Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 4 July 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Statistics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

?

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

Thank You,

] 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Basic company data

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

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

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

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

This sentence doesn't make sense...

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

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

"For example, After Downing Street commissioned a poll on the impeachment of President Bush. ." 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 Misplaced Pages entry. There seems to be more information about Rasmussen Reports on Scott Rasmussen's personal entry than there is on the Rasmussen Reports Misplaced Pages 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 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 :

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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• 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• 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• 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• 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• 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• 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)

Blog sources in the Reputation section

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

1. Plunkett, John. "Rod Liddle censured by the PCC", The Guardian, March 30, 2010.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class Statistics articles
• Unknown-importance Statistics articles
• WikiProject Statistics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment