Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The NYPress article

Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What, so every single editorial about a famous figure belongs on their wikipedia page? I think not. Giles22 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one editorial, germane because it references Drudge's treatment of Brock. --Eleemosynary 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not going to revert the inclusion of the article again, I'll leave that to other editors here in they see fit to engage in yet another edit war over this subject. I don't really have the time or the interest to go down that road again. Giles22 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But since the link to the Signorile article existed on this page for ages, more than a year at least, why is there a sudden war over its existence? Crockspot has a campaign afoot to purge this page of any taint of critical content, that's why. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process. Now wait to see them reply on how I've breached the assume good faith nonsense. Sigh. Skopp (Talk) 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, NO ONE questions your lack of good faith these days, so it's not even an issue any more. Happy hate campaigning! ;) Giles22 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from a user's talk page

I moved this here, as it is the appropriate place for this discussion - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The source cited is an obscure newspaper, and is derogatory, violating WP:BLP#Sources. Crockspot 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Press is most certainly not obscure, and has a comparable circulation to the Washington Times. The article is critical of Drudge, but no more derogatory than a WSJ editorial criticizing the Clintons. Or any liberal, for that matter.

I'm anticipating an argument from some quarters that since NY Press is a weekly and Wash Times is a daily, that the circulation numbers aren't comparable. In that case, please note the New York Press has a much higher circulation than the Weekly Standard. --Eleemosynary 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eleemosynary that the New York Press is anything but "an obscure newspaper" and that article in question is no more "derogatory" than sources used in other biographies. The source meets all the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP and therefore is fair game.

As for sourcewatch--last I knew there was no consensus about whether sourcewatch was not acceptable. I have looked for discussion on this and haven't found it--can you point me in the right direction? It seems to me that quoting an opinion from from Sourcewatch, with proper attribution in the article (i.e. "Sourecewatch argues...") ought to be acceptable, especially outside the context of WP:BLP. On the other hand, using sourcewatch as a source for facts and only attributing it them in references, is a different beast entirely. Anyways, I'm not interested in reopening any settled debates: if Sourcewatch specifically has been ruled out by consensus then I can live that, but if you're are simply applying a broader decision or policy, then I think there is some room for debate. (I'm not sure that I have the energy for it.)

Anyways' you seem to be wrong about the New York Press at least. Yilloslime 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm short of time at the moment, and a lot of the policy and guideline pages have had their content shuffled around, but here is a recent template deletion discussion that illustrates some of the problems with SourceWatch as a reliable source. Beyond issues of bias, the main reason that open wikis are not allowed as reliable sources is that one can never guarantee what is going to appear on the screen at any given random time, when the source page is loaded. It could be good info, or it could be "POOP". That is the main reason that Wikipedia is not allowed to source itself, and the principle holds for all wikis. As to the Drudge issue, I think that the arguments presented on Talk:George Soros in opposition to including well-sourced criticism from Bill O'Reilly apply here, and Eleemosynary was a strong opponent of including that information in the Soros article. The O'Reilly criticism is nowhere near as harsh and derogatory as the piece I removed from Drudge. O'Reilly is certainly more notable (as is his opinion) than the NYPress author. I really would like to see a consistent treatment of sources in all articles, and I try to apply that wherever I edit, but I already have about a thousand articles on my watchlist, so I can't fix everything. (PS. I am not opposed to all criticism in Matt Drudge, I am only opposed to this particular criticism. I also think there is an undue weight problem, since there is only one link under "Praise", and two under "Criticism", one that calls him a "nasty little faggot". Sourced notable criticism is fine, but this one is only there to bash Drudge, and to insert the "gay allegation" that has so far been kept out of the article by consensus.) - Crockspot 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to original wording above) It's a nice dodge to attack another editor with a charge of "policy shopping", but it doesn't explain your about turn on the principle of the argument. Why are you fighting for the inclusion of an attack article that labels the subject a "nasty faggot", while you vehemently oppose any criticism in Soros? You haven't explained that bit of apparent hypocrisy. And fyi, you should have learned by now that if you are going to make a broad-brush accusation regarding me, you had better have some diffs backing up your assertion. Policy shopping is not even a guideline, it is an essay written by one user who made up the concept, and it is a very flawed concept which discounts the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method. I have already told that user that his essay will lead to user's citing it when they cannot beat someone on the merits of the arguments, and here we are. There has been long-standing consensus developed on Talk:Matt Drudge (see archived talk pages) that the gay allegations are not verifiable enough, nor notable enough, to be in the article. But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". You appear to have flip-flopped. I challenge you to find the same inconsistency in my arguments anywhere I have edited this year. I also challenge you to find anything that can be characterized as "policy shopping" as well. Until you do, any further use of that term by you relating to me will be regarded as a personal attack, and handled appropriately. - Crockspot 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". - What? The link has been here for years! Stop re-writing this page's history to suit your agenda. Skopp (Talk) 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling you out for "policy shopping" is hardly a dodge; it's an accurate description of what you've been doing lately on the Drudge page. When arguments are made showing the NYPress column doesn't violate BLP, you claim the NYPress is "obscure." When the "obscure" canard is shot down, you jump back to BLP. After which, you jump back to the "obscure" charge, claiming that because NYPress is free of charge, it's necessarily obscure. That's policy shopping, with the finesse of a spastic plate-spinner.

Incidentally, I notice that shortly after I called you out for resorting to Policy shopping, you tagged the essay for a deletion vote. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. ; )

And please, spare us the pedantry. (eg. "You should have learned by now"). If you'd like to file a harassment claim--as it seems you've been champing at the bit to do--go right ahead. Once the admins weigh in, I'll provide several diffs. For those who'd like to see evidence of your Policy shopping, they need only check the history pages on Drudge for the past week or so. (see above paragraph)

You've dismissed Policy shopping, hyperbolically, as discounting "the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method." Nonsense. What Policy shopping describes is a method some editors have of gaming the system when they cannot win an argument on the merits. It's not exactly surprising that you've dismissed this essay so quickly. Should it reach policy status, I wonder if you'll be so dismissive. In any case, it's a very informative essay.

Your "hypocrisy/flip-flop" attack on me does not hold water. I never argued there shouldn't be "any criticism" of Soros on his page; I agreed with the majority of the editors that O'Reilly should not be spotlighted with a mention of his own in the article. Check the Soros page, you'll see several links to harsh attacks on him, including one from Focus on the Family, of all places. In the future, try to have your facts straight before accusing others of hypocrisy.

You're also wrong about there being any "long-standing consensus" that Drudge's homosexuality should be censored from his article. I read the archived page you mentioned, as did another editor, who has commented below. 1) The page hardly indicated consensus; 2) You seem to be under the impression that the archived Talk page is an insurance policy against any reliable sources published in the future. It's not.

As for your "challenges"... 1) you haven't shown any inconsistency in my edits, and I have no interest in documenting yours. 2) See my above comments re: policy shopping. They're not meant as a personal attack; but go ahead and handle them "appropriately," however that may be. --Eleemosynary 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You do realize that the obscurity clause is part of WP:BLP, no? How is that jumping from policy to policy? This obfuscation that is flowing from you is exactly why that essay shouldn't be in WP namespace. Your citing of it reminded me that I had meant to Mfd it months ago, and is a perfect example of how it can be misused. Look at the page space you wasted with it. - Crockspot 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I was stepping into hornet's net when I made that edit on the Matt Drudge page. If you two have a history of warring, that's unfortunate, and I would prefer to not be involved. My only point is that justification for removal of the link was spurious. The link clearly meets WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V. I would also point out that nothing in WP:WIEGHT says that there needs to be equal numbers of links or equal amounts of words given to the positive and negative aspects of a subject. Yilloslime 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. I will copy most of this thread to Talk:Matt Drudge. - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The New York Press is a FREE weekly, with a circulation of barely over 100k. It can be argued to be "obscure". - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"The New York Press is a FREE weekly, with a circulation of barely over 100k. It can be argued to be "obscure"--this is your weakest argument yet. You keep removing the link, claiming that it violates WP:BLP, but I've read WP:BLP, and I don't see anything in there to support your view. I've also skimmed the archive, looking for ANY discussion of this link, and I've found none. Please provide an explaination that's more specific than " violates BLP, as well as consensus on Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 2 not to insert gay allegations." Yes, the link does mention the gay allegations, but it's in the broader context of criticism of his journalism. I do not think that a consensus about not mentioning these allegations in the body of the article can be construed to also exclude links to sources that happen mention the allegation in the broader context of Drudge's work. Yilloslime 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion of whether NY Press is "obscure" or not is moot -- in my opinion, the article is too much of an attack article to meet WP:BLP standards. I quote from WP:BLP:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article. (emph. added)

Okay, now I realize that NY Press is not self-published, but the article in question is an op-ed piece so it is damn close, i.e. there is very little editorial oversight. So while the policy I quoted does not specifically prohibit the article in question, I think that including an op-ed piece that starts out by calling the subject a "nasty faggot" definitely goes against the spirit of the policy.

Also, although it can rightly be argued that the reference to Drudge's alleged homosexuality is tangential to the article, even a tangential reference potentially runs afoul of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, as well as "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets." (also from WP:BLP). While Wikipedia is not directly repeating the gossip, it would have an external link to an article that repeats the gossip in the first paragraph. Not good.

While you are right that I can't point to a specific unambiguous policy violation, it dances on the borderline of WP:BLP in many different ways. Also remember that WP:BLP again and again urges editors to err on the side of caution. Taking everything together, I think that's enough to say it is inappropriate even for an external link. (P.S. I don't particularly like Drudge either) --Jaysweet 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, is the best argument I've seen so far, and I drop my objection to removing the source. Yilloslime 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your view, Jaysweet. The tangential reference to MD's homosexuality is not "gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" but information contained in an autobiography by a well known person (Brock), and it is moreover public information that has not been challenged by MD himself. Skopp (Talk) 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Brock has written Drudge sent him emails in which Drudge said he would be "lucky" to be "fuck buddies" with Brock. That's not gossip. The NYPress article simply reiterates the info from the Brock book. What should be the reference in the article... the Brock book or the Signorile column? I'd be happy with either of them. --Eleemosynary 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Signorile piece is certainly more accessible and more directly relevant to the subject, whereas the Brock book only deals with Drudge as one of many topics. I'd like to see the Brock book and its MD references discussed on the page as well. If MD is unhappy with what Brock said about him, he should have challenged it in court. The fact that he has let it stand unchallenged gives consent to its contents, so I cannot see why the content of that book is not covered here, at least under the "Criticism" section. Skopp (Talk) 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Or at least a "personal life" section. Brock, after all, is a pretty significant figure, as the founder of Media Matters for America. --Eleemosynary 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, not sure if Brock actually said he had sex with MD or rather that MD dated him and sent him sexually suggestive emails. Although, of course, in the gay world a "date" usually implies a sexual relationship. Skopp (Talk) 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<--My 2¢: Drudge is a pretty controversial figure, rightly or wrongly, and this wikipedia entry on him should reflect this. Given all the controversy that surrounds him, the article does seem to be a little skimpy on criticism, but I have definitely NOT followed Drudge himself, his website, or this wikipedia entry very much. To me, the allegation that he is gay does seem fair game for inclusion--the allegation has been made in notable, reliable secondary sources, and Drudge hasn't unambigous denied these claims either. To clarify: the article should not say that is gay, but saying that he is alledged to be gay seems fair. Having said that, if there recently really was a true consensus to exclude this info, then I think we should respect that. I haven't reread the archived thread and I'm not going to (only so much time...) but it sounds like there was never really any consensus.

My 3rd¢: Let's all keep in mind WP:NPOV. Deleting material because it is uncited or cites sources that fail to meet (or can be argued fail to meet) standards of WP:RS or WP:BLP is fine and dandy. (Though I'd argue that in some/most cases the best first step would be to tag it with {{cn}}, look for better ref yourself, and/or initiate discussion on the talk page). However, I'd argue that selectively applying this policy by only removing poorly sourced criticism from one side of an argument violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NPOV. I'd also argue that this applies to articles (like this one), and to editing patterns in general (e.g., if I went around removing all the poorly sourced criticism on pages about Democrats but left all the poorly sourced criticism on pages about Republicans.)Yilloslime 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"the article should not say that is gay, but saying that he is alleged to be gay seems fair" — I'd agree with that, Yillo. I do not think there was consent to exclude these details, and in fact, if you scan the edit history of the article you'll see that the most common edit inserted by members of the public who have not registered as WP editors pertains to this fact. Crockspot spends a lot of his valuable time reverting these edits. People clearly know that the subject is alleged to be gay by reliable sources and want to see it reflected in this encyclopedia. Skopp (Talk) 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this has ALL been discussed before. Seeing as nothing new has even been alleged since the last time we had this debate, I suggest that you go back and reread the previous discussion. Every single detail of this argument has been fleshed out before. Giles22 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that discussion involved only me, you, Crockspot and another conservative editor, hardly a balanced discussion with most intent on expunging any details that do not conform to a certain viewpoint. If the reasons for the exclusion of this allegation are so obvious, please summarise for us why it should be excluded again, given its existence in a heavily sold autobiography (hundreds of reviews at amazon.com) in the public domain. Skopp (Talk) 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of biased editing? Project much? I agree wholeheartedly with Jaysweet's assessment, and I thank him for stating it better than I. I'm going to be offline on and off for the next few days, so I may not keep up with the discussion, but I think my viewpoint is understood. - Crockspot 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You agree with Jaysweet's assessment, yet that assessment cited "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" in reference to the gayness allegation, which was proved wrong (the allegation comes not from a scandal sheet but a best-seller autobiography). The Brock book is not any of: "self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" either. Nor does the reporting of Brock's allegation by Wikipedia (or Signorile for that matter) run afoul of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy since this privacy is removed once the fact (or allegation) is in the public sphere via a credible, published, widely distributed source. Your stance is simply not well thought out or logical. Skopp (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Three points I want to make here:

1. While I think we need to be very careful about the homosexuality allegations as per Wikipedia policy, my argument against inclusion of the source does not hinge solely on that. I agree that the "nasty faggot" reference does not run directly counter to Wikipedia policy, but it is one of a great many things about the article that makes me nervous.
2. I am not sure what Yilloslime is referring to when he/she uses the phrase, "selectively applying this policy by only removing poorly sourced criticism from one side of an argument." Without the NYPress article, there is one external link under praise, and one external link under criticism. I see no concerted effort here to conceal criticism of Drudge, at least not in the External Links section.
3. That said, I do not specifically oppose the fleshing out of the external links section (I don't feel it is necessary, but I don't oppose it either). I just feel that the NYPress link is extremely iffy due to WP:BLP concerns. I am not worried about it from a POV perspective, just a BLP perspective.

If the NYPress article was the only on-line article that criticized Matt Drudge (HAH!) then I think there'd be something to debate here. But surely there must be hundreds of similarly damning articles to choose from, a large percentage of which do not use the offensive phrase "nasty faggot" in the first two paragraphs. One again, I admit the article doesn't specifically run afoul of any particular policy, but it is damn close on numerous counts. If we feel we must add another critical article, much better to find one that doesn't resort to schoolyard name-calling. --Jaysweet 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are currently three editors leaning toward inclusion, and three leaning against. There is no consensus to include, so the default is to remove, which I have done pending results of the RfC I have called below. - Crockspot 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC on NYPress source as EL

• Is this source an appropriate external link in Matt Drudge, a biography of a living person, or does it violate the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP? See immediate section above for previous localized discussion. - Crockspot 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment in additions to my reservations above: The article seems to be less about Drudge himself, and more about Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove's and media critic Howard Kurtz's unwillingness to publish allegations of homosexuality among conservatives, in contrast to their willingness to disclose a nervous breakdown suffered by author David Brock. I am just baffled by Eleemosynary's insistence that this article, of all the anti-Drudge material out there, is the one that should represent critics of Drudge in the External Links section. It just seems like a poor choice to me. --Jaysweet 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Signorile's referral of Drudge as a "nasty faggot" in the opening line in his article, certainly violates WP:BLP content, regardless of how notable Signorile is. It potential libel. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel? It was published years ago and no libel ensued. Moreover, the link to that article has existed on the Drudge page of WP for years without comment, until now. Crockspot has decided to include the link in his/her sanitization drive. Now suddenly it's untouchable? I don't think so. The "nasty faggot" jibe is quite in keeping with the sort of dirt, scandal and innuendo Drudge himself dishes out all the time; thus it is in perfect juxtaposition. Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence of this comment is a classic logical fallacy. Damn right Drudge is a sloppy journalist who uses scandal and innuendo to drive his political agenda. But that doesn't mean Wikipedia should do the same thing. --Jaysweet 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The goal should be an encyclopedic biography, not a "perfect juxtaposition" which contravense the very essence of NPOV and the goals of Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the meaning of a critical link is lost on you. I find the Signorile article excellent in that it highlights issues the WP article apparently finds too sensitive to handle, such as Drudge's homosexuality (alleged). It is also tellingly and trenchantly disparaging, showing the hypocrisy of an (alleged) homosexual who sides with people who, in general, abhor homosexuals. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not an "issue." --Tbeatty 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is most certainly an issue when the subject (Drudge) has used it as a cudgel to attack public figures like Kerry (remember how he insinuated that Kerry and Edwards had a gay relationship in order to damage them?) Drudge has made homosexuality an issue, so the Signorile article, by pointing up the breathtaking hypocrisy of Drudge's position, is a wonderfully critical resource from another public figure (Signorile himself). Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't recall it at all. It's too absurd to take seriously. Contrast that with the all too serious slur used to disparage him. --Tbeatty 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory then: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1167553/posts] Skopp (Talk) 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did he say they had a gay relationship? --Tbeatty 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What Drudge does and does not do is certainly debateably, but policy is not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Jaysweet and Eleemosynary. The link doesn't technically violate WP:BLP or any other policy as many editors have asserted, and the more I learn about the situation, the less I think it runs afoul of the spirit of BLP. Allegations of Drudge's homosexuality are nothing new, Drudge hasn't denied them, and they are notable, and therefore they should be inculded in the article. Having said that, I totally agree that with "all the anti-Drudge material out there" there are a lot better links to chose from for inclusion. It seems like everyone would be satisfied if we simply found a different link which focused more on criticism of Drudge and less on his homosexuality. Yilloslime 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  Better links? Ok, submit one here. Signorile is a noted writer. Find a better piece that is openly critical. Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, took me three minutes to find this, which doesn't refer to anybody as a "nasty faggot." There was an even better-looking Salon.com article, but it was unfortunately premium content.

  I am not going to spend more than those three minutes, because I think the external links section is already fine. There is one positive article, and one critical article. That's more than enough, because Wikipedia is not a repository of links to op-ed pieces about Matt Drudge. --Jaysweet 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that article much weaker than the Signorile article, since it relates to the Kerry-Edwards debacle, once topical but not now. It does have a few choice quotes though. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not appropriate. May even be considered a hate site. --Tbeatty 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of links do you want under a Criticism section — a hagiography? Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually prefer legitimate criticism in the "Criticism" section. Matt Drudge has plenty of legitimate critics including those that contend he is conservative as well as those that say his web page is not journalism. "nasty faggot", however, is not criticism. It's a hateful slur. I don't see how any reference to his sexual preference is "criticism" nor can I take anything seriously that follows in a piece that leads off with that slur. It would be like saying "black" (or worse, the N word) is criticism for Martin Luther King. It's hardly hagiographic to remove hateful slurs, and the sites that promote them, from biographies. --Tbeatty 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! You obviously do not know that Signorile is gay himself, in fact he is "a gay American writer and a national talk radio host". So hateful slur it is not, but it is perhaps, from Signorile's POV, an apt description of someone traitorous, in his eyes, to the gay cause. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that Signorile is gay. That does not give one a license to use hateful slurs. To wit, the recent funeral for the N word given by the NAACP. The slur he used was hateful and offensive and it doesn't matter if he's gay, straight, purple or martian. We don't need to link to hate sites. --Tbeatty 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "faggot" is disparaging, but not hateful. The same goes for "queer". So Signorile, a faggot, calls Drudge a faggot. Apart from the strongly disparaging flavor of this pejorative term, which is understandable in the context, I don't see the NYPress site as a "hate" site, a la a National Socialist Movement site. Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The other thing you need to remember is that the majority of Wikipedia readers probably do not know Signorile is gay. I agree that in context, the phrase "nasty faggot" is less offensive coming from a known gay activist (note less offensive; it's still a little offensive). But many WP readers are not going to be getting the context. They're just going to click a link and see an attack article that starts about by referring to a living person with a homosexual slur. Now how is that acceptable for an encyclopedia article again? --Jaysweet 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is contained in the linked article, not on wikipedia itself. You talk as if the word faggot was in the WP page. Drudge can be justifiably criticised for his stance on homosexuality (he uses it as a weapon against political opponents while, allegedly, hiding it in his own life). Does WP shy away from sensitive issues that have long been in the open? This issue has been raised in books (Brock's book, Jeanette Walls' book [1] etc). But even with the allegation out there and unchallenged legally, we cannot even link to an article that raises the subject? Is WP that anaemic? And if having this link is a legal risk for WP, how come that link has existed for years here without any legal consequences? Illogical, again. Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, we can overcome the problem of readers not knowing Signorile is gay by adding some explanatory text to the link, like "Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile's critique of Drudge", or some such. Skopp (Talk) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oksy, read my "timeout" comment below. If your intention is to expose Drudge as being gay, linking to an article that refers to him as a "nasty faggot" is pretty much like, the most unencyclopedic way of going about it. Really. --02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• It reads like an OpEd piece. I wouldn't use it.HubcapD 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OpEd? What sort of piece do you want to serve as criticism? Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorials and OpEd pieces are commonly linked in "criticism" sections on Wikipedia. --Eleemosynary 10:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• We do have a policy on this -- WP:REDFLAG -- exceptional claims, as this one, require exceptional sources. So yes, we need something more than a snarky editorial comment.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have corroboration from a best-selling autobiography. Not enough for you? Skopp (Talk) 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopp, I don't want to be condescending, but did you read WP:REDFLAG? I quote: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources..." (emph. added) No, a best-selling autobiography of a different individual is certainly not enough. --Jaysweet 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Jeanette Walls book, wherein she interviews people who had gay affairs with Drudge. [2] Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty interesting, editors disagreeing whether or not to include content critical of a subject and then on the opposite sides of the fence when dealing with a different subject. My opinion is in favor of inclusion done properly than keep reverting POV loaded versions of it. I'm just more of an inclusionist I guess. I believe there should be guidelines about handling criticisms in a more consistent way so editors have something to go by. I did start an essay about it but don't believe my way should be the only way. It is still incomplete and I will work on it more once I get more time to be here. Well, good luck to all of you. MrMurph101 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On the off chance that this comment is directed at me, I would suggest you check the tone of the criticism that I have supported, (see George Soros for one) compared to the tone of this particular "criticism". But you may not be referring to me, as I have also seen editors take obvious opposite stances on such things, depending on the subject. (There is even one editor here supporting this inclusion, who was fighting inclusion on Soros of much tamer material.) There are some subjects that some editors feel "deserve" poor treatment. I'm not against notable sourced criticism that is relevant to the article, and isn't over-the-top derogatory. - Crockspot 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC). PS. I had a look at your essay, and I think you state the problem well, but it doesn't really go beyond that. I've been advocating for consistent treatment of all of the current presidential hopefuls' articles. They tend to draw a lot of off-wiki POV that makes editors of all stripes shake their heads, and could be a good area for "bipartisan" cooperation among editors. - Crockspot 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I could be directing this at you or user Eleemosynary who have differing viewpoints on this and the Soros article and for that matter Bill Moyers. I am not accusing anyone of being hypocrites for that matter. Arguments can be made on both sides that will gain support and policies can be interpreted where both sides could be considered correct. Inclusion of criticism of anything is a sensitive subject and causes most of the conflicts in wikipedia, imo. For what it's worth, I believe you are trying to do the right thing and have a similar goal to myself in dealing with criticism. Once I get personal things taken care of, I will work on that essay some more. If you or anyone has suggestions I'm willing to listen. MrMurph101 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopp has made extremely compelling arguments for inclusion, particularly against the thin cries of "hate site" and WP:REDFLAG, employed by two users canvassed by Crockspot (see this[3] personal attack on Gamaliel's talk page) to come here and march in lockstep. (This is especially interesting in light of Crockspot's recent failed attempt[4] to censor Wikipedia:Policy shopping from Wikipedia, during which he decried canvassing.)

Crockspot, et als' agenda has been clear for some time:use any bit of sophistry imaginable to keep well-sourced references, even first-hand references, to Drudge's sexuality off the page. We now have three reliable sources (Brock, Walls, Signorile). We have compelling reasons for inclusion (see Skopp's comments here[5]). It's long past time to stop the game-playing. --Eleemosynary 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So Crockspot has tried a little consensus stacking herself, by running to a conservative gathering place on WP and issuing a "come help" call. Why, I wonder, am I so not surprised? Skopp (Talk) 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

gamaliel's talk page is a conservative gathering place? Maybe in the same sense that Live Earth and Burning Man are conservative gathering places. --Tbeatty 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Leaving one message on the talk page of an admin who probably would disagree with me on this issue is a little different than canvassing 19 users who you know agree with you, and Eleemosynary has gone running to that same admin for help many times. Your personal attacks are laughable. You make a nice pair. All you're lacking is the dog and pony. - Crockspot 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeout Okay, hold on just a minute here. Is the issue whether the NY Press article is appropriate for External Links criticism? Or is the issue that Eleem and Skopp feel that Drudge's alleged homosexuality should be detailed on the Wikipedia article? Because those are two completely different discussions in my mind. The Signorile article is not at all appropriate for the external links section, for any number of reasons I detailed earlier. Linking to an article the calls the subject a "nasty faggot" in the first paragraph is a pretty obviously bad idea, and I'm really not interested in further discussion on that point.

Now, if we are talking about whether Brock's claims of a sexual relationship with Drudge belong in the article, that is a whole entire other ball of wax. I know there were previous discussions on this but I have not yet reviewed them because I did not think that was the issue here. If that is indeed the issue, I wish you would be more straightforward about it. This may be hard to believe, but a number of the editors here, including myself, couldn't give a fuck about Matt Drudge either way (excuse the language, but I want to make sure my point is clear) and so being sneaky about your intentions does nothing but confuse the issue. If the issue is disclosing the Brock homosexuality claim, let me and other unbiased editors know and we will take a look at the prior discussions, etc. --Jaysweet 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaysweet, you're not the fucking referee/"decider" (excuse the language, but I want to make sure my point is clear). Both issues are relevant; the NYPress link should be in the external links, and Drudge's sexuality should be referenced, for "any number of reasons" detailed earlier by other users. If you're "not interested in further discussion," good for you. Others, however, are. (Skopp and I are hardly the only ones; stating otherwise is a falsehood.) And your dismissive comments about Skopp [6] on Crockspot's Talk page hardly paint you as an "unbiased editor."

As for "sneaky intentions," see my above comments re Crockspot and "policy shoppping" in the name of censorship. --Eleemosynary 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting logic you employ as that was neither policy shopping or censorship or canvassing. But the attempts at a smear are notedand give insight as to the reason for arguing inclusion. --Tbeatty 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts, as usual. And stop censoring other users' comments on this page[7]. --Eleemosynary 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a clear BLP violation that was properly removed. If you disagree, why don't you revert, and see what happens? It's not the only clear violation of policy that is happening in this RfC, but that one would be the icing on the cupcake. You know, I called this RfC on a very narrow question. I did not badger everyone who responded, I did not attack multiple editors for their opinions... Your behavior here has been atrocious, and you can be sure that some day, diffs of this will be prominently displayed in an arbcom proceeding. - Crockspot 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the toothless threats, and the false high dudgeon. You tried to stack consensus, and were called on it. Now, you're responding by leaving personal attacks on several pages and mischaracterizing others' comments. If you haven't guessed by now, your threats and bullying will be ignored. But your misstatements of fact won't be. --Eleemosynary 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Crockspot posted a single message on an admin's talk page who, I believe, most likely would support "outing" drudge based on his desire to also out Jeff Gannon. If he's stacking consensus, he's asking people to comment that would specifically oppose his viewpoint. That is certainly not any reasonable definition of improper stacking. --23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jaysweet, I personally do not care about the gay thing per se, but I do think that any allegation, if made repeatedly in published books, especially best selling books and autobiographies, ought to be at least mentioned in the article, especially if these allegations were neither denied nor attacked legally. Gayness is a very political issue in the US, and it's of great interest and concern to most politically-motivated people, and these would be heavily represented in the readership of this page. If Mr Drudge simply linked to news articles on his page and no more, an argument could perhaps be made for excluding the information from the wiki page, but since Drudge actually enters the fray and inventively uses the sexuality of others as a weapon, his own sexuality becomes extremely germane. Surely you can see that? I also think the Signorile article is pretty well written, if a bit acerbic for some tastes. Having said that, I'm prepared to trade the Signorile link for a proper inclusion of this information on the WP page. Now, how do you suggest we include the gay allegations in the article? If you like, I can come up with a suitably cited sentence or two. Skopp (Talk) 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that you think you can make a trade like that, when consensus to exclude the link anyway is so strong. - Crockspot 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, we see Crockspot's misstatement of the actual consensus (which is divided), in his long-standing tactic to use any bit of sophistry imaginable to keep well-sourced references, even first-hand references, to the relevant issue of Drudge's sexuality off the page --Eleemosynary 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This RfC is about the external link, and no matter how you try to twist it into an attack on me, I still count seven editors against inclusion of the link, and three editors for. Crockspot 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but we haven't engaged in consensus stacking. There's the rub. Skopp (Talk) 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Crockspot posted a single message on an admin's talk page who, I believe, most likely would support "outing" drudge based on his desire to also out Jeff Gannon. If he's stacking consensus, he's asking people to comment that would specifically oppose his viewpoint. That is certainly not any reasonable definition of improper stacking. --Tbeatty 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation of Crockspot's message on Gamaliel's talk page, in which he was canvassing you, among others, while attacking editors on this page. Your obfuscatory statements here are a direct result of his "consensus stacking." But you already knew that. --Eleemosynary 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So crockspot, who routinely touches base with gamaliel for NPOV because he knows gamaliel has opposite opinions, in this one instance was canvassing for other editors on Gamaliel's talk page? If he wanted to canvas me he could just email or put it on my talk page. Since he did neither, I AGF that he was asking Gamaliel's opinion. Your lack of good faith and accusations, however, are very telling about your motives. --Tbeatty 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's silly, Tbeatty. We all have motives of one sort or another. We just have to keep a sense of fairness and be prepared to listen to the opposing POV. Does the opposite side have a good argument? Is it sourced decently? Is it likely to get WP sued? Is the detail too heavily emphasized? If you can consider all these things dispassionately and not try to use and manipulate them to block reasonable edits, just to suit your own motives, you're a credit to WP. Skopp (Talk) 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• In a conciliatory spirit, I propose this sort of edit under the Criticisms section. Comments please.

Drudge has faced criticism for implying that John Kerry and John Edwards were in a gay relationship during the 2004 election campaign.(give refs to exact details) Critics, like Michelangelo Signorile, point to the allegations of gayness levelled at Drudge himself by David Brock of Media Matters in his autobiographical book Blinded by the Right,(give refs and cites) and by Jeanette Walls in her book Dish.(give refs and cites)

That's not the final form, but you get the gist. Skopp (Talk) 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Did he actually imply that they were gay? How are you going to source that? I thought he just put up a picture of them kissing, with no comment. That seems like a subjective interpretation that needs attribution, not something that is stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Crockspot 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1167553/posts]. Yes, that's the actual text Drudge used. I'll source it better if you like, like here. So it's not simply my interpretation. I'm kinda shocked you didn't know about this, Crock. Skopp (Talk) 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read your own link? His exact words were "Can't keep their hands off each other." There is also a quote attributed to someone else, but the word "gay" does not appear there. By the way this edit and summary is a clear personal attack. I'm asking you nicely to stop attacking me personally. - Crockspot 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "imply". Skopp (Talk) 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember when this came out, and while I remember it as a mildly amusing fluff piece, I don't remember any widespread criticism in the media over this or anyone accusing Drudge of homophobia based on this piece or widespread allegations of him of gay baiting/bashing, other than when the bitterness when Kerry later lost the election, and many tried to blame it on everything from "evangelicals" to "Matt Drudge." In fact, on a purely editorial note, what Edwards himself did in the VP debate with Dick Cheney's daughter was much more blatant and deplorable. Is that mentioned in Edwards wikipedia entry? Furthermore, would it be appropriate to insert in Kerry's entry or Edwards that there was speculation as to their sexuality and then cite to that Drudge piece as a verifiable source? You and I both know that would not be appropriate, and neither is what you are trying to do here. Giles22 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he even meant to imply gay. Rather, I think he was pointing out the shallowness of handlers and how candidates will behave based on input from poll takers and public image specialists. He was pointing out that the handlers basically said "touch each other and be buddy-buddy" and they did. To the point of absurdity. But I don't think the object was to portray them or imply they are gay. --Tbeatty

Secondly, Brock, Walls and Signorile alls seem to be the same source (Brock) for their hateful tirades. --Tbeatty 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion on what Drudge said. However, several reliable sources disagree with you. As for your second point on Brock being the only source, you're flat wrong. --Eleemosynary 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tbeatty, no, the intent was defintely to imply the candidates were homosexual. Giles22, I was waiting for you to turn up. The Edwards/Chaney-Daughter thing was a trivial incident, blown up by the Right for effect. If there is no note under Edwards about it, there should be, just for historical accuracy. However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by comparing the WP entries for US presidential aspirants to the entry for a conservative gadfly and link-collector like Drudge, but you need to think about weight and significance. As to the effect Drudge's piece has had, and to show it was both a significant occurrence and garnered enough reaction to warrant an entry under Criticisms, we have, for instance, from The Washington Post "A Touching Moment" by Howard Kurtz:

Matt Drudge followed suit with his own 'developing' Kerry-Edwards 'story' titled, 'Can't keep hands off each other.' That night, NBC's Jay Leno ran a gag Kerry-Edwards ad on 'The Tonight Show' -- set to Joe Cocker's 'You Are So Beautiful' -- with footage of the candidates arm-in-arm. And on Friday, as Campaign Desk noted, The Washington Times's Wesley Pruden took the baton from Drudge and produced an absurd piece -- "Nothing says lovin' like a little huggin'" -- in which Drudge's 'report' is quoted. "On Friday, the Associated Press's Liz Sidoti caught on, filing a copycat piece headlined, 'Kerry, Edwards show public affection,' which ran in papers from Boston to Los Angeles. "Here is Sidoti's suggestive lead: 'Bear hugs. Pats on the back. Shoulder squeezes. John Kerry and John Edwards are all over each other.' Days earlier, Drudge had breathlessly begun his piece with this: 'Hugs, kisses to the check, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back. . . . John Kerry and John Edwards can't keep their hands off each other!'

There are many, many references on the net. A small selection I like:

• "Right Hook" from salon.com
• THREE DOLLAR BILL by vue.com
• "Matt Drudge, a Gay Who Backs the Gay Bashers" by buzzflash.com
• "Pondering the Homocons" from about.com

This item, while not a notable source, may help you understand the significance of my interest in this topic: "Really Queer--Right-wing Gay-baiting Gays" Skopp (Talk) 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, none of your notable, reliable sources say this has anything to do with being gay. It has everyhting to do with being handled. The Washington post article nailed it. They were told to touch each other. They did it against their own inner nature and it looked fake. That was the entire gist that I got out of both the drudge article and the WaPo article. Fro msparring opponents to touchy-feely/buddy-buddy. Nothing gay. Just fake. I guess you can try to look for gay bashing in there but it's going to take a heck of a reliable source to say it since it's not mentioned in two contemporary pieces. --Tbeatty 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The above is known as "stonewalling." --Eleemosynary 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be having problems grasping the basic argument here, TBeatty. The point is not that Drudge was gay bashing, but that he was using implications of homosexuality to undermine the presidential campaigns of these individuals. BTW, there are other examples of Drudge doing this, such as the time he labelled a Canadian journalist "gay" to undermine his anti-war reporting. Need details? Skopp (Talk) 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Undermine their presidential campaigns?! You can't be serious. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that you think there is one person that otherwise would have voted for Kerry that did not because of some fluff piece Matt Drudge wrote about Kerry and Edwards' demonstration of public affection? Giles22 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking you in the eye, I refer you to the very article we are editing. Quote: Some regard Drudge as being among those most responsible for the failure of John Kerry's 2004 Presidential bid. In their 2006 book The Way To Win, Mark Halperin and John Harris wrote: "Drudge, with his droll Dickensian name, was not the only media or political agent whose actions led to John Kerry's defeat. But his role placed him at the center of the game -- a New Media World Order in which Drudge was the most potent player in the process and a personifications of the dynamic that did Kerry in. Now whether it was this "fluff" piece that made Kerry & Edwards look effete and ineffectual in contrast to Bush's tough rancher image, or somehting else, is a matter for others to decide, not us. Skopp (Talk) 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, TBeatty, thanks for raising this, because it lends a lot of added weight to the inclusion I am crafting, and should be included. This link will explain what happened: White House disavows ‘smear’ of gay reporter Skopp (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Kofman wikipedia article doesn't report that he is gay. --Tbeatty 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has two LGBT cats applied, and mentions the Drudge/White house gay Canadian thing, however, the article does not cite a single source, not one. - Crockspot 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed it pending a reliable source. --Tbeatty 04:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, thanks for all the input above from everyone. I'll take a break and come back with a (hopefully) even-handed edit when my batteries are recharged. Skopp (Talk) 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Removed RfC on Signorile as a featured External Link. There is plenty of comment above. Let's move on. Skopp (Talk) 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Has Matt Drudge admitted that he is gay? I think the above discussion turns on that. That is not clear from my reading (skimming) of the above. --Samiharris 01:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• He "refuses to discuss it", see White House disavows ‘smear’ of gay reporter. That's not a "no", is it? But the discussion does not turn on his admission at all. Skopp (Talk) 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He is a public figure of high visibility, so I don't think the expletive "faggot" used by Signorile rules out use of that as a link. Anne Coulter used that same word to describe John Edwards, and I assume that must be somewhere in Wikipedia. This is more of an expletive and trash talk, and is not comparable to, say, someone accusing George Soros of funding a media website, and Soros denying that. But I am uncomfortable generally with articles making homosexual allegations that are not confirmed, not in the public record (as they are for Tom Cruise) and not admitted by the target. Surely the criticism section can be formed without repeating such accusations.--Samiharris 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the Coulter bio article in the criticism section. It's not mentioned in the John Edwards article for good and obvious reasons. I am okay with adding it to the Signorile bio under criticism if we can find a reliable source that cared enough to comment on it. --Tbeatty 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Ann Coulter criticism of John Edwards has no place in the Edwards article. Giles22 17:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He has said he's not gay. Sunday Times. --PTR 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Since he's denied he's gay, it seems to me that accusations and innuendo that he is gay don't belong in the article. I don't believe BLP policy allows a "he is accused of homosexuality but denies it" kind of thing. However, the specific link involved here, from Signorile, may be acceptable because it is trash talk from a notable source, not a serious accusation of homosexuality.--Samiharris 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He also denied that he is a right-wing Republican. That needs to be in the article, if there is criticism of him that he is. I think that generally there needs to be more in the article concerning criticism and controversy, as that is why he is famous.--Samiharris 17:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• it seems to me that accusations and innuendo that he is gay don't belong in the article. I don't believe BLP policy allows a "he is accused of homosexuality but denies it" kind of thing. My proposed edit will state that he has been criticised (and he has) for using "gay" as a discrediting epithet (the Canadian journo affair), and used implications of gayness (the Kerry-Edwards affair) to discredit them. This is all on the record with multiple sources and well known. The edit will go on to state that critics have upbraided Drudge for these actions while facing allegations of homosexuality in two books, one a best seller (Signorile link can be used to cite, thus obviating its use in the external links section and making this entire RfC moot). The denial "I'm not gay" should be inserted to balance that and give the entire edit a slant in favor of the subject, satisfying BLP. I believe this edit will prevent the constant editing of the article to insert the gay allegations by numerous editors, many unregistered. Skopp (Talk) 23:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, Samiharris, I see the Tom Cruise article recounts how Cruise "threatened to sue" David Ehrenstein over the gay rumor issue. Is this not paralleled by Drudge's threat to sue Alec Baldwin for a similar offence? I think this should also be inserted into the article, if that sort of thing is allowed in Tom Cruise. Skopp (Talk) 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a cynic would say that Drudge won't sue because Drudge is gay and/or Baldwin told the truth. A suit against Baldwin would mean that Baldwin's lawyer could ask Drudge all sorts of embarrassing questions UNDER OATH--questions like "Have you ever had sex with a man, Mr. Drudge?" Then Drudge could be confronted with affidavits from former male lovers and be caught in a perjury trap. For reference, see Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton. (libertypost.org) Skopp (Talk) 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Drop indent. This is a key article in light of the question posed by Samiharris. I'd appreciate some input on how this could reflect on my edit, and whether any of this information is worth including:

Drudge may embrace the music, but he refuses to embrace its explicit gay, black roots, a refusal that has prompted controversy in the past. MSNBC correspondent Jeannette Walls, in her book Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip, profiled Drudge as someone who "hung out with a crowd of promiscuous, openly gay men and dated several of them." She interviewed one purported ex-boyfriend, David Cohen, who recalled that "[Drudge] loved to do wild, provocative things to draw attention to himself," including getting tossed from one Washington, D.C., nightclub after tossing a full pitcher of beer into the air. After Dish's publication last year, Walls and Drudge traded insults via New York City's gossip columns. Drudge claimed Walls's entire account was fabricated: "Jeannette, dear, slow down and come up for some air. You are becoming a laughingstock. Even by MSNBC standards." In response Walls told the Daily News: "I'm not passing judgment. But I think his duplicity is relevant to his character as someone who has built his career on exposing other's private lives." Contacted by phone recently, Walls reiterated that both she and her publisher, HarperCollins, "absolutely stand by every word I've said." She also said Cohen has offered to sign an affidavit attesting to his comments. At the mention of Walls's book, Drudge turns visibly angry, characterizing Dish as nothing less than an attempt to spike his career. "I go to bars," he explains with a perturbed edge. "I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars. [Walls] never said there was sex; she said there was dating. She never had enough to go that far." Does it bother Drudge to be portrayed in the media as gay? "No, because I'm not," he answers firmly. "But I'm not going to be a Bert Fields and sue people for $100 million for printing this stuff," he adds, referring to Tom Cruise's attorney and his defamation lawsuit against a gay porn star who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with the actor. So does he fear a backlash from homophobic fans of his radio show and Website? "It's not an issue with me," he replies, growing weary of the topic. He leans back in his chair and opines, "I think I told the Daily News something like, “My youth is a blur.'" He laughs in self-appreciation: "That's a good out."

from The Miami New Times Skopp (Talk) 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Draft edit

Here is the draft:

Drudge faced criticism for describing ABC reporter Jeffrey Kofman as "openly gay" in the headline "ABC News Reporter Who Filed Troops Complaint Story — Openly Gay Canadian" after Kofman interviewed anti-war soldiers in Iraq. Drudge's critics, like gay American writer and national talk radio host Michelangelo Signorile, point to the allegations of homosexuality levelled at Drudge himself by David Brock of Media Matters in his memoir Blinded by the Right, and by columnist Jeannette Walls in her book Dish. However, Drudge denied Walls's claim that he is gay, telling the Miami New Times in 2001 that "I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars. [Walls] never said there was sex; she said there was dating. She never had enough to go that far." In 2002 Drudge went further and threatened to sue actor Alec Baldwin after Baldwin claimed that Drudge was gay and had propositioned him. In 2005, Drudge told The Sunday Times "No, I’m not gay. I was nearly married a few years ago."

Comments 1

• Comments to improve this welcome. Let's keep it encyclopedic please. Skopp (Talk) 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose it entirely. From word choice (smeared, gayness?), interpretation (kerry, edwards possibly gay) and innuendo (allegations of gayness?). This paragraph is gossip, not encyclopedic --Tbeatty 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is not gossip, my friend, these are facts. I have changed "smeared" ( a word I saw in the Washington Blade headline) to "called". "Gayness" changed to "homosexuality. Skopp (Talk) 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Tbeatty. "Smeared" seems very POV, the Kerry/Edwards "implication" is only one interpretation, so unless there's a RS stating that he did indeed imply that, it's conclusionary, thus OR. And while I'm glad to see a citation that he threatened to sue over this, IMDB is unfortunately not a reliable source for information like this. It's basically only good for sourcing what films people appeared in. But if this info is in IMDB, (and if it's true), then there must be a better source for that out there somewhere. The length and level of detail seems to give it more weight than the issue deserves as well. But I do appreciate your attempt here to be balanced. I consider it a big improvement over some of your past proposals. If consensus deems it notable and relevant enough, I'm not opposed to treatment of the underlying issues here in a non-tabloid way. I just think this proposed inclusion needs a lot of adjustment, and some whittling down. - Crockspot 15:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Further thoughts: I just read the Kurtz piece that is sourced in the Kerry/Edwards statement. It doesn't mention any implication of gayness, and I don't even get the slightest impression that he thinks Drudge was implying that. New-age sissiness is more how I interpret the implication. So I'm not convinced the Kerry/Edwards issue is even relevant to the overall paragraph. The Brock/Walls nexus also seems to me to be very similar to the Cavuto/O'Reilly nexus in the Soros article, where a televised interview by Cavuto of Soros was shot down as a source for being an unencyclopedic and gossipy repetition of O'Reilly's "non-notable" claims. I think to be fair, we should use a similar standard here. The criticism over Kofman is probably includable, though I think the extra sentence explaining who he is and what he did is unnecessary, since there is a wikilink to Kofman's article present. - Crockspot 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the input. I'll work your comments into the piece later, give me 10 hours. Skopp (Talk) 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm busy anyway, otherwise I would help you. - Crockspot 16:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the IMDB thing is originally from PageSix, but it's no longer available online, at least for free. Skopp (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, then the citation should state PageSix info as the publisher, with a link to the citation/abstract, and the IMDB url as a second "convenience" link. - Crockspot 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very wary about including any of this. If there was that much resisitance to including the Signoile link in there, why permit direct citations to gossip rags such as salon.com? I'd be curious to see some more input here. Giles22 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments 2

• de-indent. Drudge's Kerry-Edwards innuendo removed. Some sources changed, incl. a general link to NYPost since their abstracts and archives are a mess. I maintain that the Brock and Walls data is encyclopedic and not in contravention of the WP:BLP rules, since it is backed with the availability of signed affidavits (Walls/Cohen), it resulted in a spat in the press between the subject (MD) and Walls, and in the Brock book you have 1) notable personage 2) published book, indeed a memoir, that subject did not challenge 3) no legal challenge from subject to any of this 5+ year-old material. BLP is essentially there to stop WP getting sued, not to allow editors to protect reputations of party apparatchiks (not that you are doing that, of course, but take note). If this simple paragraph garners trenchant stonewalling, I will ask Jimbo himself to have a look. Skopp (Talk) 04:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the affidavit that they dated? It's hard to define "date". --Tbeatty 05:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• David Cohen, landscaper, offered to sign an affidavit stating that he had a sexual relationship with Drudge. This was not dating, as in the Brock case. This was a long-term sexual relationship. Get the book for more details, maybe your local library has it. Skopp (Talk) 06:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Why are we even considering adding all this libelous material that Drudge has denied? I still am troubled by the BLP issue here.--Samiharris 18:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why would Drudge sue WP for reporting on what is public knowledge, from his own newspaper interviews and first-hand account books? We're not making it up, and we're not accusing him of anything. In fact, we're carrying his denial. If this is libellous, why didn't he sue, or even threaten to sue, the originators of this data? If you genuinely think this is libellous, I'll ask Jimbo to look at it and we'll wait for his word. Skopp (Talk)

• The definition of libellous is not whether or not someone is willing to sue. Also, the standard for inclusion is not "non-libellous". I fail to see the encyclopedic value in outing people. Drudge's sexuality is tabloid at best. It really has no bearing on what he reports or what makes him encyclopedic. --Tbeatty 06:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• We are not "outing" Drudge, others have already done that. We simply report it. And we report the denial. Why is it noteworthy? 1) Because it is out there, in books and newspapers, and 2) because of his attack on a gay journalist. So it does have bearing, it goes to his character and trustworthiness, and it represents (I'll say it again) the most common reverted edit to the Drudge page. Let's report the facts as we should, and so discourage all the vandals. Skopp (Talk) 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have not seen enough reliable sources that it is a mainstream or significant viewpoint that his character and trustworthiness is compromised because he might be gay. You cannot synthesize this conclusion. --Tbeatty 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, your comprehension is failing you. It is not I (or you) "synthesizing" a conclusion, but others. We report what others have concluded or argued. This is for a Criticisms section, remember?> No WP:OR here. I'm not writing an essay. Try to disentangle my opinion from those I am reporting. Thank you. Skopp (Talk) 08:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments 3

• Beefed up the denial, so paragraph ends in favor of Drudge. Skopp (Talk)
• I should make the point that I am not proposing something outside wikipedia's brief here. If you look at the Tom Cruise page, you'll see that this sort of detail is covered there too. I'm sure if I poke around in wikipedia, I'll find plenty more examples (don't make me do that, please). I really cannot see the reason for suppressing information about this issue, other than motivations that lie outside the purvey of the encyclopedia itself. The paragraph is simply a compendium of published data, with suitable quotes from Drudge to balance them, since he himself has found the issue worthy of comment. It is not libellous in fact, tone or intent, unless you re-define libel. Are we in the business of censorship here, of manipulation, like the Communist Chinese? I notice that some of the data I adjusted and enhanced yesterday had been carefully phrased to put the subject in the best light possible. If you have been involved in re-writing or including data on this page purely to enhance the public profile of the subject, then you are probably here as a party operative, and really should desist (I am a member of no party, I have never voted in a US election, and never shall — that puts my cards on the table). What about undue weight? Are 4 sentences on this topic too much? I don't think so. Skopp (Talk) 02:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• I love the way editors like Tbeatty, on other talk pages, lend weight to arguments directly opposing the one he puts here. On the Rush Limbaugh talk page he supports the inclusion of a joke that likens Chelsea Clinton to a dog. On that page, his fellow traveller cites Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Well_known_public_figures "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I like that, so I'll cite it too in this case. Skopp (Talk) 03:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
• Data point: in Anderson Cooper, you'll find the sentence Independent news media have reported that he is gay, and in May 2007, Out Magazine ranked him second among "The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America. Sources for that statement are listed as Village Voice, Washington Blade, and the site out.com. Skopp (Talk) 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

New comments

The general practice for handling rumors on Wikipedia appears to be to ignore them until they become sufficiently well-known. (We'd look foolish if we omitted the rumors of Liberace's homosexuality, for example.) This particular rumor is fairly well-known, and has been repeated in reliable sources. The subject has gone to the trouble of issuing repeated, detailed denials while confirming some of the specifics that have led to the rumors (like going to gay bars). In our treatment we need to focus on the reporting that there are published allegtions, not on whether those allegations are true or false. We shouldn't try to confirm the rumors ourselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to comment, Will. As an admin, I am grateful for your input on this. Skopp (Talk) 02:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think also that Jimbo's comments need to be taken into consideration.[8] He raises the issue of WP:WEIGHT, which is food for thought. --Samiharris 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, he did, but he saw no libel. The current edit is pared down considerably. It simply consists of the Kofman affair, which was notable in itself, and the very well known tiffs he's had in the press with people about the allegations. As wikipedians, we draw no conclusions, make no assumptions, and the reader will decide. I imagine most readers will see his denials and take them at face value. I really do think this is a reasonable edit, and I'm not being disingenuous. Skopp (Talk) 01:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say he saw no libel, just that he wasn't familiar enough with the subject. Also, I'm not sure this is a proper representation of the information in the sources. Most of the sources seem critical of the leak more than the headline and no where in the paragraph does it say that the headline including "openly gay" was up for only 8 minutes before being replaced. Also, there is no mention of hypocracy in the story by Signorile. The two links you have to the headline go only to the Drudge Report and not to the page. The Toronto Star has an apology and retraction in their archives when you look up reference #3. There are far too many references that aren't mentioned in the paragraph for such a small item. I think this needs a lot of work to be encyclopedic and true to the references. I also don't think mixing the two subjects (the headline - which would be more fitting on the Drudge Report page and the gay rumors and denial) is necessary and doesn't mesh. --PTR 21:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• PTR, I see you are the editor who tried to remove the Controversy section from Sean Hannity and is involved in a formal dispute over including Rush's drug addiction on the Rush Limbaugh page. Just making sure who I'm dealing with here. I'll look at your specific comments and respond soon. Skopp (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• The Toronto Star article says "Drudge has some nerve, since he's a gay man himself". Pretty good source, IMO, although Drudge forced them to withdraw that statement (this is notable in itself, must add it to the edit or edit footnote). I have no problem seeing the abstract for that article. Skopp (Talk) 22:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• How long the headline was up for is not important. I saw it, and my wife saw it at work. Plenty of others saw it too. Sure he realized he'd made a mistake and quickly backtracked, but in the media world you make an error of judgement like that and you have to live with it. This goes for every media source, and so it goes for Drudge too. But if you think we should add the time the headline was up to the edit, I'll do it. I have no objection per se, although it does start to make the paragraph overweight with minutiae. Skopp (Talk) 22:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Links that go only to the Drudge Report site are ok, ask Crockspot. Drudge did publish that headline, as we know from reliable secondary sources. Plus, I saw it! Skopp (Talk) 22:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• You are right about the Signorile citation. A better one could be this one. Skopp (Talk) 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• PTR, I've modified the edit to encompass those criticisms you made that are valid. Thanks for the input and taking the time to parse the edit carefully. Skopp (Talk) 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• De-indent. Another good source for the Kofman controversy: [9] Skopp (Talk) 23:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The source above is the same story as ref #4 above. I don't see any source for the Toronto Star being forced to retract the statement. The new Signorile citation still doesn't say Drudge is a hypocite and doesn't reference the Kofman headline. I still think these are two separate issues and trying to combine them is not working. --PTR 00:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well spotted, they are the same stories but I was fooled by the different URLs. As for the comment on "hypocrite", I removed that after you pointed it out, didn't you notice? There is a disjunction between the Kofman thing and the gay aspects, but the Toronto Times's retracted sentence would have linked them nicely. I may have to use it as a link. Forced retraction? Papers only retract and apologize when it's demanded of them, rest assured. But I'll change the footnote to say simply "retracted". Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• And you may be right, maybe these should be treated as 2 separate issues for clarity. Could you suggest suitable subheads for the two issues? Skopp (Talk) 00:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Overlap with The Drudge Report page

• It occurred to me, while giving the page a long-overdue overhaul, that some data here is repeated on the Drudge Report page. I think we should make a decision as to where the various bits of data belong and link from one page to another where appropriate. If nobody disagrees, I'll fix that over the next week or so. Skopp (Talk) 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Is there any good case to keep the Drudge and Drudge Report pages separate? Is Limbaugh's page kept separate from a page covering his show? Merge, anyone? Skopp (Talk) 23:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I see the Limbaugh and Limbaugh show are separate. Oh well, then we'll have to keep this setup as is then, with the information more carefully partitioned. Skopp (Talk) 23:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• There really is a lot of duplicated data on these pages. I'd appreciate someone commenting on how the material can be best divided. One of these pages needs to shrink in size considerably. I suggest we shrink the biographical page and move all comments, criticisms etc to the Report page. Skopp (Talk) 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• The more I look at this, the more I think it would be more logical merged. It is very difficult to cleanly make two separate articles of Drudge and his website. Skopp (Talk)

• I think they should be two articles, one is a living person, the other is a website. While some info could be isolated to one article or the other, neither is really a huge article, so I don't see a big problem. For the past year, I've been trying to keep any common info that changes in sync, and it hasn't required that much effort. - Crockspot 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep it the way it is. The subject matter of each is notable enough for its own page. Giles22 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• To me, the Drudge Report page looks like a small subset of the information on the Drudge page. Now Crockspot admits he/she has to try to keep the pages in sync. This is not clean and efficient. Is his page really different enough from his persona to justify a separate page? If so, please make it clear how the information should be divided. Which page should carry the bulk of the data? The redundant propagation of data on both pages is absurd. Skopp (Talk) 00:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think two separate pages is fine with the bio information on this page and the website information on the Drudge Report page. --PTR 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If only it were that simple. The data for one is intimately wrapped up with the data for the other, which is why some editors are maintaining the same data on both pages. Skopp (Talk) 14:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems common enough to have them split: Johnny Carson and The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor, Al Franken and the Al Franken Show. --PTR 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but notice how the show page is enormous in those cases, with lists of music, guests, etc. I mean, if we followed that precept everywhere, we would have another page for Drudge's radio show, but we don't. Look at the Drudge Report page, it's just a stub, really. Most of the data is already on the Matt Drudge page. I think the case for keeping it separate is thin. There are other personalities with their own websites, books and radio shows without having separate entries for them. Skopp (Talk) 00:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• de-indent. Anyway, I'll let the situation sit for a while, days or maybe a week or two, to see if we get any further comments on either the merge or the Kofman/gay issue. Unless there are significant further comments, I'm inclined to leave the pages separate because apparently nobody but me thinks they should be merged. I've also seen nobody volunteer on how to effectively divvy up the pages so that there is no duplication, so I'm inclined to put most info on the Matt Drudge page, where people are most likely to read, and leave the Drudge Report page as small page simply describing the site's format and traffic history. More in a week or so .... Skopp (Talk) 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Skopp I agree. It seems most sensible to leave them separate in that they are two different items and both are newsworthy. There could definitely be some cleanup in removing duplicate material but I imagine there should be some overlap simply because some events pertain to the Report and Drudge himslef equally. However, since it has been decided not to merge the pages I am going to remove the merge tag unless anyone has strong reasons not to. -Rtrev 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP text moved here

In 2002 Drudge went further and threatened to sue actor Alec Baldwin after Baldwin claimed that Drudge was gay and had propositioned him.

I moved this text here since I have searched the archives for the NY Post and can't find any article with Baldwin or Drudge on 8/06/2002. I think it would be better to track it down and make sure it exists before posting. IMDB on it's own shouldn't be used since they don't guarantee the information on their pages is accurate. --PTR 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a direct link to the Howard Stern Show archives. Baldwin clearly did make that claim. I'm not sure why Page Six does not show it in their archives, but I can imagine why.   Skopp   23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The site I cited is not a "blog", it's a close description of everything that is said on the Stern Show, ranging across many years. It confirms what Baldwin said. As to the lawsuit, Crockspot supports the use of secondary convenience sources, as do I. If you Google "Drudge Baldwin tabasco", you'll find a few references to the Page Six item on various fora where people discuss reading it, in 2002 (example), so we can be sure it was printed. If you are in the USA, you can try to access the physical source of the NYP for that date to satisfy yourself.   Skopp   03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is how MarksFriggin.com shows in google.

MarksFriggin.com - SternSuperFan.com - Howard Stern Show Fan SiteDaily Howard Stern Show highlights, affiliate station list, TV show schedules and more.

www.marksfriggin.com/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

It's a fan site not the archives and Baldwin having said Drudge tried to pick him up is not the point of the text - the lawsuit part is.

I know you'll find many references to the page six article but people saying they read it are not reliable sources. Until we can nail down that the page six article does exist, I think it should stay on the discussion page. If you want me to post this at BLP, let me know. --PTR 12:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the new ref still lists the page six article as the primary source. If we can locate that article then I have no problem including this but as posted on WP:BLP:

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

I think we should post this on BLP for comments. --PTR 14:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Your argument is weak. Go ahead and post it to BLP. Sources do not have to be available online, as long as we can reliably say they were published, and there are enough secondary sources to confirm that (sources that have stood unchallenged (IMBD, MediaLife) for over 5 years).   Skopp   15:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also written to the NYP to ask about that report. If anyone is in NY, perhaps they can look at a paper or microfiche or other archive (at the NYP or a large library). Look at date August 6, 2002.   Skopp   15:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PTR edits

PTR, most of your edits are not justified. Please discuss them here before making further edits. This is a carefully watched page.   Skopp   23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Breitbart

The Breitbart material is entirely germane to this article. Breitbart is Drudge's chief collaborator on his website; in fact, his only assistant and co-worker ever, and moreover someone who to this day constructs the Drudge Report to a great extent. There is no need to reduce the mention of Breitbart to a stub.   Skopp   03:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved this to the Drudge Report section since you are right about it being germane in that context. I also apologize for not discussing the edits. The breitbart section had been added without discussion so I didn't think it would be a major point. --PTR 13:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC Page Six Material

I moved the text in question to the talk page. I have searched the archives for the NY Post and can't find any article with Baldwin or Drudge on 8/06/2002. IMDB on it's own shouldn't be used since they don't guarantee the information on their pages is accurate and Medialife quotes the Page Six article. --PTR 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've added it to the BLP noticeboard too.   Skopp   15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - IMDB is not a reliable source, and should not be used to source anything further than what films someone appeared in. I could not find the Post article either, but I did find a couple of abstracts from the same time period that seem to either reference the incident, or the Post story about it.[10][11] - Crockspot 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see anything related in the second link, did you link the right one? The full text of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is:

The off-center square

We recently noted that Alec Baldwin's career nose-dive had landed him a cozy seat in the geometric wasteland known as the "Hollywood Squares." Now it seems that the head of the Baldwin brood is looking for other ways to keep his name in the news - namely, fighting a media war on two fronts. The always combative Alec has locked horns with New York Post gossiper Richard Johnson, as well as Internet news hound Matt Drudge.

During a recent visit to Howard Stern's radio show, Baldwin, upset at some Post rumor-mongering, turned down Stern's offer to meet Johnson in the boxing ring. But he then added that "a boxing match with Richard Johnson would be over in 60 seconds. I would beat Johnson's (butt) so bad." As for Drudge, he's fuming over Baldwin's allegations that the reporter came on to the hunky-but-chunky star in a hallway at ABC studios. As Johnson himself reported, Drudge responded with: "I've never met Alec Baldwin. If he has fantasies about being cruised by guys ... maybe he can star in 'Cruising Part 2: The Troll Years.'"

--PTR 20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a google news archive search on: Drudge Baldwin, limited to 2002. The google return for the second link had some text that looked relevant. See here. - Crockspot 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have real life stuff to do right now but I'll check them out tomorrow. --PTR 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have no real life, so I checked that link out, and even without paying to access the two newspapers Crockspot referenced, I can ascertain that the text you excised is supported by the archives of reputable, large newspapers.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch : PEOPLE St. Louis Post-Dispatch - NewsBank - Aug 8, 2002 as Johnson himself reported, Drudge responded with: "I've never met Alec Baldwin. If he has fantasies about being cruised by guys ... maybe he can star in

Lexington Herald-Leader : OUTTAKES -
AT THE BOX OFFICE Lexington Herald Leader - NewsBank - Aug 9, 2002 MATT DRUDGE. THE Internet columnist threatened to sue Alec Baldwin after THE actor told Howard Stern That DRUDGE hit on him. Baldwin recounted: "He said, ...

Two large newspapers still carrying unredacted text in their archives that proves the case. Thank you!   Skopp   00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Searching the NewsLibrary news archives for "Drudge AND Baldwin" in August, 2002, I get:

New York Post (NY) - August 6, 2002

OK, ALEC: PUT UP YOUR DUKES

INTERNET columnist Matt Drudge would sue Alec ("Bloviator") Baldwin for slander, if he thought the former movie star had any money. "My lawyer tells me what [Baldwin] said about me is actionable, but does Alec have any cash left to collect damages?" Drudge wondered. Baldwin, upset over a recent PAGE SIX story, went on the Howard Stern radio show yesterday to vent his frustration over his moldering career and his broken marriage to Kim...

That clinches it. It's going back in.   Skopp   00:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Can we write up that he didn't threaten to sue though? Because his lawyer telling him that something is actionable and threatening to sue are two different things. --PTR 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When you tell a newspaper columnist that you're mulling over suing someone, and that you've spoken to your lawyer, that's a clear threat of legal action, and just about as close to suing you can come, without actually suing.   Skopp   16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the wording in the ref though. The wording is "my lawyer said this is actionable", it doesn't say he consulted his lawyer. The guy could have called him up after hearing about it. It also doesn't say he's mulling over suing him. There was no threat issued, just idle talk. --PTR 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is nitpicking, and argumentative. I also don't appreciate the way you simply go ahead and edit the page without waiting for feedback. That text was mulled over by many people for quite some time. "Idle talk" is not the same as contacting a newspaper to inform them that you have spoken to your lawyer.   Skopp   23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks good. Your wording is better. --PTR 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree 100% and think that there should be a title again like 'Allegations of homosexuality' Okay? •smedleyΔbutler• 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, don't do that please. It's not handled that way on the Anderson Cooper page, and we don't want this page to turn into a hatchet job. A heading like that invites vandalism and partisan deletions.   Skopp   07:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the title "Allegations of homosexuality" itself sounds almost NPOV. I think the Anderson Cooper page handles it well. I don't think it needs its own section because it hasn't really been a major biographical event. He was accused, he denied, there was a flap over it. I don't really see it continuing to be mentioned in articles in the last year or more. --Rtrev 01:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned as recently as this week: [12] --Eleemosynary 22:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that article, Eleemo; it's the best thing published on the subject of MD for a very long time. And even though the article goes even further on the gay issue, I think that the issue has enough coverage on his WP page, and I still oppose a separate heading to highlight it.   Skopp   00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Bmedley Sutler's stated goal is to use WP to "out" people such as Matt Drudge.[13] Bmedley's thoughts on this issue whould be ignored, as he is soapboxing. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDB Link

I removed the IMDB link because Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples says it should not be used as a source for trivia information.

Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.

We have the Page Six article ref that the information in the paragraph came from and another two references for that incident. --PTR 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course IMDB should not be used as a sole source, but it is perfectly acceptable as a convenience link, as it is in this case.  Skopp   03:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If it was just stating what the article says, I would accept that it serves as a convenience link. But in this case the IMDB adds more trivia than exists in the actual article. It says he threatened Baldwin with a lawsuit which the Page Six article doesn't say. --PTR 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheez, talk about splitting hairs!   Skopp   01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not popular when questioning refs. I know they take a while to track down. I was just going by what the convenience link page says:

It is important to ensure that the copy being linked is a true copy of the original, without any comments, amendations, edits or changes. When the "convenience link" is hosted by a site that is considered reliable on its own, this is relatively plausible to assume. However, when such a link is hosted on a less reliable site, the linked version should be checked for accuracy against the original, or not linked at all if such verification is not possible.

--PTR 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DrudgeReport.jpg

Image:DrudgeReport.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

U.K. in an uproar over prince Harry Wales being outed by Drudge

Someone should update the "influence" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.52 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Patronizing statement

The following statement appears in the Drudge Report section of this article:

Drudge frequently links to Breitbart's site, but does not get paid for this service, although it does provide Breitbart with income.

I think this statement should be revised. The source does state that Breitbart's popularity is due in great part to traffic directed through the Drudge Report. This statement, however, makes it sound like Breitbart is some would-be poor boy, who has a friend named Matt Drudge who is kind enough to link to his site so that Breitbart can have an income too. Your thoughts? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The source states that "....Drudge... said, adding that he holds no financial stake in Breitbart.com nor does he receive any compensation from its founder." The source also shows that this linkage is a major source of income for the Breitbart site. So the statement is factual, not patronising. How would you rephrase it? It would appear that this linkage is indeed some sort of favor to Breitbart, but no "poor boy" implications are there. ► RATEL ◄ 05:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Journalist vs gadfly vs gossipmonger vs aggregator

I simply love the fact that this article so obviously includes elements of vilifying Drudge. The pen is mightier than the sword! As he said to the National Press Club on June 2, 1998, "You know, these questions are pretty tough, and I think if you directed this type of tough questioning to the White House, there'd be no need for someone like me, quite frankly." Since the article refuses to give him any more credit than being the "proprieter" of his website and "Internet News Aggregator" (both of which are patently false, since he shines a spotlight on certain facts, not the whole of Internet news), maybe you guys could call him a "media terrorist" or "journalistic freedom fighter." At the very least, give the man his due and call him a gossip columnist or media gadfly. He certainly does more than own a website or "aggregate" the news. 71.156.37.39 (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted the following on Elsendero's talk page, because of his unexplained revert of my changes.

Three points:

1) You did not explain your reasons on the talk page, as I did. Please do so, because a brief statement like "those are problematic, too" just doesn't cut it.

2) You did not explain why you feel author and editor are inappropriate. Is there any question that Matt Drudge is the author of that website? And as far as editor, I can understand your misconception because of the common understanding of editor. But, if you ask anyone who has worked as an editor at a major newspaper (as I have), they will tell you that the primary job of editors is to select articles to be published and write headlines. That is precisely what Drudge does. In any newspaper, the job description "selects articles to publish and writes headlines" would qualify as an editor. In smaller community newspapers, where basically all the stories are off the wire, the editor(s) do nothing else but exactly what Drudge does.

3) If my terms are problematic, why are YOUR problematic terms somehow superior to mine? Your position does not require that my terms be somehow "problematic." It requires an assertion that your terms are LESS problematic than mine.

Until these points are remedied, I am going to revert your changes. Post your reasons on the talk page and describe your position. Wikipedia etiquette certainly requires at least that much. 75.3.194.189 (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elsendero" 75.3.194.189 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, aggregator is not my term. It could be that there is better way to summarize his role than that. But editor is not an improvement, because it connotes the role of a supervisor and coordinator of the submissions of others, as you say, like on a newspaper. Author would be an entirely new insertion, suggesting that he authors content - which does happen, but very infrequently. Elsendero (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aggregator may not be your term, but it is the term you prefer, and it is patently wrong in its DENOTATION, as well as it connotation. Second, editor is better than aggregator in its denotation, and as I explained, editors in newspapers often do not change anything except headlines. I don't see how something that is patently wrong in its denotation is preferable to something that is arguably wrong in its connotation. I hate to say this, but I think the problem here is your ignorance of journalism. And as far as author, you just conceded the point. It happens, therefore it is true and you are removing information. 75.3.194.189 (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How about finding some solid citations that call him a journalist or editor? It's not up to us to decide it, we must find sources. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Matt Drudge, editor of the Drudge Report"

• http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/18/web-celeb-fame-tech-cx_de_07webceleb_1218top_slide_7.html?thisSpeed=20000
• http://www.learcenter.org/html/events/?year=1997 (USC School of Journalism)
• http://books.google.com/books?id=SqIDWVWKav8C&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=%22matt+drudge,+editor%22&source=web&ots=UuUkaXb7Yk&sig=1nWpUOmxBqaWKm5FDLJBJmydjVI&hl=en (Media text book) *http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3466710.ece (in editorial explanation)
• http://www.cspan.org/Search/advanced.asp?AdvancedQueryText=matt&EndDateMonth=1&EndDateYear=2005&ProgramIssue=&Series=&StartDateMonth=&StartDateYear=
• http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/page070698.html
• http://www.observatoriodaimprensa.com.br/artigos.asp?cod=299MON002 (Brazilian website in Portuguese)

Is that enough? 75.2.219.5 (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Shift Towards Obama

My addition was totally deleted with poor, confusing explanation by an unsigned user, and in my humble opinion, this just doesn't make much sense. I do think my old headline was not well-chosen, and I've fixed that. The article cited is on the front page of Politico today. I'm not here to spell out the important of Politico, but it drives a great deal of the mainstream media narrative. It's article merely brings to a huge forum something that has been the buzzing on the blogosphere for the last six months. It's big news. It assesses carefully and in measured language a long-term, slow shift in Drudge's politics. It's interesting and totally consequential and it will be cited all over the place for months if not years. For those readers interested in the major developments of Drudge's politics, the article marks a major change in perceptions of Drudge. It's important. Wbroun (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, user:Ratel, if you want to revert, please offer an argument and full explanation. I have left a message on your talk page. The section on Drudge's political shift this year is hardly controversial or speculative according to dozens of widely respected sources. It's important and, if you know the subject which I assume you do, it's very hard to dispute. I urge you to refrain from reverting especially without explanation. It seems unnecessary in this case. Wbroun (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring "conservative" in first line

Anonymous editors and now User:CENSEI are edit warring this word from the top line. There are literally hundreds of references to the Drudge Report as being conservative on the Internet, many from articles in prominent newspapers. Some of the citations can be seen on the Drudge Report under the section called Conservativism. Then you have articles like this that make it crystal clear that the site is indeed generally considered conservative. Censei now insists we have to have confirmation of the site's political leanings from Drudge himself. Why? That is original research. This is not controversial BLP data. We are a tertiary source, and there are innumerable secondary sources for the site's conservative slant. Lastly, Drudge has stated that he is conservative. Why would a self-confessed conservative own and manage a website that is anything but conservative? Obviously the site is conservative. This is an illogical and stupid argument, verging on vandalism. ► RATEL ◄ 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Drudge, not the Drudge report. Please find something about Drudge from Drudge or its unatributed POV.

If he really is one of those wicked "self confessed conservatives" then by all means paste a link to his "confession" for al lof us to read. CENSEI (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cited it. Now what is the objection? Drudge is notable only for one thing, his website. If he and his website are considered conservative it is fair to note both as a way of saying what he is notable for. Let's cut the procedural objections. I can't see why calling him conservative would be a problem for anyone. Is there a claim that either Drudge or his website are not conservative? Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its POV, and at this stage its unattributed POV. You are using someone else’s opinion to label Drudge as a “conservative” and not informing the reader who the labeler is. Its clearly meant in a derogatory manner and his political views are covered in an entire section of the article. He was also notable for his TV and Radio show.CENSEI (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are he and his site conservative or not? If he is, there is nothing wrong with referring to them as such. We do the same in most articles from one side of the spectrum or the other, e.g. the The Huffington Post. It appears that various reliable sources describe him as such. Is there any real dispute over this? Does he dispute it himself? Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What I think doesn’t matter, unless Drudge describes himself and his work that way, its POV for us to do so, and to do so without attribution as you continue to do. I have every right to revert you on this, as its a BLP issue, but I (unlike you Mr Stalker) will take the high road on this one. CENSEI (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What you think is the exact point. The material is sourced, and fairly reports the sources. If you revert I'll report this as to the ANI/3RR. I'm trying to figure out if there's a bona fide objection here, or simple disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its being said "without attribution". Linking an opinion to a reliable source without making attributing who is saying what (when dealing with subjective material like political persuasion) is still a POV violation. CENSEI (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I"m not going to argue process or Wikipedia philosophy here. He appears to be conservative based on the sources. Are you saying he is not, or are you just raising objections? Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You dont get it do you? There is no attribution of the opinion. Without it its a POV and therefor a BLP violation. End of story. CENSEI (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I get it just fine. Wikipedia allows cited attributions that particular people or publications have viewpoints that are liberal, conservative, or whatever other political orientation they may have. If that is the prevailing analysis it can be said. If it is a defining feature, as with the Huffington POst, it is reasonable to state in the lead. Where it is a viewpoint not universally held or where the statement is a matter of criticism (e.g. Fox News or CNN) then that fact should be noted, and significant minority viewpoints mentioned. Where the characterization of political leaning is not shown to be relevant or widespread (e.g. the Congressional Record]]) then there is no point mentioning it. I'm trying to figure out if you actually have an objection that Drudge Report is not conservative, or perhaps that the conservative slant is not a defining feature of the site. The sources I reviewed seem to show it is, so I'm trying to figure out if there a real issue here. Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Incidentally, I've taken the word "conservative" out of the lead but left it in the article body. Although there are lots of sources that describe it as conservative, it's not clear to me they say it is a defining feature of the site the way that conservatism is, say, for National Review. The best of the sources I saw, the CNET round-up of sites[14] says that critics say it tends to lean to the right, and that it is a haven for conservatives, which is much different than saying it has conservative content. I am truly not familiar with it other than its reputation for breaking news before others report it, and I have no axe to grind here. So I'll ask the same question in reverse to Ratel, do you think the site's conservatism is uncontroversial and accepted? Is that something the site freely accepts or is it, like say Fox News, simply claiming to publish the truth and saying that everyone else may be more liberal? How much a feature is that of the cite, and do you think you can get some other strong, unopposed sources? A passing reference by someone that a site is "conservative" is not nearly as strong as a non-editorial, non-opinion news article directly on the point that describes the site's conservatism in a neutral, factual way. Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

wikidemon, Drudge has stated "I am a conservative". It's on the page, cited. In addition, there are innumerable sources for the phrase "the conservative Drudge Report", many from impeccable sources like the Financial Times. It is simply a well known fact. Nobody claims the opposite, anywhere, or even that the site is fair-minded (a la Fox News). Drudge is a GOP supporter, votes GOP (by his own confession), does daily hatchet jobs on the opposition, always has. He stands in for Limbaugh and Michael Savage on their radio shows, for heaven's sake! This is an absurd discussion, just disruption IMO caused by a troll, in order to distract me from the vandalism he is perpetrating on another page I monitor, Bill Moyers. ► RATEL ◄ 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would leave that out of the lead. Maybe describe the DR as conservative in the lead? --Tom 14:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ps, maybe add conservative political writer or commentator or something, but definately do it after nationality per MOSBIO. --Tom 14:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that he is conservative, which seems plain, I would apply a two prong test to whether that fact should be mentioned in the lead. First, I would gather a sampling of some of the most reliable sources for the matter at hand, i.e. whether he is conservative and whether it is a primary fact of his public life. In the case of a contemporary news executive / owner, I would look to sources like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New Yorker, Time Magazine, and the like, and throw in a few outliers like Fox News, Salon.com, the Economist, a UK paper. Next, I would try to find the most comprehensive, neutral, biographical fairly recent article each has published about Drudge, something that has clearly gone through the publication's editorial vetting process. Then I would count them up. How many of these publications see fit, when they are describing his life, to mention prominently that he is conservative. Presumably, if they think it matters to telling his life story they will feature the fact; if they consider it incidental, they will downplay or omit it. Given the nature of the encyclopedia we should try to report what reliable sources think is important, not make that decision for ourselves. The second prong is a sanity check on the first. Does the reason why these sources mention his conservative seem logically to relate to notable things about his life. Or is it incidental. For most businesspeople the answer here is no - it for most a secondary biographical fact, or not important at all. However, for a few, particularly those in the publishing industry, or bloggers, columnists, editorialists, pundits, etc., their political stripe goes to the very nature of their profession. I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but I do see that even for some heavily politicized public figures like Ross Perot, George Soros, and Rupert Murdoch, their liberalism or conservatism is not explicitly mentioned in the lead. Wikidemon (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon. Is there any way you could make your "points" shorter? I see your large block and go augggg :) Seriously, I like the way that this "issue" seems to be handly in bios like Sean Hannity where he is described by what he does, ie conservative political commentator rather than "labeling" him a conservative. I also agree with your observation that most "heavily politicized" bios do not labeled them as such in the LEAD of their bios, as it should be, imho. --Tom 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading my long comments is nothing compared to the drudgery of a systematic attempt to discern the weight of the sources on something like this :) Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I like reading your long comments. They are well thought out and coherent. Keep it up! ► RATEL ◄ 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, oops. Pun not intended. Thanks BTW. Wikidemon (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I should explain, the agreement in Drudge Report was to label Drudge conservative per sources and then show what sources claimed it was conservative and let the reader decide. I think that was translated to this page Soxwon (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a seperate article and discussion it seems and could use help. Labeling the report conservative is different from labeling the individual. Best to avoid "labeling" folks and just describe why they are notable, especially in the lead. --Tom 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the article lead based on this discussion, as I understand it. By this discussion, I am including the information presented on both talk pages (Talk:Drudge Report and Talk:Matt Drudge) addressing the same question: should the conservative descriptor be used in the lead paragraphs of these articles, either to describe Matt, his Report, neither or both? They have not been seperate discussions thus far, as suggested. My edit:

• Per Soxwon, and the concensus agreement he says was reached, Matt is noted as conservative, while the Report is not directly labeled as such.
• Per Threeafterthree, Matt is not simply labeled as a conservative, but is described by what he does, "conservative creator and editor of the Drudge Report," (similar to Hannity's description mentioned above). Also per Threeafterthree, this is done after the nationality descriptor.
• Per Wikidemon, reliable sources should be used to support the description, and the description should be a significant enough part of the notability to warrant mention in the first paragraph. The sourcing of Matt's (self-admitted) conservatism is solid, and his notability is almost exclusively tied to his production of the Drudge Report, which is a politicized endeavor. Political bents are definitely warranted in the opening paragraph here as much as they are on, say, a Rush Limbaugh article.

Just an observation, is "conservative" the new 'N' word? It doesn't seem like this discussion would even have taken place a half-dozen years ago. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it the new 'N' word? I think it must be, given these discussions. Perhaps Dubbya made it shameful to be conservative because he so badly besmirched conservatism. Conservatives need to reclaim true conservatism and be proud again. We have to have them to counterbalance the lefties. Yin and yang. Conservatives, come out of the closet! :) ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There's something wrong with wikipedia when we have editors arguing so extensively about a fact mentioned everywhere from major newspapers, to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to thousands of blog pages. It's also common sense and clear to everyone with half a brain. It's like me going to the HuffPo page and vehemently arguing that the site is not left-leaning. I suspect that it may be a pathetic attempt to subvert reality for questionable political ends by camouflaging the allegiance of public figures and purveyors of news. ► RATEL ◄ 22:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, please try to assume good faith and not comment on the motives of other editors since some could say the same of you. Thanks,--Tom 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can anybody comment on how "liberal" bios are "treated" as far as the lead sentence goes. Is Arianna Huffington considered liberal? Is is correct that folks prefer progressive to liberal these days? --Tom 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In some parts of the world (eg Australia) "Liberal" means "Conservative". So progressive is better. ► RATEL ◄ 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for edits (what changes and why)

A few notes, 1) The concensus I reported was reached for the Drudge Report, I thought it was a good idea to bring it up here. 2) I think the conservative label on Drudge is indisputable, but the label on the report, of which most of the reports are not his, is not as clear and should be left up to the reader to decide 3) I think that the reasoning behind the word Conservative being left out is ppl don't want the negative image that comes with a news outlet being labeled 'slanted' which is absurd b/c all news outlets are slanted. While I would have reservations, I can't say that sticking the conservative tag on their isn't wholly unjustified, I just think that leaving it w/the reader will allow for more ppl to decide for themselves, rather than discouraging them through a label slapped on it by a website like WP. Soxwon (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Link

Actually, among the links I discovered searching the internet had Drudge himself saying he was a conservative. Hard to argue with that. I believe I left it in the Drudge article *checks* ah here it is: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/matt-drudge.html

he described himself as a "pro-life conservative who doesn't want the government to tax me."

As you can see, he freely admits to being a conservative, hardly debatable.Soxwon (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess the question is still how we word/write the lead section. --Tom 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

People whose conservatism defines them (Buckley, Limbaugh, and yes, Drudge) should have that fact in the lede of their article. Why is this even a dispute? There's nothing wrong with being conservative. H₂O Shipper 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As long if it is why they are notable, then that makes sense. Just as we don't describe a person as gay or Jewish in the LEAD unless it pertains to their notability. --Tom 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well considering we're having this debate I guess it's notable lol. Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I sure don't know, I haven't research this at all. I am, however, a minimalist and prefer to see the LEAD as "simple" and "clean" as possible, ie, Name(birth date), Nationality, why he/she is notable, period. I hate seeing "describers/labels" thrown into the lead unless they absolutely, positively, have to be there or people's heads will explode :). Anyways, --Tom 23:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you like your leads to be conservative is that? :P Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ok, who ever removed his nationality is going to get a fry pan over the head! just kidding :), and yes, I do like the lead written conservative :). If people ever knew how much ac@d I have eaten and how many dead shows I have seen and how I vote there heads would surely explode, but to date, I have NEVER revealed that here because then editors cry bais :) you can't win for trying, Anyways, I digress :) --Tom 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually don't you think that only eight mentions of the word "conservative" in this BLP is not enough for some? Collect (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the first mention of the word "conservative" out of the article. We can argue all day about whether the current "Drudge Report" is conservative or not, but say that it was back in 1997 is revisionism with no basis in reality. I read the Drudgereport in 1997. It was Hollywood Gossip, Political Gossip, and Sensationalism. Pretty much the same as it is today, in fact. The "conservative" tag got put on Drudge for two reasons. First, because he broke the Lewinsky Affair. This made him "anti-Clinton" in the mainstream left's eyes and they interpreted that as anti-left and therefore "conservative". In truth, it was just the same sort of sensationalistic journalism Drudge had been practicing from the start. If Clinton were a Republican he would have covered it just the same. The second reason stems from the fact that Drudge himself is Conservative/Libertarian in his personal politics. This revelation however, didn't come out much later when he started doing his radio show, in which unlike his web property, he engages in personal commentary. People saw that Drudge was personally conservative, so that made it easier to tag his website as "conservative" too. Curiously, the NY Times doesn't receive the qualifier "liberal" even though nearly everyone who works at that magazine, as well as the owner, are all leftists. But I digress. The point is, whatever you want to call the Drudgereport today, NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, was calling it a "conservative" website in 1997. The popular pejorative in those days was "gossip" site. There should be no revisions on this unless somebody can find reference to Drudge being labeled "conservative" in 1997, which just isn't going to happen. That didn't become a talking point of the left until many years later- basically around the time Drudge started his Radio Show.Bogan444 (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had reintroduced the word "conservative" before studying this debate/conflict, and have since reverted my own edit, as I do not wish to be part of any edit warring. Yet it seems fair to me to label a news site as conservative, if a serious and reliable source supports that claim. "Conservative" is not a bad word per se, especially as long as it undisputedly serves the purpose of informing the reader about a certain subject. Furthermore, a news site does not necessarily have to reflect the political, cultural or other views of its creators or owners. Thus, Drudge being conservative or not is one issue, and the Drudge Report being conservative or not is another. Therefore, I fully understand Bogan444's arguments. Still, I think the lead should be corrected, as the characterization of Drudge as conservative, populist etc. is not attributed to anyone. This should be clarified per WP:WEASEL. Catgut (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem - you might wish to note that one proponent of including contentious material has since been banned from WP ... the actual site is pretty much as neutral as any news aggregator gets other than his occasional needles in how the link is worded. Very little is written by Drudge at all - it is links to major news organizations. Collect (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)