Misplaced Pages

20 June 2020

• curprev 02:0902:09, 20 June 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 15,991 bytes +354 Reverted to revision 963352684 by Doug Weller (talk): Nothing on talk to dispute this RS (TW) undo Tag: Undo

19 June 2020

• curprev 23:3123:31, 19 June 2020 2601:602:8b00:cd40:2c99:dc14:a44c:8745 talk 15,637 bytes −354 Undid revision 963352684 by Doug Weller (talk). Violates talk page consensus. Yes, RCP has been described as right-of-center, but it has also been described as centrist by WSJ, NYT, and other sources cited on this page. It is ideologically misleading to say in the lede that it has been described as right of center without mentioning the other sourced perspective. undo Tags: Undo references removed
• curprev 10:1410:14, 19 June 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 15,991 bytes +354 described as undo
• curprev 03:3003:30, 19 June 2020 2601:602:8b00:9c3:d8b0:7854:d4aa:6605 talk 15,637 bytes −362 Undid revision 963283861 by Gamaliel (talk). Contribution violates consensus and is not properly sourced. Please gain consensus on the talk page first. undo Tags: Undo references removed

18 June 2020

• curprev 22:5322:53, 18 June 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 15,999 bytes +362 Reverted to revision 962987981 by 71.78.185.98 (talk): Restored properly sourced RS placed in intro as per Vox (TW) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 18:4318:43, 18 June 2020 2601:602:8b00:cd40:4c72:75a0:c2d3:61a4 talk 15,637 bytes −362 Please get consensus before adding a statement about political orientation to the lede. The current consensus is to leave it out of the lede, because many valid sources vary wildly in their characterization of RCP. Finally, if such a statement were ever to be added to the lede, it should be supported by more than one source. undo Tag: references removed

17 June 2020

• curprev 04:1104:11, 17 June 2020 71.78.185.98 talk 15,999 bytes −1 Update ;) undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

14 June 2020

• curprev 14:1814:18, 14 June 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 16,000 bytes +362 using wording and source from Vox undo Tag: Visual edit

4 June 2020

• curprev 15:0315:03, 4 June 2020 JamesMLane talk contribs m 15,638 bytes +37 Reverted edits by 47.200.2.83 (talk) to last version by 2601:844:4100:CCC0:5DCD:C3C8:BCB3:CBAE undo Tag: Rollback
• curprev 14:4614:46, 4 June 2020 47.200.2.83 talk 15,601 bytes −37 No edit summary undo

23 May 2020

• curprev 17:4017:40, 23 May 2020 2601:844:4100:ccc0:5dcd:c3c8:bcb3:cbae talk 15,638 bytes −8 Took out redundancy undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• curprev 04:0504:05, 23 May 2020 Marquardtika talk contribs 15,646 bytes −372 already in article with sourcing undo
• curprev 03:5903:59, 23 May 2020 Richard L. Peterson talk contribs 16,018 bytes +15 →Social Media: sp, hacker, links undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
• curprev 03:5303:53, 23 May 2020 Richard L. Peterson talk contribs 16,003 bytes +357 secretly on social media undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

3 May 2020

• curprev 22:1722:17, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:7dc7:b94b:afc:129 talk 15,646 bytes −13 Again removing 'conservative' from lead. It is not properly sourced and is not part of the consensus, like you stated. I've read the talk archives. The consensus, in fact, was to have a neutral lead without any qualifier precisely due to the fact that there is disagreement among valid sources. There was a consensus on a lead without 'conservative' until JimKaatFan added it back and the editors looked the other way. undo
• curprev 22:1422:14, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:7dc7:b94b:afc:129 talk 15,659 bytes +873 Re-adding valid sources. Rephrasing "consistently" to "repeatedly" to avoid confusion. Everything I added was from a neutral point of view and is objectively true. undo
• curprev 22:0722:07, 3 May 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 14,786 bytes −875 →Philosophy: rm original research see WP:OR you can't use one or two stories to make an extrapolation regarding total coverage undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
• curprev 22:0422:04, 3 May 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 15,661 bytes +13 per article sources and edit consensus undo Tag: Visual edit
• curprev 21:4221:42, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:7dc7:b94b:afc:129 talk 15,648 bytes −2 Removed spaces from "Real Clear Politics" -> "RealClearPolitics" undo
• curprev 21:4021:40, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:7dc7:b94b:afc:129 talk 15,650 bytes +877 Included sources from WSJ and NYT that call RCP "nonpartisan" for context undo
• curprev 18:4618:46, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:8ca6:38d3:91a5:536b talk 14,773 bytes −13 Undid revision 954678784 by Gamaliel (talk) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 18:3418:34, 3 May 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 14,786 bytes +13 Undid revision 954668895 by 2601:602:8B00:7340:7DC7:B94B:AFC:129 (talk) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 17:2817:28, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:7dc7:b94b:afc:129 talk 14,773 bytes −13 Nothing on the page indicates the site leans right except the opinion of Princeton Alumni Weekly and an author at Time. The source citing Cengage Advantage Books claims that the outlet publishes "opinion pieces from multiple media sources". Stating the site is "conservative" is not clear-cut and violates NPOV guidelines. It would be more appropriate to say "The site is right-leaning according to x sources, but publishes a diversity of opinions according to y sources" per the NPOV guidelines. undo
• curprev 10:3510:35, 3 May 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 14,786 bytes +13 Reverted to revision 954562551 by Gamaliel (talk): Except of course for the article itself, (TW) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 08:3408:34, 3 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:78cc:57e8:92a3:8a8f talk 14,773 bytes −13 Undid revision 954562551 by Gamaliel (talk) No justification for the modifications undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 03:0003:00, 3 May 2020 Gamaliel talk contribs 14,786 bytes +13 Undid revision 954534704 by 2601:602:8B00:7340:8CA6:38D3:91A5:536B (talk) undo Tag: Undo

2 May 2020

• curprev 23:0423:04, 2 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:8ca6:38d3:91a5:536b talk 14,773 bytes −13 Even in that case, the "conservative" label is inappropriate. The authors sharing a frustration alone is not a source that can back up an objective claim of the site's political leaning. The Daily Beast, another website that (controversially) describes its coverage as non-partisan, does not have a "left-left leaning" moniker on its page, and rightly so. Misplaced Pages has a standard, and it needs to be enforced equally. undo
• curprev 12:4412:44, 2 May 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 14,786 bytes +1 →Philosophy: null edit - not being able to find a source is not an excuse for removing it, it is a verifiable source if you put the effort into it. I've got a copy in fact and it backs the text undo
• curprev 08:0908:09, 2 May 2020 50.201.195.170 talk 14,785 bytes −23 ibid undo Tag: Undo

1 May 2020

• curprev 22:1622:16, 1 May 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:b9ba:4e13:490c:dac2 talk 14,808 bytes +23 By "unreliable", I meant that it was not verifiable. I have looked through the archives of Human Events magazine and could not find such a quote. Per Misplaced Pages rules on verifiability, it is not a good source. As an admin, you should know this. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability undo

30 April 2020

• curprev 11:0511:05, 30 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 14,785 bytes −26 Reverted to revision 953690697 by Doug Weller (talk): Take the source to WP:RSN then (TW) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 02:4302:43, 30 April 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:1806:a85b:fd75:e9d4 talk 14,811 bytes +26 Source from Human Events where McIntyre allegedly states that "we have a frustration all conservatives have" is unreliable and could not be independently verified. There is no objective evidence whatsoever denoting RCP as a conservative source. It regularly publishes an even split between liberal/conservative and describes itself as nonpartisan. Any observation to the contrary cited in this article is not based on objective metrics. undo

28 April 2020

• curprev 15:2515:25, 28 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 14,785 bytes +14 Reverted to revision 952882996 by Unreal7 (talk): See earlier edit summary (TW) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 12:2712:27, 28 April 2020 76.97.242.57 talk 14,771 bytes −14 took out a claim that RCP is "conservative" undo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

24 April 2020

• curprev 15:1615:16, 24 April 2020 Unreal7 talk contribs 14,785 bytes +147 Filled in 2 bare reference(s) with reFill 2 undo

22 April 2020

• curprev 18:1018:10, 22 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 14,638 bytes +13 Reverted to revision 951119506 by Marquardtika: That's what we call original research and we don't allow it, see ". He further stated, "we have a frustration all conservatives have", which is "the bias in media against conservatives, religious conservatives, Christian conservatives"." and the text below that (TW) undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 17:1917:19, 22 April 2020 2601:602:8b00:7340:b9ae:e6bc:b570:63da talk 14,625 bytes −13 Again removing conservative for two reasons. Firstly, they do not describe themselves as such, instead describing themselves as "balanced". Secondly, analyzing their actual content demonstrates that the balance of left/right is at least 50/50 and frequently has more left-leaning articles than right. This is most certainly not a conservative site. undo

15 April 2020

• curprev 15:5615:56, 15 April 2020 Marquardtika talk contribs 14,638 bytes +13 But this is what the preponderance of RS cited in the body describe it as undo Tag: Undo
• curprev 15:4915:49, 15 April 2020 72.191.17.194 talk 14,625 bytes −13 Again removing "conservative" as it is not properly sourced and is purely based on an opinion going against Misplaced Pages standards. RCP describes themselves as reporting "balanced, non-partisan analysis" on their own page, and have a daily mix of left and right sources and often more liberal than conservative. As a whole they offer a balanced aggregate of sources. Listing "conservative" in this page goes against Wiki policy. undo
• curprev 15:2915:29, 15 April 2020 Marquardtika talk contribs 14,638 bytes −545 don’t need this undo
• curprev 15:2715:27, 15 April 2020 Marquardtika talk contribs 15,183 bytes −1,412 restoring last WP:CONSENSUS version, IP introduced WP:OR undo
• curprev 10:2710:27, 15 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 16,595 bytes −545 →Philosophy: 8 years old, self-promotion, wrong place - there's some room for self-commentary, but I see no point in this statement undo
• curprev 10:1910:19, 15 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 17,140 bytes −280 →Philosophy: the current RSN discussion suggests we should not be using Allsides.com, as do earlier ones https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#Is_Allsides.com_a_reliable_source%3F undo
• curprev 09:3209:32, 15 April 2020 Greyjoy talk contribs 17,420 bytes −13 →top undo
• curprev 09:3209:32, 15 April 2020 Greyjoy talk contribs 17,433 bytes +72 →Origin and philosophy: Revert removal of referenced material undo
• curprev 09:3009:30, 15 April 2020 50.201.195.170 talk 17,361 bytes +1,910 RFC needed to pull tons of established content undo

14 April 2020

• curprev 23:4123:41, 14 April 2020 72.191.17.194 talk 15,451 bytes +1 →Philosophy: Fixed typo undo
• curprev 23:3923:39, 14 April 2020 72.191.17.194 talk 15,450 bytes +280 →Philosophy: Added AllSides Bias rating for reference. undo
• curprev 23:3023:30, 14 April 2020 72.191.17.194 talk 15,170 bytes −13 Undid revision 950742206 by Doug Weller (talk)Again removing "conservative" as it is not properly sourced and is purely based on an opinion going against Misplaced Pages standards. RCP describes themselves as reporting "balanced, non-partisan analysis" on their own page, and have a daily mix of left and right sources and often more left and right sources. Listing "conservative" in this page goes against Wiki policy. undo Tag: Undo

13 April 2020

• curprev 16:1016:10, 13 April 2020 Doug Weller talk contribs 15,183 bytes +13 Undid revision 950733954 by 72.191.17.194 (talk) WAPO publishes right wing pieces - sources are in article, and the IPs reverting this come from 3 different countries and 2 continents, either meatpuppets or using proxies undo Tag: Undo