Talk:Capital Research Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blog entries by random people are not reliable sources[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of blog entries. They are not reliable or neutral. Quotes from blogs to describe an organization is not NPOV. --Tbeatty 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources explicitly states that blogs may be used as a source of information about the owner of the blog. Gamaliel 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a random blog, it's their blog. If you look at the link, you'll see that it's a page at the Capital Research Center's website. As far as I can tell, you originally objected to it being included because it was unverified since the reference didn't work. All I did was fix the reference and add it back in now that it was verified. There shouldn't be a problem anymore. - Maximusveritas 22:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you read that?

"At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. "

I don't mind citing web logs but you have to attribute the opinion to the poster. This blog was made by someone not officially associated with the group. I could easily go to any number of web sites and post my opinion about them, but it wouldn't be acceptable to cite that blog entry as fact about the group. In this case, the poster is irrelevant and therefore his opinion isn't worthy enough to be in an encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this: The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

The context in this case is a secondary source (the poster is interpreting his view of animal rights groups, that makes it secodnary). It is not to be used. --Tbeatty 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. My bad., I thought this was a blog entry that any Joe Shmoe can make. Hodberg runs the blog at their site and that makes it a primary source. Got it. It's okay.--Tbeatty 19:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added context to the quote. Sorry about not leaving a description. --Tbeatty 20:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptability of Capital Research Center Research[edit]

It seems that often when I insert CRC research into articles it is swiftly removed on NPOV or other grounds. I do not understand. CRC is a nonpartisan think tank. They do good work. They are not a fringe group, which as I understand it, is a valid ground for removing their work from Wikipedia articles. Anyone out there have any thoughts on this? Syntacticus (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a political advocacy organization that takes partisan positions in support of a conservative agenda. Although it would be hard to rule it out categorically as a reliable source, in general its opinions and positions on things could be cited only for the premise that the organization takes that position, and even there only if there are sufficient third party neutral reliable sources to establish that its opinion carries any weight. I note that the poster has been accused of a COI, in that it is apparently editing from an IP address associated with the organization. Wikidemon (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cite an example where it has taken a partisan position. (I don't think it actually takes any positions on issues.) Conservative is not the same as Republican, just as liberal is not the same as Democratic. Find examples. You appear to have made an assumption. There is, as I have noted on the user check page, no truth to that IP allegation. If you wish to impeach Capital Research Center as a reliable source, the burden is on you. Syntacticus (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't bother responding to that kind of aggression. The general answer is no, not reliable. Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aggression? What are you talking about? If you say their research is bad or unreliable then you must have a reason. You can't just say it's because you say so. Since when has a request for actual facts in support of a position been deemed aggressive? In my time on Wikipedia I have learned that if I don't substantiate something properly it gets zapped. I may not like that but I accept it. Similarly, if valid objections don't exist to the inclusion of Capital Research Center's work, then such work must be allowed. You can't cite an example because such an example doesn't exist. You should just admit it so we can move on. Syntacticus (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an advocacy organization that takes strong partisan positions. It is not a journalistic or scholarly institution. Its purpose is to attack other organizations, particularly progressive ones. As such it is in general not a reliable source for facts in the encyclopedia. I won't go beyond that, that is just a comment. You seem to be connected to the organization, and taking a combative stance both here and elsewhere, so there is no convincing you. For anyone else, just google it for 3 minutes. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an advocacy organization and it does not take partisan positions, which is why you are not able to cite even one example. It is a 501C3 educational organization that is nonpartisan. I have responded to the COI allegation but you have ignored my response and keep raising it as if it were some kind of magic wand that is supposed to make me shut up. Your stonewalling is not helpful, Wikidemon. Show it's a partisan group and I'll drop the issue. You won't because you can't and every time you keep ducking the question you make my argument for me. Syntacticus (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not acceptable in the same way that I object to media matters. I do believe in consistancy.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good one. Mr. Vadum has repeatedly lied to make the claim that Acorn workers pay voters with crack. He even lied and said someone was convicted of this. And it was demonstrated to be a lie. The whole group has a very strong point of view (which it website makes it clear it advocates for) and is not a "scholarly" org; it, like lots of folks in DC, is an advocacy shop and even a cursory glance at its offerings show that it is highly partisan to boot.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if that is a good enough rational. Dan Rather certainly is a liar, but we consider CBS to be a reliable source. Just to be fair.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bali ultimate is not entitled to blacken the reputation of anyone. When did CRC or Vadum say someone was convicted of trading in crack? Prove it. I follow their work very closely. CRC is right of center but not partisan. Syntacticus (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Weeks late Bali has provided no proof so I have to conclude this constitutes an admission that he has none. Syntacticus (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CRC is *far* from Impartial. Its a right wing advocacy group, it doesnt DO impartial "research" (and I'd argue partisan research isnt research at all). It is most definately not an appropriate source. Please stop trying to insert their guff into wikipedia, its violating multiple wikipedia rules about politically biased/partisan source materials. Duckmonster (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not reject sources based on their political stances. Just because a source is right-wing does not mean it is an inappropriate source, otherwise all left-wing media would be inappropriate sources, too. Could you please explain which Wikipedia rules about politically biased/partisan source materials CRC violates? Matt Smith (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This edit[1] deleted a citation to Media Matters,[2] with the edit summary, "Not reliable sources". I see many discussions of Media Matters at RSN, but not a recent, definitive opinion on it. It seems to be allowable, at least for non-BLPs. Is there a discussion I overlooked?   Will Beback  talk  23:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Matters webpage has apparently moved to here.   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the MediaTransparency site is now at a Media Matters site. But note that it is actually at "Media Matters Action Network" which does such things as organize boycotts, show up at rallies, and plans to involve themselves in the 2012 elections. From the New York Times:
The action network, which tracks conservative politicians and advocacy organizations, is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group and is set to take on an expanded role in the 2012 elections, including potentially running television ads, according to an internal draft concept paper about American Bridge’s and Media Matter Action Network’s plans obtained by The New York Times.
I agree that there hasn't been a recent definitive opinion at RSN on whether Media Matters itself is a reliable source (the same standard should apply to use of Media Research Center references), but surely an "action network" can't be a reliable source. If it were, then 'Discover the Networks' could be a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to engage in one of those "other stuff exists" arguments. Nobody is proposing using Discover the Network here. I don't see how Media Matter's name change affects their reliability.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how you think I was using an "other stuff exists" arguments. I was saying that Discover the Networks would have to be considered a reliable source, as a partisan organization that tracks its ideological opponents, if Media Matters Action Network is considered one (I don't think either should be). Media Matters Action Network is actually a completely separate organization from Media Matters itself. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is proposing using Discover the Networks as a source for this article that issue is irrelevant here. It looks like MMAN is a subsidiary of MM. I see you've added it to the MM article - why would you do that if they are completely separate? What's the basis for saying it's a completely separate organization?   Will Beback  talk  19:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one source I read said that it was a completely separate organization. From The Washington Post on December 3, 2010:
Thanks to constant and effective fundraising appeals, Media Matters has surpassed the MRC to become the largest organization of its kind. It fields a staff of 80 (and has 20 unfilled positions, according to Brock), which includes dozens of analysts and researchers. A related but legally separate organization, Media Matters Action Network, tracks conservative political figures and advocacy organizations.
The About Us page for MMAN says that it is "a partner project of Media Matters for America." "Partner projects" would probably be more accurate than "Spinoffs" within the MMfA WP article. BTW, your changes to Daniel Schorr made the uses of the sources more accurate. Drrll (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon, especially in politics, to create closely related entities that are legally separate. The websites have an identical design scheme. I'm willing to bet they MM and MMAN have the same office address too. Maybe the simplest thing would be to just go back to the original source, which is on the Wayback Machine.[3]   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that they do share the same address, as David Brock runs both of them. When it was not part of MMAN and had its own website, it still was a partisan organization that only tracked its ideological opponents just like it is today, and yes, just like Discover the Networks, which has been purged from multitudes of WP articles as an unreliable source. Drrll (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to using the original mediatransparency.org citation, via Wayback Machine? It's not a particularly extraordinary assertion. The CRC gets its money from somewhere, and it certainly isn't from the Tides Foundation.   Will Beback  talk  09:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should use the original mediatransparency.org citation, but there are other definitely reliable sources that cover the CRC's funding. For example, a Politico story:
It would be nice if there more rainmakers out there funding these types of things," said Vadum of Capital Research Center, which issues low-profile, but information-packed reports on leading liberal groups and donors such as the Center for American Progress or CAP and Soros.
Though Vadum's group has received millions over the years from leading conservative philanthropists (including foundations controlled by the Koch family, the Scaifes and the Bradleys), its total 2009 budget of $1.4 million was dwarfed by those of Media Matters ($9.5 million) and CAP ($47 million) - both of which get money through the Democracy Alliance network of wealthy donors, which includes Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis.
Drrll (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Could you please add material on funding from that source?   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Drrll (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions[edit]

I don't object to including "right-wing" and "New Right" in the lead, nor in including references that support these descriptors. But "conservative" is the term overwhelmingly used for the CRC and either the text should indicate that in some way or the proportion of references should. There are obviously a fair number of uses of "right-wing" in sources, but one measure of comparison reveals that the contest is not even close. In searching 'Major World Publications' in LexisNexis, which keeps most if not all ideological sources, and thus excludes most, but not all, opinion sources, there are 43 instances where "conservative" is used in the same sentence as "Capital Research Center" (of the 43, 8 include instances of "conservative CRC" and 18 include instances of "CRC a conservative"). On the other hand, there is 1 instance where "right-wing" is used in the same sentence as "Capital Research Center" and there "right-wing" is not describing the CRC. I am curious what other source databases (like ProQuest) show if they have the capability of filtering out only the cases where specific word combinations occur in the same sentence. Drrll (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest can limit searches to terms that appear closely together. What, exactly, is the difference between "conservative" and "right-wing"? Nobody talks about left-wing conservatives or right-wing liberals. Why does it matter for this article to indicate which exact term is most frequently used? Not that I object, it just seems like a distinction without a difference.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "right wing" used to represent "far right." I agree with you about the broader use of the term, such as "right-wing conservative." I tried to look up the term in Safire's Political Dictionary, but both Google Books and Amazon leave out that page. Drrll (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate that "conservative" is the term used overwhelmingly in reliable sources to describe the CRC, I suggest that we return to a formation along the lines: "Often described as "conservative", the Capital Research Center is sometimes described as "right wing" or as being part of the "New Right." Any objections or suggestions for improvement? Drrll (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify the LexisNexis results, but I'll take your word for them. If there's an order of magnitude of difference between the use of terms, then that's enough to mention.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Capital Research Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial[edit]

[4] lists crazy anti-science statements made by this organization. Should be in the article, but there are better sources: Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and "Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality" list the CRC as part of the denial industry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even notable?[edit]

I tried to find some neutral RS about CRC that wasn't just other nutty conspiracy theory sites with vapid "CHECK OUT WHAT THIS AWESOME THINK TANK DID!" stories but I'm coming up empty handed. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed. Their site has fairly high google rank and show up in online discussions often enough, and have been around a long time... but very few RS write about them. On the other hand, having run across them organically today, I was grateful to find this neutral overview of their work. – SJ + 00:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capital_Research_Center&oldid=1205757155"