From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Someone vandalized this page. The quote should say : 'seeks to provide a forum that advances progressive ideas and politics, which is what's actually on the site page. It says instead, 'seeks to provide a forum that advances radical leftist ideas. This certainly does not belong here. Stop, please.Van Gulik (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


This page could definitely use some expansion. Articles like this or this are good examples of sources that could be involved in sections. I know the story around the second one was a big deal. Spangled53 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Staff volunteers or paid?[edit]

Are all the people with all these posts paid workers or are they volunteers? Is that made clear anywhere? (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They're all paid bloggers. See What made you think otherwise? -- 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fear Inc.[edit]

This report [1] was published by the Center for American Progress, and not under the ThinkProgress banner. It's unclear to me why we would be including it on this page. Also, to establish notability of a report requires more than a link to the report on the publishing organization's website, it requires coverage elsewhere in the media. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

While I agree analysis starts with RSs, I'm just observing that "notability" only applies to the general topic "ThinkProgress" and should we even have an article about that general topic. Once that has been established, matters of content - like this - are controlled by other policies & guidelines. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Good points. My issue is that the Fear Inc. report was clearly published by Center for American Progress so if it's going to be included, it should be on that page, not here. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The old Islamophobia report was summarized in greater detail previously but deleted from this article a few years ago, when editors agreed that it did not represent a significant controversy. ThinkProgress publishes about 40 blogs a day, including lots of such reports, and that one report is not significant in the history of the site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Washington Post/Politico ref'd section[edit]

For reasons unknown, editors have removed a section ref'd to the Washington Post, Politico and Glen Greenwald. These were substantial articles by reliable sources on the subject of this article. The material is on point for this article. Is there any policy based reason not to include? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I will point out that the editor removing this pointed to as justification WP:CRIT which is both an essay not policy and seems off point in this case. Per the CRIT essay, it would be appropriate to possibly add some additional explanatory material. WP:CRIT does not suggest deleting extremely well sourced material because it is uncomfortable to the organization involved. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:CSECTION and explain how your addition justifies a separate "controversy" section. See also WP:N. This is not even a "controversy", just some criticism, and the criticism is of CAP, not ThinkProgress. The crux of what you added (two repetitive sentences) is: "ThinkProgress has been criticized by some major American Jewish organizations ... over charges that some [CAP] staffers have publicly used language that could be construed as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic." Again, this is wrong, because the criticism was of CAP staffers, not ThinkProgress. Furthermore, you failed to give CAP's response to this criticism, and to note the statements of Third Way, the National Jewish Democratic Council and others dismissing the criticism, as quoted in the Wa Po article. As the Washington Post article notes, "many liberals have grown more critical of Israel’s policies as the government there has turned more to the right." This dated article, and the criticism it discusses, seem to be of ephemeral interest at best. The Politico article that you cite says nothing at all about criticism of ThinkProgress. Finally, the 2015 The Intercept article recalls these two old articles and notes that "these CAP writers stood accused of failing to sufficiently praise the Netanyahu government." There may be something of interest to say about the 2015 article, but you didn't say it. Websites like ThinkProgress are criticized all the time by people with opposing political views. This incident does not seem more significant than numerous others. See WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE. See also this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Please present your proposed addition and proposed sources at talk. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has again added information about random critiques of ThinkProgress, but as I read the sources, it was apparent that they 1) are still mostly ephemeral critiques -- political outlets are usually criticized from time to time for coverage of something; 2) conflate ThinkProgress and CAP, even though ThinkProgress has its own editorial board; 3) misuse the sources; and 4) make little effort to provide balanced discussion -- see my previous comment above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on your four points above? This Politico article is the most in-depth organizational profile I've found to date, so I don't see why you removed most of the information sourced to it. It's certainly WP:RS. Fully removing the well-sourced information on Israel does not seem appropriate. Based on the wide variety of reliable sources that have covered the issue, it certainly seems notable. If you feel the material lacks balance, please add some, but halving the size of the article doesn't seem to be the answer. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I already elaborated above in my November comment. The burden, per WP:BRD, is for you to explain why you think that any of this is significant enough to be encyclopedic, and if you are going to put it in the article, then you have to use the sources in a Neutral way and to give a balanced presentation of the facts. As I read the material you inserted, it was easy to see from the sources that you were cherry-picking and even incorrectly attributing things to ThinkProgress that were only the views of one writer or even had to do with CAP rather than ThinkProgress. So, I think that the content you are trying to add is not neutral, as well as probably not significant, and you have done nothing since I raised my objection in November to persuade me otherwise, and instead merely added more ephemeral criticism to the article that does not satisfy WP:CSECTION. Per WP:BRD, I suggest that you start a discussion on the first of the three sections quoted below, and present your argument as to why you think it is significant/encyclopedic, and if you can persuade other editors of that, then I would be happy to explain if I still don't think you are using your sources neutrally. Then we can move on to the other section and soon cover all three. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI, you may have me confused with another editor--I did not add any of this material to the article in November. It looks like User:Capitalismojo did. But the content I inserted is quite different and I believe significantly more neutral. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't care who added it, but I must disagree. I am responding to the material that you added today. I read it and saw immediately that it was not neutral. As an example, you always say that Politico "reported" something, but that Thinkprogress "alleged" something. I am trying to be polite here, but as another example, your presentation of the Ben Smith article greatly overstates what it says about ThinkProgress (and also what it says about Jewish organizations) and it also attributes things to ThinkProgress that should be attributed either to an individual or to CAP. Smith doesn't say at all that AIPAC criticized ThinkProgress's coverage. You have to make a huge WP:OR leap to say that it does. That is just one of your sources, and I don't see anything in it that is worth noting in an encyclopedia. As I read your sources, each of them seemed inadequate or non-neutrally used. The first ref that you added, to Politico makes it clear that Political has an agenda against ThinkProgress. The opening sentence should instead be referenced to a neutral source like[1] -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Politico is a highly reliable source. Persons with a theory that it is not a RS because it criticizes an organization should take those concerns to RS/N. It is clear that the refs are RS and I see no policy based reason for exclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere in my edits do I say that ThinkProgress "alleged" anything, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The Politico article very clearly deals with ThinkProgress, and I don't think there's any question that Politico is a WP:RS, although you can take it to the RS noticeboard if you like. From the Politico article, you can see that the post criticized by AIPAC was authored by ThinkProgress National Security reporter Eli Clifton:
"The daily battle is waged in Media Matters’ emails, on CAP’s blogs, Middle East Progress and ThinkProgress and most of all on Twitter..."
"In one recent item, for instance, ThinkProgress National Security reporter Eli Clifton took issue with a Quinnipiac University poll that made reference to Iran’s 'nuclear program.'"
"ThinkProgress also scrambled to call into question an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi diplomats in the United States, though the charges were leveled by Attorney General Eric Holder, a longtime Democratic Party stalwart. “With analysts and the media still scratching their heads over what to make of a convoluted plot alleged to have been hatched by an Iranian American in collusion with Mexican drug cartels,” Clifton wrote, “[conservative think tanks] – along with their friends in Congress — are quickly declaring the end of diplomatic strategies to curb Iran’s nuclear program and regional ambitions. The villain: AIPAC. 'It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq,' Clifton wrote in August. Clifton’s post and others like it, two sources said, drew a furious reaction from the pro-Israel group, whose executives called CAP chairman John Podesta and other senior officials at the organization to complain." Safehaven86 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Disputed content[edit]

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."[2]

  • 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."[3] 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.[3] 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."[4]

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."[5]

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.[6]
  • 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.[7][8]


  1. ^ Variety.
  2. ^ Smith, Ben; Vogel, Kenneth (April 12, 2011). "Center for American Progress news team takes aim at GOP". Politico. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  3. ^ a b Smith, Ben (December 7, 2011). "Israel rift roils Democratic ranks". Politico. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  4. ^ Wallsten, Peter (January 19, 2012). "Center for American Progress, group tied to Obama, under fire from Israel advocates". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  5. ^ Weinthal, Benjamin (January 7, 2012). "E-mail reveals anti-Semitism at US think tank". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  6. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (November 5, 2015). "Leaked Emails From Pro-Clinton Group Reveal Censorship of Staff on Israel, AIPAC Pandering, Warped Militarism". The Intercept. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  7. ^ Feldman, Josh (March 8, 2014). "Liberal Blogger: WH Was 'Berating' Us to Stop Hammering Obama on Afghanistan". Mediaite. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 
  8. ^ Adler, Jonathan (March 9, 2014). "When think tanks are in the tank". The Washington Post. Retrieved 1 December 2015. 

Reporting on Israel[edit]

Right now, this section is a massive violation of WP:WEIGHT because it takes up almost half the prose of the entire article. That's just ridiculous. Moreover, most of the material seems to be concerned with the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America, rather than ThinkProgress specifically. I hope editors working on this section will dramatically reduce the amount of content shortly, or I'll be forced to invoke WP:BRD and remove the entire section pending discussion here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree the section is much too long and taking up too much space in the article. Right now, a tremendous amount of detail is being given to each source and event. What would be best is if someone could summarize the gist of the current content into one or two overview paragraphs. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
We are required to provide sufficient background that our readers can understand our content. Our neutrality pillar requires that we fairly summarize all significant points of view. Non-neutral would be for us to echo the charges of anti-Semitism without background, as a recent version of this section did. A recent version of this section made no mention of the efforts of Block, efforts documented in multiple RS. Of course charges of anti-Semitism are emotion-charged and require careful handling. Of course it is not surprising that the far right pro-Israeli interests charge a news agency with anti-Semitism for being critical of Netanyahu's policies; but if the anti-Semitism charges are to be included in our project, context is required by WP policy. Hugh (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Coverage in WP is proportional to coverage in RS, and a lot of ink was spilt on this bit of media theater. Hugh (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit, with edit summary "TWO sources in-text, or neither." Glenn Greenwald wrote both pieces, so what is the point of adding that the pieces were in Salon and the Intercept? My edit mentioned neither Salon or The Intercept, but just Glenn Greenwald, because he's the common denominator as the author of both articles. To me this is an example of where we can be shortening up the section by avoiding the insertion of unnecessary details. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
In WP terms, Salon or The Intercept are two sources by nature of their two independent editorial processes. I would support removing in-text attribution, as multiple reliable sources support this content. Both or neither, but attribution to the author alone in-text as if it were an editorial opinion is improper. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your comment about background and neutrality; however, it is important that the matter at hand is covered in the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. At the moment, the article gives the impression that the "reporting on Israel" by ThinkProgress is the most significant aspect in the history of the organization. Obviously, that is complete nonsense. There are two significant problems here. First of all, much of the section appears to refer to the Center for American Progress and Media Matters for America, rather than ThinkProgress specifically, as I mentioned before. Secondly, the amount of coverage is disproportionate to the importance of the coverage, and thus violates WP:WEIGHT. Let me reiterate what I said earlier: unless this section is dramatically reduced in size to (at the most) a single paragraph, I will remove it per WP:BRD and it will not be re-added until new text can be worked out on the article's talk page and a consensus has formed that agrees with it being in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Please collaborate and make your case without threatening. There is no policy violation here such that section blanking is reasonable WP:ROWN. Thank you. Be constructive: what would you trim? You can't pare it down to the bare charge of antisematism; the charge requires context and background and explanation. A recent version of this section made no mention that the dispute was largely over the term "Israel firster", left it to the reader's imagination what the racial slur might be, and made no mention of Twitter, leaving the impression it was the ThinkProgress itself involved, and made no mention of Block's activities. Sad as it may be, our article's recently introduced coverage of the antisemitism dust-up is not outrageous, given the barrels of ink spilt; many, many sources are not included in our article, our article is yet well short of proportional to coverage in RS. I don't know what we can trim while being fair. What would you cut while being fair? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the details of the issue, so I am not (for the moment) qualified to trim as you suggest. I'm busy for the next few hours, but I will look into the details of the matter upon my return and try to come up with a more reasonable paragraph. In the meantime, I must remind you that much of what the section says concerns two other organizations and not ThinkProgress, so it would seem most of it should belong in the articles for those other two organizations. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Another way to deal with WP:WEIGHT concerns would be to add new content unrelated to this blog's coverage of Israel. If we simply removed all of the information about Israel, we'd A) be neglecting our responsibility to include events that have been covered in numerous reliable sources over several years and B) we'd be back to an article in which the Chamber of Commerce brouhaha would appear, based on space given in the article, to be the most notable aspect of ThinkProgress. I certainly support trimming the Israel content as I said above, although my efforts at trimming it were mostly reverted today. Removing the whole section is not the answer. I doubt the Israel coverage is the most notable aspect of this blog, so if it's not, what is? Let's add those things to the article. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't remove the whole section on the expectation it would never be returned. Rather this would be part of the WP:BRD process. As it stands now, the section is so large it totally misrepresents the organization, which is why it is better out than in. Update: I had not noticed trimming had taken place since yesterday. The current text is a big improvement over how it looked yesterday, but it still seems to be more about CAP and MMfA than ThinkProgress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I tried to trim to the limit of fairness to the subject. ThinkProgress was caught in a well-documented, orchestrated smear campaign directed at CAP, MMfA, and ThinkProgress, so some mention of CAP and MMfA is necessary to a fair, unbiased, complete, accurate treatment of this unfortunate episode. For example, if an editor chooses to add the smear campaign to our project's articles on CAP or MMfA, they would likely include mention of ThinkProgress. It is OK for an article in our project to mention things that are not the subject of the article. It is not off-topic, it is not a major editorial issue. Glad to hear you are not contemplating unilateral section blanking. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay, I've edited it down a bit - mostly cutting out unnecessary exposition and redundancy. I'm sort of okay with it now, although looking at the sources I am inclined to think the "Israel firsters" paragraph should probably be excluded because it belongs in Zaid Jilani, not this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I think the section is about as short as it can get. For the record, I did not start the antisemitism section, another editor did a drive-by add, as I said without details such as the term "Israeli-firster." Like you I guess I tend to think it unsurprising that an American news agency critical of Netanyahu administration policies is charged with antisemitism, on the other hand, LOTS of sources are out there on this episode and our readers may come to us for a neutral summary. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that in July an IP address deleted one of the paragraphs with "This paragraph refers to the actions of the Center For American Progress, not ThinkProgress and belong on the Center For American Progress page." I checked the sourcing, and The Intercept source specifically refers to the ThinkProgress writing ("the height of the controversy over ThinkProgress’ publications on Israel...") However, looking at the further sourcing in that section (WaPo, Salon), that does seem to specifically be about CAP. I think the information about the petition should be moved to the CAP page (Center for American Progress#Criticism already has some information about Greenwald/Israel, but doesn't seem to mention the WaPo petition stuff). Safehaven86 (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That would seem logical, although as I said in my edit summary, the sourcing is somewhat questionable (blogs/editorials). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Self-published sources[edit]

Hi, I see there's some disagreement about self-published sources--I had removed some (although not all) per the self-published criteria about sources that are self-serving and constitute too much of the basis of the entry. There is no shortage of reliable independent source reporting on ThinkProgress; neutrality's best served by focusing on those. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

While it is true self-published sources are not preferred, I agree with the restoration performed by Ssilvers on the basis that these are simple, non-controversial facts that do not need additional verification. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I really think it does the entry a disservice. The page drew my attention because of a debate about how emails between the EIC and the Clinton campaign should be covered if at all, with problems of primary and unreliable sourcing; and I see here on the talk page, this is just the most recent in a line of such debates. I might feel differently if this were a stable page, but as neutrality is a recurring issue, I think all additions to the entry need to be held to the same high sourcing standards. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I commend you for trying to maintain the highest standard, but in this particular instance I think we can safely use the sources restored by Ssilvers, since they are uncontroversial and undisputed. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Innisfree, if you can find reliable third-party sources that verify the information stated, then they could replace the WP:SELFPUB ones, but, pursuant to that guideline, these sources are acceptable. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

DailyCaller is not a "self-published source," it's a news source will full-time staff that work on Capitol Hill, including part of the White House Press Pool — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The section on pro-Clinton bias should remain[edit]

The Washington Post article "Hacked emails show how liberal group back-channeled advice to Clinton" says right in the title that there was a pro-Clinton bias. If you don't think this means "Anti-Sanders" then edit to remove the phrase, "Anti-Sanders."

Removing a section should be a last resort - edit, don't revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with citing this reliable source. However, when a reliable source calls it "advice to Clinton", then we should use something similar. Neutrality obliges us to follow RS analysis rather than substituting our own. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, so please revert the deleted text and edit the wording, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
So because everyone here is a volunteer, anyone who wishes to add material to an entry is the one who has to make sure their additions comply with guidelines--no one is obliged to do that work for you (WP:VOLUNTEER). But additionally, since there's been dispute, we must reach consensus before adding this back in (see WP:ONUS)--my agreement isn't enough, especially because another editor came behind me and deleted more than I had. (If you check the edit history you'll note I left the WaPo source--I actually was going to edit for neutrality after that.) Now we need to give it some time to see if others have a different view. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything encyclopedic about the dubious idea that ThinkProgress was systematically pro-Clinton or anti-Sanders. During the primary and generally, TP published numerous articles critical of Clinton and praising Sanders. It's also WP:RECENTism. I agree with the deletion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


The unauthenticated, hacked podesta emails include one from Judd Legum about Roger Pielke, Jr.. But this is old news. FiveThirtyEight published a Pielke article in 2014 that climate scientists Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth criticized as "deeply misleading" and "demonstrably wrong" in interviews with ThinkProgress. The scientists said that Pielke sent them threatening e-mails in response to their criticism, calling it "libelous". Legum told The Huffington Post that he contacted Nate Silver, the editor of FiveThirtyEight, which apologized to the two scientists for Pielke's behavior. Other criticisms of Pielke's article followed: The Guardian published an article called "FiveThirtyEight undermines its brand by misrepresenting climate research", and John Abraham wrote that Pielke's "conclusions are not taken seriously by myself and other climate scientists." See: "FiveThirtyEight Apologizes On Behalf of Controversial Climate Science Writer" in The Huffington Post, March 28, 2014. So, the Legum e-mail doesn't strike me as noteworthy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the change to Medium be included in the article?[edit]

Editor has withdrawn proposal for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
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.

There appears to be a dispute between other editors and me on this. Therefore, I propose that community consensus be gauged with this RfC. I withdraw. I have now been convinced that my inclusion was trivial and not covered in reliable sources. Furthermore, I apologize for starting an RfC on the matter, a clear overreaction. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Include. While a redesign of a blog keeping the same host is fairly minor, a change of hosts is a very major redesign and a major event in the history of said blog, and thus should be included in the "History" section. SwineHerd (talk/contribs) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so therefore it fails WP:WEIGHT. And really, who cares what blogging platform they use? To clarify, SwineHerd is talking about this addition. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude: inconsequential technical change of no enduring encyclopedic value. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak include - I'm OK with it's presence and amount of text suitable WP:WEIGHT relative to the article topic WP:WEIGHT, but it seems just a bare fact, would be more meaningful it said why is it included, something about why that matters within the topic. Markbassett (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude: I agree with Safehaven. This is a mere technical change of no encyclopedic importance. [Later: snip] -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


The sources offered are:

I don't believe any of the sources offered demonstrate any due weight or encyclopedic value, and their use appears to violate WP:SOAP. (Note that there is wide consensus not to use https: for such references) --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, this is not a SOAP problem. It is merely a question of the appropriate level of technical detail in an encyclopedia article. SOAP is about promotional language, which was not asserted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
We disagree. I hope my comments were of some assistance. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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.

Why is describing ThinkProgress as "liberal" somehow controversial?[edit]

They themselves say they provide "reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective." CNN describes it as a liberal website. Its published by a liberal think tank. What's with the controversy? Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The article says "progressive". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Right. What does "liberal" say which progressive doesn't, other than sounding worse to conservatives? Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The article says its published by a progressive think tank, and not the website itself. That is different from most articles on Wikipedia. A similar website for example, The Daily Signal, directly says the site publishes from a conservative viewpoint in addition to saying the Heritage Foundation is conservative. I don't care what term is used, as long as it makes clear the site's ideology. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a big deal, nor a plausible source for confusion, especially considering the name of the site. Sites are different and are going to be handled differently depending on context. Forcing them into the same mold isn't neutral. Grayfell (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
While I agree with you, I also don't see the harm in also calling it "liberal", provided there's a reliable source. Personally, I rather like the word "liberal". (Mostly due to the people who hate it, but still). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Reportage/accusations of bias[edit]

A lot of new information has been added. While it is well-referenced, I felt that some of it was not of encyclopedic importance. I balanced the significance of the new information against that of the older information in the article and removed some of the examples of isolated accusations that appeared least significant, because they did not note that the incident led to major press coverage outside of ThinkProgress. See also WP:BALASP. I still wonder if some of the reportage items are worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Most of the items there merely state that reporting in ThinkProgress was picked up in a single later New York Times article, and nowhere else. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The consolidation of the NYT coverage into one paragraph, with streamlined text, is better. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The Reportage section is still very weak. It is just a list of instances when a ThinkProgress report was cited in a single news source. If a Thinkprogress report were to be picked up by multiple major sources, that would be more noteworthy, but just to say that, over the past decade, here are a few times TP was cited in the NYT or WaPo hardly seems noteworthy. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Until very recently this article was mostly accusations of bias by weight, and content related to what ThinkProgress has actually DONE (besides annoy the Israeli lobby) was conspicuously absent. The recent updates reflect how ThinkProgress is represented in our most trusted reliable sources. ECarlisle (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC) The article is improving, thanks. ECarlisle (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC) In other words, ThinkProgress is a news agency (with a POV). They are never going to rack up Pulitzers. On a good day they contribute to the national dialog; they have and we can say they have. To say citations like these are not admissible on Wikipedia is tantamount to saying we can't say anything about what ThinkProgress has accomplished. What do you think? ECarlisle (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to specify and explain what the publication actually does and writes about, rather than just its reaction to things it has been accused of. I still think, however, that just to say that an article or report appearing on the website was cited by a single news outlet, is not a very significant thing to say. Still, I agree that this is better than it was. -- 02:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The section titled "Examples of reportage" resembles a "media hits brag sheet" that you might find on an organization's own website. This is the type of thing you would present to advertisers or donors, but it doesn't strike me as being particularly encyclopedic. Surely ThinkProgress, like other notable blogs, is mentioned frequently in the media--but how do we determine which mentions are particularly notable and worthy of inclusion here, rather than just creating a laundry list of every single time ThinkProgress has been mentioned in the media? Marquardtika (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::The article is allowed to say what ThinkProgress has done, as reflected in reliable sources. The content in the "Examples of reportage" is not sourced to "mentions" - it is sourced to citations and excerpts of ThinkProgress research by eminently notable news organizations and by eminently notable journalists. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian are among our most weighty, most reliable sources. If an individual contributed as much to reports in such sources, there would be no question of due weight; we do not have a separate due weight policy for small news agencies. The content is entirely compliant with policy and guideline. The "Accusations..." section describes some who are not happy with ThinkProgress; the "Examples..." section provides much needed balance by conveying to our readers noteworthy instances when at least some trusted ThinkProgress at least some of the time, instances where ThinkProgress results passed muster at some of the most rigorous editorial processes out there. ECarlisle (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

But where do we draw the line, in terms of WP:WEIGHT? We can't possibly include all or even most instances of ThinkProgress being included in other media outlets. We need an objective way of deciding what the most noteworthy instances are. I think you may also be falsely conflating ThinkProgress being discussed in other media outlets with ThinkProgress being discussed "approvingly". Just because a media outlet discusses another media outlet does not mean it does so approvingly. It could just as well be disapprovingly. I removed the "approvingly" bits from the article since that doesn't appear anywhere in the sources. I am going to cut back this section to remove unnecessary WP:PRIMARY sources as well. Marquardtika (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::::"Approvingly" was not mine, thanks for that. On the other hand, I notice you deleted the topic sentence of a paragraph before coming to talk to criticize the content as a "laundry list." The content is very far from "all" or "every;" you need not exaggerate and you need not argue against the current content based on your fears of what the article may become. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian are not "discussing" ThinkProgress, they are excerpting and citing ThinkProgress. The content highlights the most notable news organizations and most notable journalists. What is an example of a primary source of which you speak? ECarlisle (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC) When a major newspaper cites or excerpts a ThinkProgress report, it is a secondary source citing or excerpting another secondary source; what is your basis in policy or guideline for your deletions? how do removing the cites to ThinkProgress help our readers? ECarlisle (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC) What policy or guideline is violated by this article saying that ThinkProgress reporting has been cited and excerpted by The New York Times, with references and in-text attribution?

I have removed the primary sources I was referring to--the links to ThinkProgress itself, as opposed to links to newspaper articles discussing ThinkProgress. We're in agreement that it's notable when ThinkProgress is significantly excerpted by notable media outlets--however, we need to be careful to craft our text as a reflection of what these notable secondary sources are saying about ThinkProgress, and not using WP:OR to make connections that aren't explicitly in the text of the secondary sources. Marquardtika (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

::The article was at about 16kB before your edits, well short of half the page size guideline. We are expected to provide context for our readers. I think we have room to say, not only that The Washington Post cited ThinkProgress, but also say about what and by who. We can capture some of the breadth of the subject areas of the reporting as amply represented in highly noteworthy reliable sources. You removed notable journalists Fareed Zakaria, Tom Zeller Jr., Ian Urbina, Dana Milbank, William Galston, Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Nicholas Watt, and Jonathan Freedland from the article text. What is your basis in policy or guideline for these deletions? Would you support a further edit for length, "ThinkProgress has been criticized by The Intercept and The New York Times? ECarlisle (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ECarlisle, I think you should put back in the context material that you think is essential. However, I agree with Marquardtika that we do not need to cite the ThinkProgress articles that are being cited in the other news outlets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(Added after edit conflict) ::::Right--we should keep WP:INDEPENDENT in mind. When third-party, independent sources cover the work of ThinkProgress, it both shows us what particular ThinkProgress reporting is most noteworthy and relieves us of the need to cite ThinkProgress directly. And summary style is our friend. WP:NOTPROMOTION admonishes us to avoid promoting/advertising work. More context is welcome, but I thought that what we had in terms of content was coming across as too self-congratulatory toward ThinkProgress. It looks like the article has always been a bit of a dumpster fire, so I understand the desire to balance it, but lets try to find a middle road between attack page and promotionalism. Marquardtika (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

::The current article is non-neutral in that the level of detail in criticisms is not commensurate with the level of detail when ThinkProgress gets it right and contributes to a developing story. In the current article, the only way a readers gets a feel for what ThinkProgress actually does is in the context of them offending someone. ECarlisle (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Two ways to fix this that I can see: add what you believe to be relevant context to instances where TP "gets it right", or remove unnecessary details from content that is critical of TP. I agree that both types of content should be fairly and equally represented here, so it's just a matter of either expanding one side or contracting the other. Marquardtika (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

:: I do not understand your application of WP:PROMO to justify your removal of the citations to ThinkProgress. It is not promo to provide a citation that aids verifiability. When the text of an article says "A cited B" it is not promo, it is reasonable to provide citations to both A and B. How does it help our readers to not provide a citation WP:READERSFIRST? ECarlisle (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:INDEPENDENT. That's why I removed the citations to TP. Ssilvers and I seem to agree that the article is better off without the self-published sourcing. I'd recommend expanding the article using other means (secondary sources). Marquardtika (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The reason you don't need to cite the TP articles, is that you are citing them merely to demonstrate what the newspaper was citing, but that is not essential, since you are already showing that the newspaper cited the articles. I do not agree that you used them promotionally (a frequently misused accusation on Wikipedia), but it was unnecessary to cite the primary source (in this article about TP, TP is the primary source). But, as we all seem to agree above, you can (and I think you should) go ahead and put back in any context/explanatory details necessary to explain what it was that the newspaper said about the TP report. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for your support and your help with this article. "Primary source" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. In Wikipedia terms a report from ThinkProgress is a secondary source. I understand Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources, but I do not see how that policy is applicable here. ECarlisle (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand WP:INDY. I do not understand your application of WP:INDY here. The citations to content on ThinkProgress aide verifiability and are useful to our readers. It is not promotional external links to self-published content; it is citation to content at ThinkProgress noteworthy by virtue of citation by a major independent news organization, not by me. Specifically what aspect of WP:INDY do you believe requires these citations to be removed? ECarlisle (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I would break that last overly long paragraph into two pieces (NYT and other). Other than that, I am satisfied that, although it is a laundry list, it is at least a list of significant laundry: articles by WP:notable writers in well-respected national newspapers (I'm not sure we should use the vague word "major"). -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PARAGRAPH, I've done it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Note:ECarlisle blocked as sock of HughD.[[2]] Springee (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Editorial independence[edit]

I removed this section, since it consisted of "he said, she said" exchanges among journals and did not assert noteworthy matters of substance. That is, there were no discussions of how TPs coverage had been affected significantly, and in a noteworthy manner, due to the asserted (and denied) lack of editorial independence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting to pre-sock version[edit]

@Ssilvers: I am about to revert this article to a version before it was edited extensively by ECarlisle, who turned out to be a sock of a blocked editor. You made good intervening edits to the article and I wish there were an easy way to save what you did while rolling back the sock's edits. However, due to the large number of intervening edits, I think the simplest way to make sure this sock editor isn't rewarded for block evasion is to roll the article back, and then improve the article from there. Does that make sense to you? Marquardtika (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No, please don't. I think that, between me and some of your previous assistance, the article is clearly much better than it was before ECarlisle started editing. Probably it could be streamlined a bit, and I'll look into that, and I'll also go back to the pre-Carlisle state to consider anything that might be lost, but in general, I think the current state of the article is a great improvement. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been through the article now, and I think that it is now in the best version and has the best content of all the previous versions. I may play tweak it more, but I think it is in very good shape now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the reporting section could still use quite a bit of work. Many of the examples of news papers citing TP read like a bullet list in paragraph form. I think my complaint is the same one you made on Sept 24th. How is the reader to know those cites are noteworthy? In context of that section it would be noteworthy to say paper X cited TP Y times per year over the last few years or the NYT rates TP as a highly reliable source (citation here). The current list style really reads like someone was either just finding the first X number of references spit out by Google or perhaps quoting a TP page. Alternatively those stories might have been chosen as a type of coattrack. Most of that section should be condensed into something speaking to what others think of the quality of TP as a source and how often it was used by various papers/academics as a primary or reliable source (as opposed to simply stating "Some claim X, for example TP said it"). I think a better way of expressing this is when we the Wiki editors decide what reports are important we are effectively engaging in OR by telling others what is significant. We should rely on 3rd party sources to tell us which articles/citations were signficant. Springee (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I really don't agree with restoring the sock's edits. If a blocked editor knows that when they come back and sock they will be able to maintain content changes (even when their socks are eventually discovered and blocked), they are going to keep doing it over and over again. We need to have zero tolerance for this type of abuse. Marquardtika (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Springee has a point, and I'll look into this, although I think the examples used were carefully chosen to be particularly prominent ones from the website's history of publication. I am quite sure that there is no coatrack issue. I strongly disagree with Marquardtika, however -- there is no reason to throw that baby out with the bathwater, and I am afraid that Marquardtika is using the blocking of the editor to simply argue for what you have been arguing for all along, ignoring even the points that they had previously compromised on with me. But I hope I'm wrong about that. I really suggest that you actually look at the content of the article, which is obviously much, much better than the pre-Carlisle version that you reverted it to yesterday. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ssilvers that rolling back the article will unnecessarily undo all the good work he has done on the article. The content now appears to be neutral and to present well-chosen historical examples of reporting that illustrate both praise and criticism of the reports on the ThinkProgress website, and that they seem appropriate and balanced in the context of describing the website, its history, reporting and reputation. Jack1956 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I think reverting 'good copy' isn't helpful or useful, and this article looks much more balanced than the previous, highly negative version. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
IMHO reverting the sock edits was the correct thing to do. However, it's also OK if another editor restores them. In effect the restoring editor is saying "here is what I wrote". I think the reporting section still needs a lot of work for the reasons I mentioned above but currently I don't have time to do much other than remove a large number of the examples. Really the reporting section is somewhat redundant given the reception section below. If a third party says TP's climate reporting is cited by the NYT why does an earlier part of the article contain what appears to be a random list if examples? Most of the "reporting" section seems redundant. This again supports the claim that this section was added/edited to be a "greatest hits" sort of section. The proper replacement, is 3rd party sources speaking to the same points. We shouldn't say/imply "TP is good because the NYT referenced it here, here and here". Instead we need to use 3rd party sources that speak to the source's credibility or use. But I don't have that information at hand. Until I have it, and I don't have much time to look right now, I'll leave it to others to work on the reporting section. Springee (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
After doing my best to revise, re-organize and polish the article (see the Talk section below about the tag), I do not believe that there is any repetition or redundancy between the reporting section and the reception section -- the latter section discusses how the website was received by independent sources. The reporting section simply gives prominent examples of the subject's content, as we *must* give in order to adequately describe the subject. It is not a *random* list of examples, but rather a carefully chosen selection of examples from prominent news sources citing and discussing the reporting by the subject. Wikipedia articles do, indeed, discuss a subject's "greatest hits". That is what encyclopedias do. This does *not* say that the reporting in ThinkProgress was good or bad or "credible", just that it was frequently found to be noteworthy enough to be cited and discussed in the NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, Time, and other leading media outlets. That is a fair and sensible way to describe the historical content and notability of a news website. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

How did you/we decide these were prominent examples? That seems like the sort of decision that should be left to 3rd party sources? I haven't read all the examples so I can't say your opinion is right or wrong, only that this seems to be the sort of thing at should be getting from external guidance. I also noticed that at least one of the examples suggesting bias was removed. I don't know if it was a good article or not but it's simple not clear why some examples were considered notable but others were not. Springee (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

They are prominent because they are substantial mentions in leading national and international news outlets whose reporters and editors made a decision to cite and discuss substantial reports by the subject. I believe that the article is currently Neutral in its selection of examples of reporting and reception. The reception section now discusses criticism of the website as well as positive reception. The reporting section is neither positive nor negative, but merely contains examples from nationally and internationally respected sources, whether or not those sources agree with the ThinkProgress report that they are discussing. Mostly, the examples just show that ThinkProgress did substantial reporting on important news topics over the years. However, this article previously was an attack article against the website that presented non-neutral and poorly sourced examples, because ThinkProgress reports on political topics from a liberal (or progressive, if you prefer) point of view. I've been aware of this Wikipedia article for several years, and there has been a lot of back-and-forthing over the years. In my judgment, after many years, this article is finally in pretty good shape and is presented neutrally. If you compare the content of this article to the previous states of the article over the years, I think it is clear that it currently has much better content than it previously had. Looking at the Featured Article criteria (that's how I edit Wikipedia), I believe that the article is 1a. reasonably well written; 1b. *not* comprehensive; it could definitely use more content. See next item. 1c. well-researched and uses WP:Reliable sources to the extent of the content that it does have; to expand the article, much more research could be done. If someone wants to do the research, that would be super; 1d. yes, neutral as far as I can tell; 1e. not stable, as this is a relatively new state of the article; 2a. reasonable Lead section that provides an overview of the key information in the article; 2b. I believe it has an appropriate structure that presents the information in the most sensible way; 2c. probably not totally consistent citation style, but pretty good compared with most C-class articles; 3 Needs more media; 4. Well within length concerns. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral tag[edit]

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)