Talk:ThinkProgress

Disputed content

For reference, the various chunks of disputed content, with sourcing below. Per WP:DONTREVERT, surely at least some of this content is salvageable:

• CAP and ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group. The Center for American Progress Action Fund, which plays a central role in the Democratic Party’s infrastructure, does not disclose its donors. In 2011, Politico reported that the ThinkProgress reporting staff "isn’t exactly walled off from that message machine, nor does it necessarily keep its distance from liberal groups organizing advocacy campaigns targeting conservatives."

• Israel

In 2011, Politico reported that Media Matters for America and the Center for American Progress (CAP), the parent organization of ThinkProgress, were "two of the Democratic Party’s core institutions challenging a bipartisan consensus on Israel and Palestine." Politico's Ben Smith reported that ThinkProgress was involved in taking a critical stance on Israel through reports which challenged the idea than Iran has a nuclear program and called into question an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi diplomats in the United States. ThinkProgress's coverage of Israel was criticized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group. According to The Washington Post, several Jewish organizations leveled charges that "some center staffers have publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic."

In 2012, Faiz Shakir, then-editor of ThinkProgress, apologized for blogger Zaid Jilani's use of the term "Israel-firsters" on his personal Twitter account. Jilani and fellow ThinkProgress blogger Ali Gharib apologized for "asserting that American Jews and a non-Jewish Republican senator serve the interests of the Israeli government over the security of the United States."

In 2015, Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept reported that ThinkProgress writers had been censored in their coverage of Israel. Greenwald wrote that CAP had gone to great lengths to placate AIPAC and long-time Clinton operative and Israel activist Ann Lewis. The impetus for Greenwald's reporting on the subject was a series of leaked internal emails from CAP which revealed that the organization would host an event for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

• Jilani

In 2014, former ThinkProgress staffer Zaid Jilani said that when he wrote for the blog, he was pressured to support President Barack Obama's policies, particularly in regards to the Afghanistan troop surge. ThinkProgress editor Judd Legum denied that the blog's editorial process was swayed by the White House.

References

Non-neutral tag

Marquardtika, please explain what content you find non-neutral. The rewrite of the article contains considerable amount to content that disagrees with positions taken by ThinkProgress or its writers. It seems quite balanced to me, especially compared with older versions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The current version of this article has been extensively edited by a prolific sock who was originally blocked for violating a topic ban on U.S. politics and climate change-related articles (ThinkProgress falls squarely into both camps). Clearly, this user did not have the community's trust or support regarding editing such articles. Yet they keep coming back as a sock, and we're going to reward them for this behavior by letting their edits stand? That doesn't make any sense. It just induces them to keep socking. A block means "stop editing here, your edits are not welcome", not "come back ad infinitum as a sock and see how many edits you can get to stick!" Content-wise, the current version of this article is loaded up with WP:PEACOCK adjectival phrasing such as "major news outlets" "popular blog" and "peer-reviewed journals." It contains mundane and trivial details sourced only to the ThinkProgress website, such as " The site was then divided into sections covering climate, economy, health, justice, LGBT, world, culture, sports, politics and features. In 2017, the site's organization returned to a less segmented presentation." It relies too much on TP's own view of itself, for example "ThinkProgress describes itself as 'editorially independent' of the Center for American Progress and CAP Action." The numbers about staff growth are similarly trivial, self-sourced, and unencyclopedic. The reporting section is just a big barrage of citations that an editor (in this case, a blocked sock), decided were noteworthy for some unknown set of subjective reasons. The "page views" part of the "Reception" section is odd. Are page views typically seen as "reception?" They are "traffic" not "reception." These are just some quick thoughts on issues with the current iteration. It's a dangerous precedent to allow sock edits to stand like this. We're just inviting socks back by rewarding them for their behavior. Marquardtika (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

While entirely taking your point about not rewarding the actions of sock puppets we must also be careful not to punish bona fide and hard working editors like Ssilvers who has made legitimate and neutral edits designed to improve the article's accuracy. By punishing one you would be punishing the other. As I have said above, I can see nothing in the article as it stands now that is not neutral and clearly and accurately referenced. Jack1956 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Marquardtika, I have rewritten substantially all of the research introduced by the blocked editor. What you wish to do punishes our readers, not the blocked editor. To respond to your points:

• Peacock terms: I changed "major". I disagree that "peer reviewed" is a Peacock term. It is a factual description. What word other than "popular" would you suggest to adequately describe, in the LEAD, the importance of the well-received climate section, based on the descriptions and references shown in the body of the article?
• The descriptions of the structure of the publication seem to me to be simply factual summaries of the history of the website. Describing its historical organization and presentation would seem to be basic historical facts useful to anyone who is reading the history section, but others may disagree. Compare, for example The New York Times#Sections. I'd like to hear from others about that sentence.
• TP's assertion of its editorial independence: Since the website is a project of CAP Action, it is necessary to discuss this. Some commentators have suggested otherwise, and if you look at the references to the sentence, they are mostly to third party sources: Poynter Institute and Washington Post. I'm certainly open to a better way to express the idea that, although the website is sponsored by CAP Action, and one might assume that it is editorially tied to CAP, Legum nevertheless has complete editorial indepence and has specifically said so. On the other hand, earlier versions have contained unsupported accusations that the website is not editorially independent, and it seemed to me that, instead of spending ink on a phony "controversy" about the issue, we just let the subject state its contention, as this draft does, with citations to good, analytical sources that mention the issue.
• The size of the staff seems to me to be extremely helpful to our readers in understanding the size and scope of the subject, and thus quintessentially encyclopedic. It is a better indication than, say, revenues or number of articles published per day. But if you can think of a better way to describe the scope of the subject and have reliable sources for the information, please let us know.
• Reporting. How better to describe a news site than to give prominent examples of its reporting? I'd really like to know. The examples chosen are from a variety of the most prominent news outlets in the English-speaking world and concern reports about prominent news stories with respect to which the independent sources thought ThinkProgress had made a comment that was important enough to discuss on their own pages; some agree and some disagree with the conclusions of the ThinkProgress report. They are not examples that the blocked editor thought were noteworthy; they are examples that I think are noteworthy, as I vetted and deleted most of what the blocked editor originally proposed, and I considered them carefully and read all the sources.
• Page views. Again, this gives the reader some senses of the importance of the subject. I am obviously happy to format or organize the information in any way at a WP:CONSENSUS of editors might find better than the presentation that is in the article now.

Instead of obsessing on where some of the the research in the article originally came from, let's focus on the content, and presenting the best article to our readers that we can. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I just invited the following editors who had fairly recently contributed to the article to return and comment on this disagreement, none of whom are known to me. All of them seem to be experienced editors: User:Scjessey, User:Grayfell and User:Neutrality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, there's nothing wrong with the article. The changes that Ssilvers made are sufficient to address Marquardtika's concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. Full disclosure: I have no previous connexion with this article and have looked in solely because I was, more meo, watching the contributions of Ssilvers, with whom I have worked extensively on other articles in different fields. To an outsider's eye the article as last edited by Ssilvers appears balanced and fair, and it will be instructive to see what the other colleagues, above, say if they weigh in. I found the term "hagiography" in the tagger's edit summary mystifying: according to the Oxford English Dictionary the word means "The writing of the lives of saints; saints' lives as a branch of literature or legend." A sober article on a policy research website, whatever its manifest merits, is hardly a candidate for canonisation. Tim riley talk 15:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I read the entire article today and could find little fault in it. I have removed the tag. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh64) (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Using New Republic piece as a source

The New Republic article titled "Think Progress was always doomed" is, from its title onward, an opinion piece attacking Center for American Progress, a frequent TNR target. The only useful fact in the article is cited by them to Daily Beast, which gives much more factual material about CAP's very brief intention to recycle TP as a non-independent staff blog. I hope nobody can object if I replace the TNR polemic with the DB factual material on the same topic. Also, we don't typically cite sources in the lead of the story. The lead summarizes important facts that are already in the body and cited there. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pareene's piece is knowledgeable and well-written. It gives a clear sense of the timeline of the ThinkProgress shutdown, which DB does not. Her general comments about journalism funding do not, IMO, do any harm here. The piece in The Hill was repetitive, poorly written and contains numerous factual errors. I don't mind citing the Daily Beast piece, but I object to completely deleting the Pareene piece. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the sourcing matters much as long as we have the right content in the article. I was surprised to see the article hadn't been updated yet to reflect the site's September 2019 closure. I think The New Republic piece can be used due to WP:BIASED. It's not an oped, but a piece of reporting from a source with a point of view (as many sources have, but which doesn't preclude them from being considered WP:RS). But I don't really care which sources we choose to cite here as long as we have the story straight. Marquardtika (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Marquardtika, who added the TNR source on March 31 in an effort to update the article but is willing to agree that the much more informative DB article, from which TNR diatribe took its only useful fact, is a good replacement--also a fine replacement for the Hill article on the facts of the closure. WP:BIASED does not support citing a biased source to support factual claims that are already quite well supported by neutral RS. Instead it says "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Another editor says we should leave the article in its stable state until discussion on the talk page resolves to consensus. The stable state of the article, from January 14 to March 31, did not include the TNR article, so it should stay out of the article unless consensus agrees it belongs there. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok so do you want to keep the current content and just swap out the New Republic piece for the Daily Beast and the Hill? Marquardtika (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

No, again, I support citing BOTH the TNR and DB articles, but not The Hill. The current version looks good to me, although it would be OK to just say in the Lead section that it was shut down in Sept. and leave the stuff about the blog proposal for later in the Closure section. As I stated above, Pareene's piece is knowledgeable and well-written. It gives a clear sense of the timeline of the ThinkProgress shutdown, which DB does not. Her general comments about journalism funding do not, IMO, do any harm here. The piece in The Hill was repetitive, poorly written and contains numerous factual errors. I don't mind citing the Daily Beast piece, but I object to completely deleting the Pareene piece. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Hill doesn't look like a solid enough piece of work; the New Republic and Daily Beast look good enough to cover all the points that need to be. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers and SchroCat above - the New Republic and Daily Beast articles look to be acceptable. ‘’The Hill’’ seems less authoritative. Jack1956 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: Ssilvers and I are frequent collaborators on Wikipedia. Not here, however, and looking at the facts as an outsider I find Ssilvers' propositions convincing. IMO we should keep the New Republic and Daily Beast refs and lose the dubious Hill one. Tim riley talk 21:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing to keep the Hill piece. I added it, and when someone criticized it, I replaced it with a better source. We also have consensus that both DB articles are good. The only dispute is about the TNR polemic against CAP for closing TP, whose only factual content is a paragraph sourced to DB and which asserts based on no evidence but opinion "ThinkProgress was not shuttered because it loses money." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, now I know what you are objecting to, and I still disagree. We do not make the assertion in our article that "ThinkProgress was not shuttered because it loses money." In fact, we strongly imply the opposite. The fact that the TNR article may include some dicta that you don't agree with is unimportant and, even if we think she is wrong about this, her establishment of the timeline of the shutdown is, IMO, very important for readers to understand. I don't think it is established clearly by the other sources. In any case, there is a clear consensus here to include the TNR piece, and at this point, I think we should leave the text of the article alone, except that I would be happy for the Lead section to state simply that the site was shut down in Sept. and leave the stuff about the blog proposal for later in the Closure section. User:Marquardtika, do you agree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I recognize local consensus to keep the TNR article as a source for the closure and to cite it in the article. Just don't cite it in the lead as the only source for information about TP's closing. Citations in the lead are unusual and readers assume that material placed so prominently is endorsed with Wikipedia's "voice." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks good to me. Marquardtika (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Ssilvers: can you point me to the claimed consensus that WP:OR doesn't apply to this page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you clam that is/was on this page is WP:OR? It is/was all well-referenced and proper encyclopedic content, giving readers a sense of what the subject website wrote about. You have the burden of showing otherwise and explaining why you are objecting to the content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. It was referenced but it wasn't proper encyclopedic content, it was novel synthesis and original research as the sources didn't actually say what they were being used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Lets start with the first one, how is this " ThinkProgress reports drew comment from news outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine and CNN. For example, Times reporter Ian Urbina, in his coverage of hostility in the health care reform debate, cited a 2009 ThinkProgress report by Lee Fang on a Tea Party Patriots strategy memo advocating disrupting town hall meetings of Democratic members of Congress." not on the original research spectrum? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Not OR at all in my judgement. Clearly conveys what the sources say. Article strikes me as balanced and neutral. Tim riley talk 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Tim riley talk 16:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

So where does the NYT piece say "ThinkProgress reports drew comment from news outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine and CNN." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If I correctly understand what you are trying to say, it seems to me wholly misplaced and, I might almost say, silly. You seem to me to wilfully misunderstand the OR policy page, beginning with your personal misconception that there is some "spectrum" of OR. There is no more spectrum of OR than of pregnancy. Something is OR or it isn't. And this isn't. Tim riley talk 21:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If its not OR where does the NYT piece say "ThinkProgress reports drew comment from news outlets such as The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time magazine and CNN." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

It's the same thing as saying that a film or play "got [positive/negative/mixed] reviews from outlets such as [the same newspapers]", and then citing the reviews. This is what we do all the time in Wikipedia. This requires even more editorial judgment than is present in the ThinkProgress article, where we don't even say "positive" or "historic" or "intelligent" comment; we just note that those papers commented, which they most certainly did. The readers can read the comments of these well-known media outlets if they are interested in their comments about ThinkProgress. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Its not the same thing at all, those are reviews these are passing mentions. I'd also note that we don't cite the sources, we *only* cite NYT for that statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. You simply didn't read the following paragraphs where we mention that the other media outlets commented. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

How does that address the OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye Back has made his/her views abundantly plain. S/he thinks there is OR here; the three other editors who have contributed recently do not. I suggest we wait to see if anyone agrees with Horse Eye Back and if not we can move on to other things. Tim riley talk 05:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Singular "they" please. Also note that only two editors have expressed their opinions on the content dispute itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Just to bring this to a close, I've added the sources for each part of that statement in a separate note. This more than cover any complaints about it, although I don't actually think it's necessary. The first sentence is now adequately sourced above and beyond all requirements, and any additional uses of ThinkProgress by other news outlets can be added to the main section and also referred to in the note, just to keep everyone happy. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Close? Thats literally just the first two sentences, we've still got almost a dozen diffs to go. I'm also a little confused by " and any additional uses of ThinkProgress by other news outlets can be added to the main section and also referred to in the note" as it seems to ignore WP:DUEWEIGHT entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be terribly constructive to start pushing the boundaries of people's patience too much, considering what I've done wasn't really necessary. As to your claim of DUEWEIGHT, no, you may be confused, but DUEWEIGHT isn't breached by what I've suggested. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It is actually necessary, see WP:BURDEN. Why is cataloging every single passing mention of a topic due? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not. And no-one is claiming it is. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So more are not due but the current amount are due? Gonna have to elaborate on that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I have said.

I'm not sure what your aim is here, but trying to double guess or misrepresent what I haven't said is not terribly constructive. Perhaps you may wish to outline your concerns on the article, rather than read something into my words that isn't there. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

let me try again, so more are due but all are not? Are there any we currently use that are not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather not go round and round in circles with you trying to double guess what you think I'm saying, so this should just be brought to a close, with the acknowledgement that while you think there is a problem, so far no-one does. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You could just tell me what you're thinking directly, where is the line between due and undue when it comes to including passing mentions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Double link to progressive

@SchroCat: the IP is right, we link to Progressivism in the United States twice in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Then the IP should 1. have left an edit summary; and 2. removed the link, not the word. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not required. Even with the word removed the lead is improved. Next time please look before reverting. I agree with the IP that using progressive twice is unnecessary BTW, do you disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my revert and its rationale, as I do my subsequent edit. I have no more to say on the point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So no objection to me removing that second progressive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, given what I've just said. - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't obvious to me. My apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

So what just happened then? You just reverted[9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reverted. As I've clearly just said, yes, I obviously have an objection. I'm not sure why you are being rather difficult on this article or so deliberately trying to wind others up with your actions or your comments, but it's getting a little tiresome.- SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Read that again... You just said you obviously had no objection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You: "So no objection to me"; me: "Yes, obviously". Either way, and to bring this further interaction to an end, yes, I object. The basis is fairly clear and obvious: the term is being used to describe to different objects. Interesting an IP finds its way here - the last visit of any IP was nearly a year ago. I wonder what made them come to this little backwater of WP. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

But one object is the project of the other object... So it does seem redundant to qualify both as progressive. If you want to open the sock puppet case go for it, or retract. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made no statement to retract and have no intention of wasting my time at SPI any more than it is already being wasted anywhere else. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I would have sworn you were accusing me of being the IP. Am I mistaken? It seems pretty obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Given what I have just said, yes, it's obvious that you are mistaken. Quite clearly I have not accused anyone of being the IP, just noted that it was interesting that we have seen an IP come to this article for the first time in nearly a year - that is all.

I think we are done here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear it, thanks for clearing that. I would hate it if you made a personal attack against me. Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)