Talk:The American Independent

Forbes contributor blog

I've removed a citation, and a statement supported only to that citation, to this "Forbes contributor" opinion blog post by Ralph Benko:

• It's an opinion piece, so can't be used to support a contentious or controversial characterization in Wikipedia's own voice.
• Note also that even in terms of opinion pieces, "Forbes Contributors" are of highly variable quality/significance. This has been brought up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard many, many times; search the archives. Also note the prominent disclaimer on the Forbes website: "Note that Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own."
• If we were to use it, we would have to attribute the POV (I.e. "Ralph Benko of the conservative American Principles Project says X"). And certainly it couldn't be in the lead section.
• But even if attributed, there are substantial weight problems. Benko mentions the website only in passing, and only in terms of a quote from the Gateway Pundit, another opinion blog, and a quite marginal one at that. Neutrality^talk 18:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Repeated NPOV violations

The persistent attempts to characterize ShareBlue as "left-wing" constitute vandalism and violation of NPOV. As a website closely associated with the Hillary Clinton campaign, it expresses center-left viewpoints and should be characterized as such, or not at all. 2602:306:CF67:921F:71BA:28E5:70D8:956A (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The citations provided show it is left wing. Provided articles showing it is center left as opposed to left wing in general. The wikipedia page of Clinton also presents her as left wing as opposed to "center-left" as claimed. Organizations have also attempted to give newer assessments of Clinton once she reentered elective politics in 2015. Based on her stated positions from the 1990s to the present, On the Issues places her in their "Left Liberal" region on their two-dimensional grid of social and economic ideologies, with a social score of 80 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances and an economic score of 10 on a scale of 0 more-restrictive to 100 less-government stances.[463] Crowdpac, which does a data aggregation of campaign contributions, votes, and speeches, gives her a 6.5L rating on a one-dimensional left-right scale from 10L (most liberal) to 10C (most conservative).[464] Through 2008, she had an average lifetime 90 percent "Liberal Quotient" from Americans for Democratic Action,[465] and a lifetime 8 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Political_positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.80.235.153 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Brock didn't say that

In the article is says that Mr. Brock said that the main goal of shareblue was to get Clinton elected and the source does not support that. The article it comes from wasn't attributing that part of the sentence to Mr. Brock. It was stating that Mr. Brock said he had $2 million from donors. but the "the real metric of success for Shareblue...is getting Mrs. Clinton elected." is coming from the author of the article. That's why the part about the funding is separate clause notated by commas. I'm posting here first for whomever to make a rebuttal, but I do intend on updating the text or removing this part from the Wikipedia page since it inaccurately reflects the source.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No original research violations

Removed violations of WP:No original research at [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

The source is real and tells the story better. Deleting it in an effort to hide the information is akin to making your own news.

Here is what is in there: tweets that are confirmed verified - so not unreliable. Actual news on the heart attack - so not unreliable.

"Brock has also organized several other prominent left-wing organizations, including Shareblue, American Bridge, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington." --> Not unreliable.

Their objective is to raise funds to oppose President Donald Trump’s policies. --> Exactlydefends the wiki statement. Not unreliable.

Exactly what is unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301D:B02:1E00:39AA:1B84:1F07:B948 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you just wrote is irrelevant, including your attempts to rewrite the meaning of "unreliable". You've been pointed to the guidelines, but here's the most important bit:

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

If you have a problem with that, go to the reliable sources noticeboard and make your case.

Which brings us to the rather important bit you either misunderstand or misstate: the burden of proof for including material -- ESPECIALLY challenged or controversial material -- ALWAYS lies with those who want to include it. Editors don't have to prove to you that anything should be included; YOU have to prove to others that it DOES. And since the article has been semi-protected, you can't edit-war your way in. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Replace "Left-wing" with "Liberal"

In the first sentences, we ought to change "left-wing" to "liberal", which indicates "center-left" position on the L/R scale.

The word "Liberal" should link to "Modern Liberalism in the United States / Progressivism" since "left-wing" tends to refer to Socialist, Anarchist, and Communist tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This-is-name (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at other political news sites of similar lean, I see Thinkprogress uses "progressive", Salon uses "progressive" and "leftwing", slate uses Liberal, Huffington Post uses Liberal, Daily Kos uses Liberal, Mother Jones uses "progressive", Crooks and Liars uses "progressive" and "liberal", and Media Matters for America, the company that Shareblue Media is associated with, uses "progressive." "alt-left" as what is currently in the description or "left wing" do not seem to be conventional ways of describing these sites. I will go with "progressive" but invite anyone else to discuss here. Likewise, the source used to show lean describes it as "progressive." Are015 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, "alt-left" sure as hell isn't going to work, since that's not what sources use, nor is it likely to be. I don't agree that "left-wing" has these more extreme connotations, necessarily. The simplest criteria should be what reliable sources use for Shareblue Media, not what sources use for other sites. The Huffington Post ref currently used is a relatively low-info business announcement, and Vanity Fair is an interview. Still, those support "progressive", but it would be nice to use non-opinion, non-interview sources that discuss the site in depth. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Huffington Post[2] does not describe Shareblue as "progressive." That description refers to the earlier site, Blue Nation Review. Most sources call Shareblue "liberal."

• "liberal answer to the conservative messaging of Fox News" NY Times
• "ShareBlue, a liberal news site" Politico
• "the liberal website Shareblue" Washington Post
• "for the liberal web site Shareblue" New Republic

James J. Lambden (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of variations on this from multiple outlets.

'"The progressive news site" [3]

"Incoming CEO of David Brock’s progressive media venture backs out" [4]

The Washington Examiner article is the most recent on the topic of Shareblue's "lean", and most other similar sites are given the term "progressive", so I'm reverting the article. Furthermore, I would request people please talk it out here before making changes to the article. Some people are using terms like "alt-left" "far left" etc, which aren't supported at all. Are015 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Are015:, I've updated my comment to show sources. They are: The New York Times, Washington Post, New Republic and Politico. A search yields several more from left, right and center. The sources you list for "progressive" are The Washington Examiner, Salon and a Politico blog. Considering the quality and quantity of sources favor "liberal" I intend to restore it barring further objections. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with "liberal" even though the most recent sourcing shows "progressive." I think "progressive" is a more ubiquitous standard on Wikipedia for left-leaning media outlets and the most recent article uses progressive, but I concede that the quality of sourcing is a little better for "liberal." I wish a respectable outlet would do a media piece on this organization and use one of the words so we can get a final say on it.Are015 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Shareblue Pay People to Influence Others on Social Media?

https://gab.ai/a/posts/34458996

Gab Owner Andrew Torba says it does, and has some screen shots to back-up the allegation.2605:6000:6947:AB00:41DB:A259:DF4C:4019 (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Discuss merger in The American Independent

Please discuss the merger of this article at Talk:The American Independent#Merger discussion. Cut n Paste merge required as target page already exists, simple move will not suffice. Are015 (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)