Talk:Washington Policy Center

The Seattle Times and Seattle Magazine

I removed this content: "When the four restaurateurs in question were asked by The Seattle Times' food writer, they all said it (the Seattle Magazine article) is flat wrong." The Seattle Magazine [1] article does not mention the Washington Policy Center so I do not see why we would include it, or an apparent rebuttal to it, in the article about the Washington Policy Center. That would appear to be WP:COATRACK. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not a coatrack at all, it's a matter of removing undue bias WP:NPOV. The Seattle Times article DOES mention the Washington Policy Center by name. And, the Seattle Times article is in reaction to the Seattle Magazine article. You removed everything. kgrr ^talk 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the quote in the Seattle Times article

“Why Are So Many Seattle Restaurants Closing Lately?” asks Seattle Magazine. Two Seattle restaurants shut down in February, the piece explains, while another will close later this month, another in May. There’s general discussion of the various reasons restaurants close (location, etc.), after which the writer turns to “another key consideration … the impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour.”

The speculation took hold as fact in the conservative blogosphere, with the Washington Policy Center asserting “Seattle’s $15 wage law a factor in restaurant closings.”

As you can see, the Seattle Magazine article is DIRECTLY referenced in the Seattle Times article. If you delete this again, I will raise an NPOV dispute. kgrr ^talk 12:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

All that was said in the article before these edits was that this organization believes the $15/minimum wage caused restaurants to close. That's not a WP:NPOV violation because we're simply reporting the opinion of this group. We're not saying it's accurate. We're saying that's what the group thinks. But saying the organization's opinion is "flat wrong" is not neutral. Please do take this to WP:30 or the NPOV noticeboard so we can get some more eyes on this. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for changing from "WPC found that" to "According to the WPC". The first statement implies fact, the second properly implies opinion. But be aware that opinion has to be properly attributed. You have never quoted WPC directly, but New York Post's opinion section [6] and I'm not sure if the Iquisitr article [7] is reporting fact, or opinion since the author Robert Jonathan is only gathering items from the web. What the WTC actually said is here: [[2]]. Author: Paul Guppy, VP for Research.

Even if you correct the reference to the WPC's blog, it still unfairly biases the article as if the claim was a fact. It's not. To balance the article's POV, the fact that Seattle Times (Seattle's Republican paper) had written a rebuttal that shows that the reasons for closure had nothing to do with the $15 per hour minimum wage to be implemented in seven years needs to be included. BTW. I did not say WPC was flat wrong, the Seattle Times article said this, referring to the Seattle Magazine article. I was very clear in attributing that opinion to the Seattle Times.

For example, take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church article. The article presents the viewpoint that the "God hates fags", but also note that opinion is balanced with a "Responses" section. In other articles, this is a "Criticism" section. Consider making the necessary changes, or I will have to ask the opinion of a third party in the matter.  kgrr ^talk 05:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like someone stepped-in and opened a third opinion request. And, an answer was provided. So which of the three options do you prefer? Not including any of the many radical viewpoints the WPC has leaves the article about the group rather dull and boring. However, their opinions cannot be expressed as fact because they are even being challenged by the City's right-wing paper The Seattle Times and not the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the more progressive paper. It's well known that the WPC is by no means non-partisan here in the Seattle area, but saying so in this article would clearly be a coatrack. kgrr ^talk 23:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality needed

This article needs some neutrality regarding the $15 minimum wage in Seattle. It is a fact that the WPC has the opinion that a $15 minimum wage has put several restaurants out of business. But it's also a fact that a The Seattle Times reporter has actually talked to those four restaurants and and found the allegations that were made by the WPC are untrue. Should there be a Criticism section so that the article does not seem to be biased towards WPC's opinion? 06:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I definitely agree with @Kgrr: that having the statement about the minimum wage killing the restaurants present without the countervailing opinion constitutes undue bias. However, I also agree with @Safehaven86: that adding the counterveiling opinion in this very short article feels like coatrack. Moreover, with this article being only 3 paragraphs long, having the paragraph about the WPC's opinion about the wage hikes being the second paragraph when that's the only opinion of the WPC that's discussed in the article at all smacks of undue weight. Let me give three suggestions: suggestion 1, suggestion 2, suggestion 3. Obviously, suggestion 3 is the most work for people interested in this page, but it's the one that i feel would make the page most complete, providing the most useful information for readers and avoiding coatrack and undue weight concerns; you would have to be careful though to balance WPC's views with outside views. Barring suggestion 3, I think suggestion 1 is the best option - just leave the whole thing out. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 11:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the 3O. I think option #3 is ideal, but I don't have time right now to build out the article in the way suggested. Therefore, I think the default is option #1, which is currently in effect. Hopefully we can build out the article with various policy areas soon, but pending future additions, it seems the best course of action is leave out any content re. the minimum wage. Thanks again. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It really would not have been difficult to have a criticism section that serves to balance-out the article. It's never too late in doing what tens of thousands of articles do in order to maintain NPOV. kgrr ^talk 20:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

This article appears to almost exclusively quote the organization’s own website and mission statements, and in doing so fails to counter the organization’s intentional obfuscation of its rightward political bent. AsimovtheCat (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)