Talk:Republicans pounce

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 July 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Stuart Thomson (2024-01-02). "When 'conservatives pounce': The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias". National Post.
Gage Clipper (2024-07-17). "The Most Hilarious Anti-Republican Slogan Now Has Its Own Wiki Page?". The Daily Caller.

Excessive reliance on opinion pieces

As of this writing, there is only one source in the entire article that isn't an opinion piece (and it's skeptical of the proposed phenomenon, to put it lightly.) Is there any significant non-opinion coverage of this at all? With only opinion sources, it is very hard to write a neutral article, especially when every single opinion piece comes from the same POV; while WP:BIASED sources can be used, an entire article that relies almost exclusively on opinion pieces that share the same bias raises WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This response is an example of why Wikipedia is such a cluster fuck. Autistic bad faith application of arcane rules for political ends. 204.65.81.44 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is this really necessary to have as an article? At a minimum, all the opinion articles need to be removed from the references and proper non-commentary sources should be used to source this article. Tritario (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested the WP:PROD deletion by removing your tag. Please take it to AfD if you wish to pursue this. Astaire (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tritario has added a notice "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: WP:NOTE ..." etc. Since the creation of the article by Astaire some of the cites have been deleted, but the sources actually exist and I believe their existence contributes to notability. Of course cited articles are opinion pieces since it's an article about opinions so I don't see what policy or guideline that objection is based on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence has been produced..."

I have removed the part in the lede saying that "No evidence has been produced in support of these allegations".

First, it's not accurate in light of the previous sentence, which says: these commentators have argued that journalists downplay controversies and potentially negative stories about Democrats, liberals, and progressives by emphasizing the Republican or conservative response to the story, rather than the negative aspects of the story themselves. These commentators have indeed produced news stories that they believe to be evidence of the phenomenon (i.e. journalists downplaying negative stories). What is not clear is whether the media does so systematically or preferentially against a particular side, which is not an allegation made in the previous sentence.

Second, it presents obvious WP:SYNTH issues, as none of the cited sources make the claim that "no evidence anywhere has been produced". They simply discuss their own analyses that failed to turn up evidence. Astaire (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments and beliefs are not evidence; they represent the subjective feelings those talking heads have about the pieces in question. Both of the cited sources, meanwhile, can reasonably be summarized as saying that the claims behind the term lack evidence. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...can reasonably be summarized as saying that the claims behind the term lack evidence No. Each article is concerned with its own analysis and cannot be summarized to make the claim that "no evidence has been produced" in wikivoice. Astaire (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion is a well-known leftist editor. He knows exactly what he's doing when he continually twists what sources say, and states his own personal beliefs in WP:WIKIVOICE, in flagrant violation of Wikipedia's rules. But due to his political orientation, which is in line with that of the current administrators, he will never be banned for his persistent abusive behavior. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background section

It's not appropriate to string together secondary sources that don't talk about "Republicans pounce" as a term in order to make an implicit argument or present a particular framing in the article voice, as the background section did; nor is it appropriate to present unattributed arguments from opinion pieces via synthesis, which this edit summary implied was the intent of the section. If an opinion piece in the National Post makes a particular argument, we can perhaps describe that as the opinion of the author, with in-text attribution, in the commentary section, due weight permitting; we cannot copy-paste the sources of that argument and make it ourselves in the article text. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post article is news, not opinion, which you can tell by looking for the word "news" in the URL or at the top of the page. Astaire (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author Stuart Thomson is also a bureau chief for the paper, which means he's on the news side of the business and not the opinion side. It's a news article. Astaire (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't actually say any of the things that people try to attribute it; this page is not a general page about media bias, but about the "republicans pounce" meme specifically. All it says about that is It’s a long-running inside joke in American conservative circles that when Republicans have a scandal, the press writes about the scandal, but when Democrats have a scandal, the press reports how Republicans “pounce” on the scandal. The phenomenon even has its own Wikipedia page (titled “Republicans pounce,” of course) and some pundits make a point of keeping a running registry of these kinds of stories. (The fact that it seems to have used this page as a source also raises WP:CITOGENESIS concerns, of course; but even beyond that, all we can use it to say is that the term is a long-running inside joke and that some pundits keep a registry based on it.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis ... have shown?

"Analyses of U.S. news stories have shown that the "pounces" phrasing is used with roughly equal frequency to refer to Republicans and Democrats, while acknowledging the difficulty of measuring the phenomenon qualitatively." Is this a joke? Did you actually click on and read the sources provided to support this claim? Perhaps produce some solid examples of news stories with headlines saying democrats pounce instead of using (un)reliable sources. 97.117.71.141 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to do original research on whether the phrasing is used more for Democrats or Republicans. We can only report what other people have said when they have looked into the issue. If you have a source showing an imbalance in one direction or the other, please share it and help improve the article. Astaire (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]