Talk:Reality-based community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "'Peddling Lies About How They Were Mistreated' 'Diassembling' the 'Absurd' Amnesty International Report", uruknet.info, June 3, 2005.

• Previous deletion debate

I deleted most of the original text, which was a complaint about the page-request system. I acted on the complaint by adding an "in-tray" heading to Wikipedia:requested pages. --Heron 12:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Left-wing? 1.1 Origins and usage 2 Neutrality Breach 3 Stub? 4 (More Than A) Slogan

[edit] Left-wing?

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  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  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)

[edit] Origins and usage

"It is an opinionated term used entirely by left-wing bloggers to suggest that people who disagree are unrealistic."

That is incorrect. As can be seen in the encyclopaedia article, the phrase originated as a (kind-of-derogative) term to describe those not sharing the mindset of the unnamed bush aide. So as it was not "left-wing bloggers" but the bush-aide (who sadly remains unnamed), who forced the label "unrealistic" unto bush-supporters, to call it an opiniated term by left-wing bloggers is grossly misrepresenting reality. *fg* Ironically i could use the phrase at this very moment, but respectfully refrain from doing so. That "left-wing bloggers" took this term and now wear it with proud is only a sign of them not sharing the mindset of the unnamed bush aide; furthermore that they REJECT this idea of fluid reality.

Even more, the notion of "We're history's actors . . . and you [...] will just study what we do." implies the ultimative superiority and invulnerability of US policy "actors", something that itself is not only incorrect, but dangerous, in parts even for those believing in it. If i'm not mistaken, the terms for that are Delusions of Grandeur or Megalomania. So the whole last paragraph of the article was written without getting the irony of bush-policy-opponents using the term. And as Linas above points out quite well, american endogeneity is fading (if it ever existed) and history will soon be written by asian nations. but always remember: HISTORY IS BUNK! --83.181.66.142 08:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be recognized that only actual source for the term is Suskind himself. The "aide" he quotes remains unidentified, and no other Bush Administration staffer has been cited as using the phrase in the sense the "unnamed aide" described. Suskind's "aide" may not only be "unnamed," he may be entirely fictional. Whether you choose to call that a "literary device" or a "sock-puppet" is up to you.

Let me add another wrinkle. Left-wing media has adopted that term in a way reminiscent of the way the Dutch rebels adopted the term Gueux. The quick story: some of the Dutch were becoming uppity against their Spanish overlords, and when they went to his proxy, Margaret of Parma, to declare their objections and intentions, her advisor referred to them derogatorily as gueux (beggars). It was an insult, to be sure, but they turned it back upon the Spanish regime when they embraced irony and adopted the term for their movement.

Similarly, left media has adopted reality-based community, which was coined as a term of contempt for Bush policy opponents, as an ironic badge of honor (Anonymous above did mention this). Until today, I've never seen or heard anything stating or implying that "reality-based community" was used to, without evidence, paint opponents as necessarily wrong or unrealistic. I can clearly see why the term could be construed that way, but I've never seen it used like that. Beyond its badge of honor quality, I've only seen it used to denote the author's professed belief in political empiricism, and it's also worth noting that those in the "reality-based community," using evidence to support their points, disagree with each other all the time on many issues, like the current situations in the Middle East.

Given that, I'd love to see actual examples of reality-based community being used as something akin to begging the question as the current article purports, and it should be from high-volume publications or broadcasts that use the term instead of tiny lefty blog #342,129. If none can be cited, the assertion that reality-based community "was first used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic" should be deleted.--RemiCogan 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's been done. Huangdi 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Stub?

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)

[edit] (More Than A) Slogan

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)