Talk:Reality-based community

I don't agree with the article's suggestion that this phrase means, in practice, that "the blogger takes an objective and empirical view of events." My understanding is that this term is used overwhelmingly by left-leaning bloggers; that is the distinguishing characteristic of the people employing this term, not any actual preference for empirical observation or objective analysis (there are plenty of people who fit that latter description but are right-learning, and I don't know of any who have adopted this moniker). Therefore I think the article should be changed; in practice the term is an in-joke among left-leaning bloggers, or at best a mildly sarcastic comment about the state of American politics, but not an indication that "the blogger takes an objective and empirical view of events." If I'm mistaken about what this term means in practice, please let me know. Neilc 07:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, no, its not so much that the bloggers are left-wing, its that the right-wing is currently living in a dream-world. Their political machine is thriving off its own highly effective propaganda machine. This can work for a while, as that's the nature of "fooling some of the people some of the time"; but eventually, "real life" does come crashing back to "reality". The left wing is making fun of the right's current delusions and blindness; unfortunately, when it does come crashing back down, everyone will hurt. linas 05:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The irony is that those who use the term to make fun of Bush-supporters are not smart enough do not seem to understand what the qoute "reality based community" in the article is actually refering to. The Bush official is referring to the endogeneity of american action, i.e that this country is so powerfull that it's actions change reality, so that the reality before acting cannot be taken as given. The qoute itself had NOTHING to do with faith.

The double irony is that the last poster isn't smart enough to get the joke. Besides, "endogeneity" in the form of a hurtling bus titled "China" and "India" is on collision course with the American reality; real reality is shared with multiple participants, and is not the result of unilateral policy decisions. linas 05:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"Well, no, its not so much that the bloggers are left-wing, its that the right-wing is currently living in a dream-world."

I hope you don't think you're going to be able to put that POV statement in a Wikipedia article.

The fact is, the term "reality-based community" is an example of political framing. It is an opinionated term used entirely by left-wing bloggers to suggest that people who disagree are unrealistic. Wikipedia should not and cannot say that people who disagree with any particular point of view are unrealistic because it is part of the "NPOV-based community" LOL. --Nerd42 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also seen it used by libertarians, who are anything but left-leaning. Cassandra Leo 09:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Used by libertarians to describe themselves? I have never heard this --Nerd42 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd side with the original presentation (empirical as opposed to left wing). Members of the reality based community include The Reality Based Community^[1], composed of various academics, the economist Brad DeLong^[2], Matt Yglasias^[3], libertarian Gene Healy, and Bruce Bartlett,^[4] architect of the Kemp Roth tax cuts. Claims that it is an exclusively left-wing phenomenon are incorrect and unsubstantiated. Measure for Measure (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Neutrality Breach.

Whether or not one agrees with the concept or phrase "reality-based community," it is clear that this article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. (Unsigned edit by 24.62.200.96 (talk · contribs), 05:49, August 23, 2005

This is a strange new meaning of the word "clear" I was previously unaware of. --Calton | Talk 05:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I assume that the anonymous commenter was under the impression that anything that reflects poorly on someone violates NPOV. This is nonsense of course.--Dickius 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have fixed the problem with a minor edit I just made. --Nerd42 19:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why this article is identified as a stub. Sure, it's short, but I don't think there's much more to say on the subject.--Dickius 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, one could always point out that the self-identified "reality-based community" isn't based on reality at all. Rogue 9 17:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, since whether one is a member of the reality-based community or the faith-based community is an assertion of an entirely internal event, the thinker is the only person who can make that determination. So the assertion that people in the reality-based community are not would be false. You can be wrong, and be in the reality-based community; Copernicus was wrong on many counts (circular orbits, for one thing) but he was certainly a member. Vaxalon 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

like I said before, it's a completely political term / type of political framing. As such wikipedia editors need to be very careful dealing with the NPOV issues involved. --Nerd42 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rogue9, you seem to like to ridicule people. I for sure have not researched the "65% of Troops [children] have birth defects attributed to enriched uranium", but your posts does not let me to follow that you have found any study evidencing the contrary. As it seems to me, in your "reality" this claim (and others on the cardboards) is outrageous enough to be classified as "conspiracy theory nuttery", which (conveniently) makes researching this a "waste of time". Am i right ? I would be glad to be shown false. But for example this, this, this and this all seem quite reasonable, and i would be suprised if you could show anything proving these "not to be based in reality at all". But just throwing everyone into the same pot (most likely labeled "conspiracy nut") is sadly the easiest way to move around in politics. --83.181.66.142 09:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm for calling this a "slogan." Whatever one may think of the Bush administration, "reality-based community" is clearly not a term in the usual, neutral sense of the word. I also take issue with the article's obfuscating talk about "framing." Why invoke an elaborate theory of political communication, when we all know what a slogan or motto does?--WadeMcR 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the word choice is a response to various opinions, initiatives, and ideologies of the current regime and its supporters that are universally regarded and self-regarded as "faith-based". Many words have their beginnings in partisanship, from ad hominem derivations like boycott and martinet to initial cultural pejoratives like modern and politically correct. These terms have become terms "in the usual, neutral sense of the word." Their partisan origins have little or no bearing on their relevance in Wikipedia or in, ahem reality. Huangdi 19:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

These terms have become terms "in the usual, neutral sense of the word." Read that sentence over again, please, and linger a while over the words "have" and "become."--WadeMcR 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)]

How can a piece of political terminology be neutral? The whole point is to label a POV. Linger over the fallacy of assuming a sentence or paragraph or article must be POV because it embeds a POV term1Z 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole point is to label a POV. That's exactly what I'm insisting that the article should do. The comparison was made to words, like "boycott," which have lost whatever pejorative sense they originally had--the problem with the analogy being that there's a major difference between a word's etymology and its current usage. "Boycott" no longer implies any particular POV; "reality-based" does, and should be clearly labeled as such.

FWIW, I think the article is much better, and mentions the idea of political framing more appropriately. One thing, though, is that there used to be a quote (by Nietzsche, I think) that was supposed to give some insight as to what the Bush aide originally meant by the phrase. That might be worth including. Is there some Nietzschean (or Straussian) doctrine about "reality" that's relevant here?WadeMcR 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)--WadeMcR 19:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the article possibly documents accurately the origin of the phrase "reality-based community" (I'm not qualified to judge), its usage nowadays is nowhere near as limited as the article claims. It has become a term used by anyone who feels that their point of view is based on actual facts, typically in contrast to some other point of view that they believe -- often with good reason -- is not. The article should be amended to reflect this.Daqu 17:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of the name "George Washington" isn't nearly as limited as Wikipedia would make it out to be either, y'know. The point is that yes, people have been declaring their actions to be formed through realistic evaluation of the existing world for rather a long time. However, that this is occasionally randomly phrased this as "being part of the reality-based community" is not particularly notable. What is notable is that this collection of words has been adopted and used in this form for some time by a particular contingent of bloggers. Chris Cunningham 10:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, and I might be wrong, I, Marc Perkel invented the term reality-based community. I am the founder of the Church of Reality and one of the first things I did was start using reality-based terminology that mirrored faith-based terminology. (I also invented the term reality-based terminology.) Thus faith-based religion becomes reality-based religion. (faith-based * -> reality-based *). So I started using this term back in 1999. I'm also the host for Bartcop.com and host American Politics Journal and many anti-bush sites who we familiar with me and the Church of Reality started identifying themselves as the reality-based community.

The meaning of reality-based community is not limited to just Church of Reality membership. It refers to people in general who put reason and logic first, accept scrutiny, and the disciplines of science. Those who have a world view that they are part of an objective reality that we all share. The term contrasts with "faith-based" in that faith implies the acceptance of information through choosing to believe something without regarding or in some cases in spite of the evidence. Reality-based anything (in Church of Reality terms) implies that there is a recognition that reality is important and that reality-based methodologies are used to determine what is real.

So I'm pretty sure that's where it all started. But it is possible that something that I don't know about predates my usage of it. If that is so I'd like to know it. Reality Based Google Search on Church of Reality Site --Marcperkel 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do now is find a good, dated source that you can include in the article, e.g. an article from a major newspaper that mentions your organisation and uses the phrase "reality-based". If you could do that, you could say something like "the phrase dates back to at least 1999, when it was used by Marc Perkel's "Church of Reality" to describe etc.(source) More recently...", and then follow with the rest of the article. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that User:Mperkel is the same as the above Marc Perkel, these two edits unfortunately appear to involve a conflict of interest, especially without a reference to a reliable, independent source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thread retitled from What an embarrassment!.

This is one of the worst failures I've seen yet. The origin of this term comes from right, not the left, and was a derisive term popularized in the early Bush II administration, but then yes quickly picked up by elements on the left. I can't believe how twisted around this fairly well known thing is here, in fact diametrically the opposite of the easily verifiable facts. And part of the problem is the name, the original phrase was simply "reality community" to contrast stuffy old academics and the like who couldn't see that anything was possible in the dawn of the triumphant new American century 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The original quote would make more sense to me if "reality" were used in the sense of "realism." People are sometimes called "realists" in opposition to "idealists." Of course there are realists and idealists on both sides, left and right, pro- and anti-Bush, etc. I am planning on nominating Faith-based community for deletion. I will probably not AfD this one, but it could use some more clairity.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can find no direct confirmation from either that he was the speaker. Can anyone find evidence that is more precise than 'widely attributed' etc.? I cannot.

On Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, she attributed that phrase to Karl Rove.

is that a citable source?

--Patbahn (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Really?.

The spun text in the lede now is surprising and I suppose not without some basis but it's nonetheless contrary to the common perception of this thing as it exists in culture and therefore problematic as encyclopaedic content without some framing, apposition to that common conception, that the sogenannte "Reality Community" were those that only accept fact/reason based constructions of their fundaments, as opposed, e.g., to those that Christians do. Lycurgus (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First, as to notability, Most uses of the phrase by reliable sources appear to be mere passing mentions. The exception is Mark Danner's essay, but even this doesn't support the notion that it's a common phrase. Sources, whether books or news sources that mention the phrase, nearly all use it by way of illuminating the ideology and policies of the second Bush administration, rather than discussing the place of the phrase itself in the world. Where would one find significant coverage in reliable sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail?

Second, the opening paragraph describes the phrase as

an informal term in the United States, used to refer to people who base their opinions more on observation than on ideology or doctrine [...] It can be seen as an example of political framing.

What is the source for this material? I'm not sure what 'informal term' is supposed to mean, but it would be good to have a source for the classification of this phrase as one. Also, by whom is the phrase used 'to refer to people who base their opinions more on observation than on ideology'? I'm skeptical that there are any sources to support this material, given the lack of significant coverage I mentioned above. Hence the addition of the original research template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC))

Several sources were named in the more recent of the two deletion discussions so far that use the term reality-based community, for instance in headlines. However, establishing the notability of a word or phrase requires citations to what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not merely to sources that use the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I object to the unexplained removal of the original research tag – there is still nothing to verify the statements I quoted above.

The article "survived two deletion discussions", but without any reference to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, a topic cannot be considered notable. If the article is really "more relevant than ever", then why is there so little coverage of the phrase in reliable sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is basically the positive counterpart to negative terms such as "fake news" and post-truth politics which are much in the news nowadays. (Don't ask me why derogatory terms generally receive much greater media prominence than laudatory terms.) Unfortunately, your addition of templates could be seen as a stealth preliminary step towards deletion, but this article has already survived two deletion attempts... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I've already mentioned those deletion discussions. None of that has anything to do with improving the article according to Wikipedia's content policies, including No original research, or with establishing notability per the general notability guideline. Once again, where are the reliable, published sources that address the topic (the phrase reality-based community) "directly and in detail"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 07:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC))

It seems like your efforts are more or less about getting this article deleted by other means, but since the article has already survived two deletion nominations, I just don't see that as a very constructive move at this time... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But that still doesn't answer my question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Given that, since my last comment two days ago, no sources have been proposed to verify the material I quoted above, or to show that the phrase is notable, I have restored the {{notability}} and {{original research}} templates to the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

On closer reading, the essay by Mark Danner doesn't really give significant coverage to the term reality-based community. Danner repeats the quote from the "unnamed official" and uses the phrase himself a couple of times (in quotation marks), but doesn't explore the phrase itself as a topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The article, as it now exists, is now rather anemic, which somewhat explains the repeated AfDs. It should have more, but it's difficult to add information about a decade-plus-old phenomenon primary restricted to TV, radio, and blogs without violating WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc. If not for policy restrictions, we might want to add something a little like this:

Ron Suskind later wrote an article in the New York Magazine, on the eve of the 2004 election, predicting a "civil war within the Republican community" between Bush loyalists, who took intelligence estimates about pre-war Iraq "on faith," and a "reality-based community," which demanded evidence[1]. This use of the phrase, by Bush detractors as a point of pride in their skepticism about Iraq and WMDs, spread in use throughout the American left[2]. Suskind noted, "The quote has had quite an extraordinary life since 2004."[3] It was also used as a disparaging term by the right, not in its original meaning (to defend Bush), but sarcastically on occasions in which left-wing people believed things that did not appear true[4][5], such as the prediction of a post-election Republican crack-up[6].

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html?mcubz=0 "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush" By RON SUSKIN, OCT. 17, 2004
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/opinion/27sat1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials&oref=slogin
3. http://www.newsweek.com/national-sleep-well-beast-karl-rove-662307
4. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/258143/
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-retreat-from-empirici_b_36772.html
6. https://web.archive.org/web/20050621232425/http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002779.htm

This shows the three distinct uses of the phrase and its long lifespan. I'm just at an impasse as to how to write a policy-conforming version of this, given that most of these are primary sources and/or opinion pieces (though not [3], which provides a lot of information, but which might be dismissed as being a "culture" article rather than news). Any help would be appreciated; I hope this is a good starting-off point for improving the article. (I'll add that this year the phrase appears to have taken off again in the second sense given, that of an opposition believing a president is not acting based on verifiable facts; the aforementioned Google News search looks a lot different now than it did in January.) Calbaer (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work, I also hope it improves :) Mathiastck (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We could cite Matt Berninger's interview in The Atlantic in summarizing what he said about using the phrase reality-based community (if it's not found to be undue). But to make any general statements about the phrase's usage we'd need a secondary source that synthesizes or evaluates its use in such publications. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the specific reason that the term appears here as reality-based rather than reality-based?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is about a word or phrase; italics are used to indicate the use-mention distinction. See MOS:WORDSASWORDS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

[T]he term and the piece of writing where it was revealed to the public were not perceived as significant by conservatives.^[1][2]

1. [1]

   Limbaugh, David (2007). Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, p. 337. ISBN 9781596980174
2. [2]

   Bruce Bartlett (November 26, 2012). Revenge of the Reality-Based Community: My life on the Republican right—and how I saw it all go wrong, The American Conservative.

There are a couple of problems with these sources, so I've removed this. First, the David Limbaugh book is a polemic and not reliable for factual information. In this case the relevant part is just a quote from Eric Alterman. Even if the book said anything about "conservatives" in general here (it doesn't), it is still a just a primary source for Limbaugh's own opinion.

Second, the piece by Bruce Bartlett doesn't say the specific "piece of writing" was dismissed by conservatives; it says that not one of Bartlett's "think tank friends ... had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything". Besides this being a mere personal anecdote, The American Conservative should really only be used for attributed opinions; see RS/P. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Str1977: The source by Greenberg says on p. 199, "[Liberals] deployed the phrase 'reality-based' partly to mock the government-funded religious programs that Bush euphemistically called 'faith-based'". So sticking to the source, we should not be calling these simply "'faith-based' social programmes". See also WP:EUPHEMISM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying because one source, which I take it is critical of these programmes, calls them "religious progammes" we should do so too? For starters, that would be imprecise as this really was about social programmes. Then, EUPHEMISM doesn't apply because "religious programme" is not a bad word that needed replacement, it is merely imprecise. "Faith-Based" is actually the proper name for it. By your logic, it is unacceptable to speak of, say, the "Affordable Care Act", as that's just a Euphemism. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"Faith-based" is not a proper name at all. It's a broad categorization invented for political purposes, and a euphemism. What is your source for the claim that "this really was about social programmes" and not religious ones? Whether the Greenberg source is "critical" of such programs has no bearing on whether it's a reliable source, even if your assumption about it were correct. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you would care to read the article about these programmes you would find out what kind of programmes (not merely faith-based) were being supported. (And even if you or Greenberg or anyone is criticizing that as merely a front to funnel support to religious groups, you cannot just gloss over their stated objective. That is, if you are really reality-based.)

Greenberg, no matter what is views are, is not bound by WP:NPOV but WP and this article is. Hence we cannot just parrot what he's saying. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is a false balance. That's not what NPOV is about. We summarize published views according to their prominence in reliable sources such as Greenberg. The "stated objectives" of Bush's initiative are irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)