing requirements here, right and left wing. My rewrite keeps some noteworthy blogs (TPM, 538), replaces bad sources with good ones (Media Matters -> MSNBC), and eliminates many of the duplicates and much of the weighting issue. Please explain. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So no response, Kenosis? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the last mass deletion. You've given some of your conclusions, Ed Wood's Wig, but no facts in support of why you think any of the sources you removed are unreliable as to the statements in the article which they support. This will not be adequate with a one-user mass rewrite when many editors have contributed this material over a long period of time. We'll need specifics, not generalities about what conclusions you personally think might apply. So, let's get started reviewing each of them, one by one. I can do this today and tomorrow at various times throughout. Be back at about 16:00 UTC. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no mass deletion, it's a significant rewrite because those sources do not meet the standards for inclusion. Since you want the sources, why don't you tell us why they should be included instead of edit warring and misrepresenting the situation? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted by Kenosis, it will be much appreciated, and better for the encyclopedia, if you address each issue separately. To deny that there was a mass deletion is rather an odd move in light of the preponderence of the evidence. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've explained why those sources don't meet the requirements. Why are people not willing to explain why I'm wrong? 9 self-published blogs! No relevant information removed! Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You say there are nine self-published blogs (I imagine you're not counting the two you explicitly said you chose to keep). Kindly name them, because I count only a couple. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding them back, so tell me what they are and why you're keeping them. You are adding them, after all. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be reading what you wish into the guidelines/policies etc. If, however, you believe there to be an undue weight issue, address it here, logically, cogently and without rancor.

My personal opinion is that the tone of this article could be a bit more balanced to present a clearer picture in re the positives and negatives, but that balance can only be achieved by collaboration, not by wholesale changes that introduce their own bias. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What bias was introduced? And why are you refusing to address the sources you insist on including? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits you introduced were glowing reports of Rasmussen, while you deleted much of the less positive reports. It's pretty straightforward. I have no problem with both being included as that will balance the article, but we can only do that via collaboration and cooperation.

Note that I requested that you address each cite/item you find to be objectionable separately, logically and cogently. When cogent arguments are presented I shall respond appropriately. I will not however get into a pissing match and resupply all of the info Kenosis already provided you. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I included zero new "glowing reports" of Rasmussen, instead restructuring the existing ones. I also added, which was in a source being used elsewhere, information about the Wahsington Post noting Ramussen catching Scott Brown's rise early. Given that the article had not seriously been edited since his election, it seemed logical to include, but I'm open to discussion. As for deleting the "less positive" reports, I only deleted the sources which came from unreliable sources such as Daily Kos, MyDD, and Media Matters, as well as deleting positive reviews from Hot Air and Right Wing News - sources you keep including in your blind reverts. The complaints being made remain, but sourced only to reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Since you are someone trying to keep the sources in place, the burden of proof is on you to justify their inclusion, using policy and logic. If you don't want a pissing match, start justifying your edits or they'll continue to be reverted based on policy. Remember, the burden of evidence is on those who want to include or restore information, and any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my good man, as you deleted long-standing content, which has since been restored by several editors, the burden of proof is on you. You have asserted that the content is not valid and, as we all know, he who asserts must prove. Of course, I am speaking from a strictly logical standpoint, not a wiki one. Nonetheless, the items you decry as being "self-published" are clearly nothing more than supporting documentation by Rasmussen itself. If we are to write an article about Plato, would it not be prudent to cite his works? Seems pretty logical.

The sources you claim as being unreliable are generally seen to be so by one side of the political spectrum, but even the NYT, one of the world's most respected papers, is seen as being unreliable and biased by those on the right and the WSJ is seen in the same light by those on the left: such is journalism

Note too, that with the decline of standard news media, blogs have become increasingly reliable and one needs to look into the background of the writer to discern his/her qualifications. I realise that this requires a bit of work, but so be it.

Now then, I have asked twice that you address each issue and make an attempt to work collaboratively on improving the article. Are you willing to do so? If not, we are wasting time and bytes. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I quoted the policy. The burden of proof is on you, not me. Are you willing to do so? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sad, so very sad. You seem to want to eat your cake and eat it, too. I believe that I have already explained your flawed logic sufficiently. When you decide that you'd like to explain just what sources you consider to be "self-published", please do let us know. Until such time, this discussion is sterile and sere. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've explained numerous times - Daily Kos, MyDD, MEdia MAtters, Right wing News, Hot Air. Get it yet? Do not remove tags under discussion! Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you said they were bad because they are blogs, remember? Additionally, you removed cites from Rasmussen using the self-published logic. Please do aim for consistency. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, you're not interested in discussion and do not understand the policies in play here. I'll go to RFC with this. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. I am more than willing to discuss and to move the discussion along. Merely reiterating one's viewpoints, as you seem wont to do, is not discussion, just mere repetition. I have asked you to expand on your arguments, yet it seems that merely restating them is as much elucidation and expansion as one can expect.

As for understanding policies, as I have four featured articles under my belt I'm fairly sure that I must in fact be able to comprehend policy in its entirety.

Also, I'd be very keen to discover -- just for the sake of argument mind you -- how a blog that features multiple writers is "self-published" but a newspaper featuring multiple writers is not. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, you cannot comprehend policy in its entirety. From WP:IRS: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." From WP:SOURCES: "Personal and group blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe there's some confusion between online articles by reporters or commentators with bylines, which are often followed by or associated with a chat forum, and on the other hand self-published and group blogs. AFAICT, most or all of the sources are by online reporters or commentators with bylines using their real-life names. In any event, I'd like to see what sources are argued here to be unreliable as to the statements in the article for which they're cited. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

I have repeated them numerous times to you: Daily Kos, MyDD, Hot Air, Right Wing News, etc. These are not sources to be used in an article, especially when the point can be made using reliable sources. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me go dig them up and put them here, along with the statements in the article for which they're cited, for examination and discussion. Be back in awhile. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finally willing to play ball on this, but what they're cited for is irrelevant, because this is not an article about them and they are not to be used as sources per policy. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you've already given your personal conclusion, and have now given your conclusion again. Obviously I'm wasting my time here. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given the policy conclusion. If you can argue for inclusion, which is what is required, do so. If not, don't stand in the way of improving the article any further. It's up to you. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You've given and regiven your interpretation. Period.

Now, when Kenosis provides the data we shall discuss it, yes? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

He's had days to do so. He's actively edited the article in the meantime. I'm not holding my breath. And I have not given my interpretation, I've provided the clear text of the policy. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already indicated what's next for me. Nothing, since I'm obviously wasting my time with Mr. Wig. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you won't be standing in my way of improving the article, I assume. And Jim? Any chance of you defending the inclusion of what you're reverting to? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring the rewrite. If people want this unbalanced, poorly sourced material here, it's up to them, per policy, to justify their inclusion. We've gone around in circles enough. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fordham analysis removed

I've removed the Fordham ranking by accuracy in the 2008 presidential election here. That ranking, which can be found here, was only a preliminary analysis which set the spread at 6.15% and was itself off by over a percentage point from the final election tally (7.2%) . If someone can find a comparison of relative accuracy of predictions by different polling organizations it might help here. I wasn't able to find one with a quick search. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've restored my rewrite since you were done complaining about it, and I've added information to reflect this issue. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted you here. You've been reverted by at least four editors thus far by my count. I recommend you desist from the presumption that your analysis of the WP policies and guidelines regarding sourcing is necessarily correct. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. Stop edit warring and start cooperating, or this can be escalated further. You have ye tto explain why you believe policy is on your side, especially since you quoted the policies that support my edits. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you're referring to as "cooperating" is actually a demand to accede to your POV, something you already made quite clear with your comments two sections above. At this stage I'd just as soon spend the time analyzing your behavior and misrepresentations here. You've failed to state specifics. Then after I remove faulty sources such as a citation to a Wikipedia article, replace a progressive source with a "centrist" source, etc., you engage again your blanket, largely unexplained rewrite. If you wish to, as you say, "escalate", by all means. I do have an hour or two more this particular evening. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you've stated here is true. Again, policy does not allow self-published blogs per WP:V. Your version still references HotAir, Daily Kos, RightWingNews, Think Progress, Politics Daily, Media Matters. If you want me to applaud you for removing MyDD, fine, you've got it. But you're the one who wants to include those blogs, and the burden is on you to explain why per policy. You'll note that, in restoring my rewrite, I adjusted the Fordham information per your note because you were correct and it made sense for accuracy. I'm more than willing to cooperate - I came to talk first, I'm trying to get as much outside input as possible. We can make this work, or we can keep battling it out. The ball's in your court. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You see, it was not, as you say, my version. Rather it was the sum of contributions of many editors before your mass rewrite and deletion of material critical of Rasmussen. Moreover, you strangely seem to have missed bad citations which were in support of Rasmussen, for instance a citation to a Wikipedia article, and unilaterally chose instead to decide which self-published sources to include and which to delete. More, you've given at least three or four different excuses for your mass rewrite and deletion of critical material, repeatedly moving your goalposts--your self-decided interpretation of WP policies and guidelines--to suit your POV. But for now, since the article has been edit-protected and returned to the last version prior to your mass rewrite, I'll gladly go do something else. Good evening to you. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I call it "your version" because you kept restoring it. You are responsible for the edits you make. Second, my rewrite did not include a citation to a Wikipedia article. As for protection, I requested it in order to get you to discuss as opposed to edit war. If you leave the article for 4 days and do not bother to talk about it, that's not going to reflect well on the situation, especially when you accuse me of various false things. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As to the citation to the WP article, I stand corrected and now see it was among the many sources you removed. As to the rest, I stand by what I said. Again, good evening. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(Back to this section again on 9 July) It turns out the cited "Fordham analysis"

(1) is a self-published source,
(2) is not a "preliminary analysis" but rather a proposal for a paper, and
(3) it also turned out to be incorrect as to Rasmussen's accuracy rating in the 2008 presidential elections.

This "Fordham University analysis", which is cited in support of the proposition that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate in the 2008 presidential electioin, was actually taken [from pollster.com by Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D. I highly recommend taking a closer look at the Fordham "analysis" by Panagopoulos (here). It's actually titled "Initial Report, November 5, 2008" and happens to be just a page put up by the professor on the Fordham website, a preliminary proposal for a paper he later published. Professor Panagopoulos says right in his "initial report" where he got the list ranking pollsters by accuracy. He explicitly says it's "as reported on pollster.com". So it wasn't a "Fordham University analysis", but just a preliminary list picked up from pollster.com. And, since the pollster.com results were only preliminary results that were off by over a percentage point, Rasmussen wasn't one of the top two in accuracy.
..... "Polls and Elections: Preelection Poll Accuracy in the 2008 General Elections" is Panagopoulos' final paper, published in Presidential Studies Quarterly in Dec 2009. In this paper, Panagopoulos doesn't appear to even mention Rasmussen at all. So, there's one passage in the article that ought be stricken, the one that says "A Fordham University analysis ranked Rasmussen Reports as one of the two most accurate polling firms in the 2008 Election. ^[6] The Fordham analysis is a preliminary analysis based on projected vote totals. The final vote margin of victory was 7.2 points compared to the 6.15 used in the Fordham analysis.^[6][7]" This passage is just plain wrong; it doesn't accurately reflect the source, and even the list (the "preliminary list" that was actually generated by politico.com) was off by over a percentage point. Meaning Rasmussen wasn't one of the two most accurate in the 2008 presidential election. According to FiveThirtyEight.com (reported by Alex Isenstadt in Politico.com here) Rasmussen was only the third most accurate pollster in 2008. Isenstadt says:

"Last year, the progressive website FiveThirtyEight.com’s pollster ratings, based on the 2008 presidential primaries, awarded Rasmussen the third-highest mark for its accuracy in predicting the outcome of the contests."

Either way, it appears the "Fordham" analysis will likely need to be stricken and replaced with Eisenstadt or FiveThirtyEight.com, both of which have Rasmussen as in Third Place as far as accuracy in the 2008 elections. Which is pretty good, of course. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis. You'll note that the final paper, as linked, does not list the tables. It does mention Rasmussen on the first page of the report, and does not mention any polls in the report itself. It does note later that it uses the polls mentioned in the NCPP table report, located here. The analysis from that report, which is noted as preliminary but is obviously good enough for academic work, has Rasmussen faring among the best. You'll note the version that you continued to revert from noted the following: "A preliminary analysis from Fordham University ranked Rasmussen Reports as one of the two most accurate polling firms in the 2008 Election," which was factually true. Using the full paper plus the NCPP report would appear to source a more accurate statement that they were among the top polling firms without any problems, barring anything weird coming from the unseen tables. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Interesting perhaps, but also demonstrably accurate upon further examination. Anyway, according to your link to here (skipping the question "Is-the-NCPP-report-a-WP:Reliable source?" for the moment), Rasmussen does appear to get a bronze medal in the 2008 Presidential-Election-Relative-Predictive-Accuracy event. I now do continue to wonder, after all this research, how this fits into a section title called "Reputation" or even how it reasonably fits (as it is in the article at present) under a WP:Summary style rendering of Rasmussen's "History".
..... Perhaps a statement like "Rasmussen was among the most accurate polls in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 national elections" or "third in accuracy in the 2008 presidential elections" might be a reasonable rendering of the RSs w.r.t. this particular issue. If kept in the "History" section, it seems to me that perhaps a statement like "In 2004, 2006, and 2008, Rasmussen demonstrated a relatively high degree of accuracy compared to other polling organizations in predicting the outcome of presidential, senatorial and congressional elections as compared to most other polling organizations" might well be appropriate in the article. (It ought be clear, of course, that this issue is distinctly separate from the issue of Rasmussen's reputation as a "conservative" polling organization w.r.t. issue-based polling and interim presidential-approval ratings as related by numerous reliable sources.). .. Kenosis (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it belongs in reputation because a polling organization's reputation is predicated on its accuracy in what it does. It has a reputation of being a strong pollster. I'm opposed to boiling it down to one sentence because we have multiple reliable sources from different areas stating as much, and the detail doesn't provide any undue weight toward one direction, just as much as one sentence saying "some see Rasmussen as conservative" wouldn't pass the test on its own - the detail matters. The responsible way to do it is to tell the full story using quality sources. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

May I ask, which sources, as of 9 July 2010, does Ed_Wood's_Wig think are "quality sources"? ... Kenosis (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ones that are not self-published blogs per WP:V. The discussion above goes over this already. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputation section: The actual reputation is as a "conservative" polling organization

As of 5 July 2010, it seems to me what we're missing is the obvious. Which is: Rasmussen has a reputation for being a polling organization which produces issue-based statistics and approval ratings that favor conservative political positions. Currently the section cites an article in TIME Magazine which "describe[s] Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group", cited to here. Additionally though:

--The June 2010 article in the Washington Post by Jason Horowitz (here, currently in footnote #1) takes as granted that there are "... those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers, ...".
--Alex Isenstadt writes, in Politico.com (here), that Rasmussen regularly produces presidential approval numbers "about 5 percentage points lower than other polling outfits". Among the other indicators of Rasmussen's conservative leanings in the Isanstadt article is a statement by Mark Blumenthal, a polling analyst and the editor and publisher of Pollster.com: “Rasmussen produces a lot of data that appear to produce narratives conservatives are promoting" Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, a progressive research center, says: “His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC [Republican National Committee].” etc.
--John Marshall of Talking Points Memo said in February 2009: "The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls."
--Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com said in June 2009 that Rasmussen "... frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys." And in April 2010 Silver referred to Rasmussen's "house effect" ("the tendency of certain polling firms' numbers to tend to lean in the direction of one or another candidate") and said: "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong."

No doubt there are other sources for this basic conservative skewing of the polling results, the "house effect" as Silver says. I presently think we ought find a way to say this in WP:Summary style in the summary paragraph (first paragraph) of the Reputation section, perhaps even in the lead. The agreement among reliable sources on this issue seems to me to be a basic aspect of Rasmussen and a bit too important to ignore. ... Kenosis (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Both versions - the policy version and your version - mention this. No need to pile on further, as this already suffers from weighting issues. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. It's actually an issue of summarizing the statements of many RSs, which is what we do when countless sources agree on something about a WP topic. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which it's summarized fine in both versions. Beyond that, their reputation is of being one of the most accurate pollsters in the nation. Should the opinions of mainstream, reliable sources be used to note that some believe they have a conservative lean? Absolutely. Should it overwhelm the section as it does in your version? Of course not. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is no weighting problem at all. We are merely reporting how they are described in reliable sources as described by Ed Wood's Wig. TFD (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The weight problem is on the already-overwhelmingly negative tone of the article, especially in the current version. Such criticism should not overwhelm the section since the reputation of the organization, according to reliable sources, is one of strong results. Again, no protest in noting it - the rewritten version does so, and I would not be against listing off the organizations of note that agree with it as well - but not the way it's currently constructed. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, that section title was changed from "Criticism" to "Reputation" in this edit on 23 December 2009. But "reputation" is in its own way as loaded a word as "criticism". "Reputation" begs the question "among whom?", and carries implications of "good" or "bad" reputation. We aren't wedded to this section title. This title could easily be something like "Commentary on Rasmussen's polling methods", "Assessments of Rasmussen's polls" "Reactions to Rasmussen's methods", "Reviews and commentary" or other such section title.
If, however, the section title is kept, it appears clear from the RSs that its most prominent reputation is as a conservative polling organization. ... Kenosis (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable sources clearly show it to be an accurate firm, albeit with different methods. A better assessment of the reputation would be a) details about how their methods are different (i.e., likely voter screens and robocalls), b) their accuracy, and c) using reliable sources per WP:V, the fact that some believe that they're a conservative outfit/lean Republican. Once you weed out the blog rants, this idea that they're a "conservative outfit" gains significantly less weight. I tend to agree, however, that the section title could use a change. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll be darned. I notice that among the many critical sources in the article which dispute this assessment, Ed Wood's Wig decided to also remove here the subsequent assessments by Nate Silver. (And this sort of criticism of Rasmussen's methodology and consistent conservative "house effect" isn't limited to just Nate Silver. ) Wig's edit handily quotes a February 2009 statement by Nate Silver that Rasmussen is "probably the one I'd want with me on a desert island", but [Ed Wood's Wig]'s edit removed Silver's more recent 2009 and 2010 assessments. In June 2009 Silver said:

[Resmussen] frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys. [cited to [5]]

And Ed Wood Wig's version also conveniently neglects the text about Nate Silver's assessment in April 2010:

" ... since the end of the 2008 election cycle, Rasmussen's "house effect" was skewing its polling numbers and that "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong." Silver also disputed Rasmussen's suggestion that the difference between his results and those of other polls can be explained by Rasmussen polling only "likely voters" rather than all adults." [cited to [6]]

Silver also said in the same April 2010 assessment:

"Rasmussen does not appear to be applying an especially stringent likely voter model "

I'm sorry, but that "Rasmussen-has-a-reputation-for-being-accurate" dog don't hunt here. But to be sure, the POV presented by Ed Wood's Wig is wholly unsurprising at this stage of discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your cherry picking is noted here. I have no issue with including that Silver's found that his results seem to get more conservative responses - I'm sorry I had to deal with your poor sourcing and edit warring as opposed to any significant improvement - but his "model," which shows a "house effect" without explaining how he gets there in any detail that's useful, is something that should be put to greater discussion. Regardless, reliable sources tell us that he is incredibly accurate - Silver's analysis, as good as it has been, is not enough to say that "reliable sources" do not note his accuracy or that the consensus of those sources is that they're conservative leaning. That's simply not true by any honest measure. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, IOW Silver's good enough to cite when Rasmussen hits a bulls eye but ain't good enough to use when Rasmussen repeatedly misses the whole broad side of the barn (LOL ... gol dang pollster seems to keep missin' it to the right--maybe the guy oughta just turn 'imself around left a bit or change his throwin' motion--. But, lo and--gol-dangit, Fox News 'd probably stop usin'im so much.). ... Kenosis (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Silver's good enough to note when he's noting their accuracy, not when he's coming up with his own calculations. We can remove him entirely, though, we don't need him for either statement. But then again, you have this mistaken assumption that Rasmussen is missing the broad side of the barn - that hasn't happened. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Directly quoting Silver, one of those self-published blog writers EdWood'sWig selectively chose to keep in his unilateral mass rewrite: "to believe that Rasmussen is getting it right: you also have to believe that almost everyone else is getting it wrong." ... Kenosis (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to quote Silver, then. It's no big deal to me, everything he says can be said by other higher quality sources anyway. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So where are we standing at this point? Are there any other issues we need to work out, or can we start implementing? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've incorporated a number of the edits discussed above. Hopefully we're all set on this. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I think you should be more cautious before reverting a massive revision that was clearly well intentioned and not vandalism. Certainly there was something redeemable in Ed Wood's Wig's edit that you could have kept. I also want to add that I think Rasmussen Reports' reputation is primarily one of accuracy and secondarily as a conservative pollster. But the political leanings of a polling organization are almost irrelevant as long as they are accurate, and to be fair, the only time I am aware that people have questioned RR's accuracy is now on Obama's approval ratings and generic GOP versus Dem. congressional matchups, when nobody can prove them wrong except by saying "well, certainly everybody else can't be wrong"! I also note that articles like Zogby International do not mention a liberal bias even though it is widely alledged. -Cwenger (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that you've reverted an entire edit that incorporates your changes along with mine. If you have other problems with it, how about sharing? You haven't edited this talk page in a week. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Blog sources in the Reputation section

Are self-published blogs good sources for a reputation section? Some extra input would be helpful. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to re-write the question of this RfC, which is not worded neutrally. The proof of that is the reader can tell by the question that you wish to exclude these sources (and I have not even read the discussion page). You should state the specific sources to which you object. TFD (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Reworded. The sources are in the Reputation section, per above - Daily Kos, MyDD, Media Matters, Right Wing News, Hot Air, etc. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant that you should withdraw the RfC and re-write it in a neutral tone. It might be re-phrased, "What types of sources should be used for the article about the Rasmussen Reports, which is an American public polling company?" The trouble I find with articles like this one, is that people form their opinions about them based on popular media then use those sources for the article. But better sources should be used. There are academic sources of information for opinion polling, [7] and it should be possible to find reliable sources for Rasmussen. TFD (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That, however, isn't the source of the conflict. I don't disagree with you on quality sources, but I'm trying to find a resolution to the conflict at hand. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny: I stated in the previous section that this article could be improved with the aim of it being balanced, and requested that discussions be undertaken toward that end. Alas, to date that has yet to happen. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the "positives and negatives' in an article of this type. Rather than remove/rewrite as was done a few days ago, or raise specious objections to the use of blogs, perhaps we should look at providing, for the reader, a complete, balanced picture in re Rasmussen Reports. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How does my version not do that? How does using a version that's poorly written, has significant weight issues, and uses poor sources do so? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the critique os both the current version and your exemplary rewrite. Now, there is a middle ground that needs to be reached -- are you willing to work on reaching that middle ground? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How about explaining what is gained from your version that is lacking from mine, since you're insistent on keeping this version in place? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The RfC begs the question by assuming that there is agreement that the sources the author disagrees with are self-published blogs, which is the issue in dispute. However, a more helpful discussion might involve the quality of sources required for the article. TFD (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned with resolving the conflict. We already have the answer to what you think the "helpful discussion" would be. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your last comment was just a bit too snarky -- please refrain from such behaviour. Period. I assume we understand each other, yes? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about you actually worry about fixing the problem here as opposed to playing whatever game you're playing. Contribute to the discussion or leave it to people who want to fix it. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, are you really clueless or just incredibly stubborn? Did it ever occur to you that people can be indisposed for a time and not have access to a computer? (Really, it can happen). Do you always jump to contusions?

You have not, until I commented today, posted a single comment on this page nor have you discussed anything, rather you waited and made wholesale changes. Also, please, do not even try to lecture me as I have no time for peurility or noetic nullity.

As for games...nope, I don't play games as they are pointless, time-consuming and rather boring. Capisce? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's weeks worth of discussion from when you left above this section. You may want to review those before you claim I didn't post a single comment of discuss. As for lectures, the same goes to you - if you want to have a discussion, let's have it, but if you want to play a game about who's being more snarky, it's not one you'll win. Now, do you have anything of value to add to this discussion and to this article, or do you plan on simply continuing to edit war to bad versions with bad sources? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but not to the relevant discussion...and your comments to the four deuces was absolutely unhelpful.

Dude, you really don't want to get into the whole snarky thing...

Edit war? Good grief you seem to have that concept honed to perfection based on the warnings you've received.

Now, I asked you two weeks ago to go throught the article point by point. Care to try or shall we just dance a silly spasmodic dance? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the problem with the sources. The person who wants to includethe information is to justify them. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

I'm not seeing a reason for section tags. Typically, when an article has problems like this, we attempt to fix it, including rewrites, removal of disputed material, and verification of references. What we don't do, is revert those fixes and add more tags. Now, could the user who added a tag to each section, briefly explain the problem and how to fix it, and I will donate my time as an editor to help out. And, please remember what we do here: We write articles and resolve disputes on the talk pages. This isn't rocket science. Since the person adding the tags has the burden of proof, I've removed them pending an explanation of why they were added and what can be done to remove them. In its place, I've added the {{POV-check}} template to the top of the article. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to fix it. You want the bad version, you justify your edits. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my help. Describe what needs fixing and I will promise to fix it immediately. You can use this thread to explain in detail if you like. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Read above. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why an ANI incident report was filed. You complain, but refuse to explain the complaint. Please stop editing this article if you can't respond directly to request for discussion and to queries asking you to justify your edits. The pattern of your disruptive behavior has become increasingly obvious and it needs to stop now. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this question numerous times. Perhaps if you speak to people like human beings, theyll be more willing to cooperate. Everything you want to know is written above - familiarize yourself with the dispute before interjecting yourself into it. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please answer the question here in this thread. What is wrong with the current article and what can be done to improve it? Choose one example to illustrate the problem you see, and use that as a starting point. Sometimes you have to repeat yourself to get an outcome that you prefer. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Show some effort and scroll up. When you have done so and begin speaking to me like an adult, I will engage you on the matter further. Not before. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you an adult? If you are, then you will answer my question in this thread because that's how we use talk pages. I am not going to hunt down answers to my questions, answers that most likely do not exist. I am asking you to specifically justify your use of the maintenance tags. If you can't, then you must not add them. If you can, then you should be able to explain what the problem is and how it can be fixed. This is very simple. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I don't know how your condescension toward people you're in a dispute with has helped you in the past, but it's not a game I play. When you decide to make an effort and start treating people as you'd like to be treated, I'll come back to these discussions with you. Not before. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this and other discussions, you seem to be quite fond of games. If you can't address the problems in the article that you claim need to be fixed, then I consider your use of the maintenance tags to be a closed topic. You are welcome to reopen this thread at any time with the addition of reasons and explanations for your edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Fordham University analysis

This is supported by a self-reference to Rasmussen Reports not by a secondary source.[8] Since this claim is outside of the website, we require an additional secondary source that has covered this "analysis". As far as I can tell it is self-published. Now, I personally don't have an objection to including this source in the article if it can be shown that the author is an acknowledged expert in his field and is widely quoted or published in the literature. The claim as it stands right now should be compared to others and placed in the correct context. The problem is that the source is primary, but Rasmussen is not secondary, yet is being used as a secondary source to support it. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed in some depth above at #Fordham_analysis_removed. First off, it's not a "Fordham University analysis". It's actually a proposal for a paper by Costas Panagopoulos, Ph.D., that was later published without any final tally of the 2008 pollster accuracy. And as Costas Panagopoulos explicitly notes in his "Initial Report", the ranking was actually taken from Pollster.com, which also appears not to have published a final tally of the 2008 pollsters ranked by accuracy. In short, it's basically a bogus claim--self-promotional hype by Rasmussen itself. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I initially suspected. Well, since there are secondary sources regarding the accuracy of pollsters, we should just stick to those, no? Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, you think Panagopoulos is from Rasmussen? Where's your evidence? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When I said "self-promotional hype" I was referring to this Rasmussen website page, the wording of which is remarkably similar to the wording used in this WP article. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If you are concerned about inclusion, all you have to do is find a good secondary source that supports the paper. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Kenosis is denegrating a source based on speculation. Above, had you read the discussion, you'd have seen the final published paper in a scholarly journal that resulted from this preliminary report. Again, this has been discussed, so please scroll up, read, collaborate, and discuss like a human being. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't matter. What Kenosis is doing or not doing has nothing to do with the fact that you lack a secondary source supporting it. Get it? Of course you do, but you're just engaging in obstructionism, again. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A scholarly journal is a secondary source. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Studies Quarterly (Dec. 2009). According to Kenosis, there's nothing about Rasmussen in the final report, and it was only mentioned in the unpublished, preliminary analysis. Is that true? Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So you have not read the report. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I just told you that below, so why are you saying it again in another part of the thread? And, I asked you to verify per WP:V that the material in the initial, unpupblished report appears in the final report. Please do that, now. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

When I said "self-promotional hype" I was referring to this Rasmussen website page, the wording of which (specifically the words "Fordham University analysis") is identical to the wording used in this WP article. I can only reasonably think that most likely the Rasmussen website is where the article text originated. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we can easily reword it if that's the case. The Fordham link, however, is not self-promotional and should not be removed based on that. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please prove that it appears in the final, published report. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I assume you've read it? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 00:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only read the unpublished report online. Is the Dec. 2009 version online? If you have a link to the relevant passage, page, or text, please paste it over here, as that would be necessary per WP:V. I hope you understand. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The link is above for your perusal. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "link" above. What are you talking about? Stop with the nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure there is. In case you haven't noticed, I'm looking for you to read back about this entire dispute so you know what's in dispute. When you say things like "there is no link," it's proof to me that you are not, in good faith, attempting to assist in resolving the issue. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally admitting that you are being purposefully obstructive. I appreciate your honesty. You claim that a link to the Dec. 2009 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly appears somewhere on this page, which I have not been able to find. I have asked you to reproduce this link so I can verify it. You continue to refuse as before. Therefore, I am now within my right to remove the material from the article unless and until you provide the reference or the material I have asked for per WP:V. Thank you for concluding this thread. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You cannot find it because you have not looked for it. Your continued stonewalling on this dispute is old, the version you reverted to is terrible, and if you're not willing to deal with the situation, this battle will continue because of your dishonesty and lack of cooperation. You made your bed, you lie in it. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right. It seems to that Ed Wood's Wig is advocating that we continue to cite this preliminary proposal for a paper by Costas Panagopoulos on the Fordham website, which happens to reproduce Politico.com's preliminary analysis based on the speculated outcome of the election prior to when the final results were tallied, which turned out to itself be off by over a percentage point, thereby changing the final relative accuracy of the pollsters. You're advocating that we use this source in support of the statement in the article that Rasmussen was one of the two most accurate pollsters in the 2008 presidential elections? Based on what originated in a preliminary speculative ranking at Politico.com done prior to the final vote count? Am I correct about this? ... Kenosis (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If even half of that is true, lacking a good secondary source, we should just remove it now. It's true that RR is using this report to boast about their accuracy, but surely we have other sources we can use? Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not. I want it to be as accurate as possible. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Then cite the material per WP:V, here and now. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)