Talk:Scott Rasmussen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The article reads like it's in first person and has personal tidbits. Did he write it himself?

Given that any information that casts Scott in a bad light is rapidly removed, I'm guessing this is his own

 This article or section is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

.

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Perhaps it's not an issue of poor light, but rather an issue of poor sourcing? Wikipedia is a website designed for information gathering. It is not designed for you, or anyone else, to spread their views. 'First Person Account' Is not a suitable source. Many other first person accounts dispute your 'facts'.Lepre 19:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Lepre

Taken from the Wikipediea:Biographies of Living Persons Page: Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.Lepre 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The omission of all material that is derogatory is a bizarre way of defining biography or recording history. There is persistent activity on this page in which any information that does not show the subject in a uniformly positive light is removed. This makes the entire article a worthless

 This article or section resembles a fan site.
Please help improve this article by removing excessive trivia and irrelevant praise, criticism, lists and collections of links.(December 2007)

. The TriCity News and The Asbury Park Press are NOT "obscure newspapers". In fact, The Asbury Park Press is the local paper of record.

The issue wasn't the controversy, nor the Asbury Park Press as a source. The fact that one source was, 'First Person Witness' was an issue. The fact that the controversy wasn't expressed correctly was an issue. It wasn't a unilateral decision as previously alleged and the previous Wiki articles referred off hand to 'many residents' Last I counted, five flags were up. I agree that the issue may merit attention on Scott's page, but the issue has more to do with the OGCMA than with he himself. If someone wants to read up on Ocean Grove's position, they can on the Ocean Grove page. If someone wants to read about the founder of ESPN, or Scott the Public Opinion Pollster they don't need an article three times as long on a civil rights issue than on his other achievements. It is certainly not more significant a part of his life. Also, please sign your posts so I know who I'm talking to. Whether it's the same person, or a variety of people. Lepre 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I just counted about twenty flags, within a short walk around the main street area. I think it is reasonable to to characterize this as "many." The triCity News article, the reference to which was deleted, clearly states that, according to board member and long-time OG resident Jack Green, this decision was not made with full board consultation and this was the source of the comment.

Furthermore, I think that since Scott is president of the OGCMA, this issue is clearly part of his biography --- which is not just about his work as a pollster or TV executive. Obviously, in evaluating a pollster's work, any sensible researcher would take account of the other aspects of their work and life. Scott himself has stated that the results of a poll depend on how the questions are framed (again, citing the triCity News), so clearly everything he does in public, and OGCMA is in public, is relevant to his biography. On what basis do you decided that these issues are not to be published here, and only his "achievements" are suitable for his biography. When accounts differ, a good historian would quote all accounts and allow the reader to make their own judgement, not delete the ones that they disagree with on the grounds that they are subjective. This doesn't sound like peer reviewed research to me. You come accross as subjective, not the independent unbiased encyclopedist you claim to be. Who is Lepre, anyway?

[edit] Clear Bias

Where it is claimed that Rasmussen was one of the most accurate polling firms in 2000 and 2004, what is the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.32.225 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ministry attitude toward gays

The ministry's attitude towards gays MIGHT warrant a one sentence mention with a source. Instead, it takes half of this entry. I believe this to be messy and in clear violation of NPOV. Agree? Disagree? CorpITGuy (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)