Talk:Rasmussen Reports

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rasmussen Reports article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Previous editors had concerns about describing the pollster as objective. This was revisited several times, including during a serious of edits describing the pollster as right-wing. Newsweek has now described the pollster conservative. This on-top of the other analyses reported by sources describing the pollster as having a significant and persistent bias. Any edits to the alternative will need to provide several independent sources.

As per WP:RSP "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable." Wikipedia uses reliable sources. An unreliable source can't be introduced by a single editor to unilaterally overturn a closed RfC. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this analysis [1] of the content of a tweet violate WP:OR? Chetsford (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you describe the hundreds of other polls as "left wing"? Because they are

 You just don't recognize that because you have been manipulated to believe that left wing is just "the norm."

This article is the embarrassing. Do you really believe that things such as this make people trust Wikipedia more? Wikipedia is becoming a joke, and it's becaus of articles like this. 12-year-old children are running this circus. 199.66.65.246 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 'conservative' from the first sentence because it's unwarranted and consensus from a couple years ago was to omit the similar term 'right-wing'. But in general you will get better results from a reasonable argument rather than just coming here to insult everybody. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine Doug Weller talk 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. I think the WP:RS coverage of this incident moves the balance on Rasmussen from "objective, impartial pollster" towards "political activist who provides polling that supports conservative positions". This is a classroom example of a leading question:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/28/rasmussen-poll-scott-adams-dilbert/

A poll asked if it’s ‘OK to be white.’ Here’s why the phrase is loaded.

Scholars raise questions about the Rasmussen poll that Scott Adams cited in the racist rant that led to ‘Dilbert’s’ cancellation

By Marisa Iati and Scott Clement

Washington Post

February 28, 2023 at 11:36 a.m. EST

The survey question was asked by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports, whose head pollster described it as a “simple” and “uncontroversial” query. But, in fact, the phrase in question has a freighted history that implies more than its face-value meaning....

Survey takers familiar with that background may have wanted to avoid expressing approval of wording co-opted in that way, experts said....

In recent years, Rasmussen has shifted from serving primarily as a right-leaning polling firm to more actively amplifying conservative causes, with a website featuring commentary from conservative and libertarian pundits. [emphasis added] In the video about the recent survey question, Mitchell also hyped polling results that he said showed “nearly half the country is concerned that vaccines are causing a significant number of unexplained deaths.” (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said there is no evidence that coronavirus vaccines are causing deaths.) On Twitter, the firm also elevated misinformation about alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election and highlighted conspiracy theories suggesting that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a “set-up.”...

“You can see that phrase and easily recognize that someone’s trying to get a rise out of you by using it,” Pitcavage said. “Disapproving of that statement and disapproving of whiteness or White people are two very different things.”

--Nbauman (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, Nbauman: you may be interested to learn that they recently stated that the COVID-19 "vaccines killed more people worldwide than Jews killed in the Holocaust", after polling people on whether they agree with the statement "China lied. Fauci lied. People died". Wtf lol. Endwise (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endwise Crazy. But the world is turning crazy, so no surprise I guess. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Doug Weller talk 08:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]