Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Peter Brimelow

The lead says, "Until 2018, the website had also published articles by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow."

Brimelow was a columnist for CBS MarketWatch and his articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Harper’s, American Spectator, Commentary, National Review, National Post, Forbes, and other media.

He was an editor at Maclean's Magazine, Forbes and Barron's. His books have been published by Random House and Harper Collins and he and he was an advisor to U.S. Sen. Orin Hatch.

The article should explain why it is significant that the Daily Caller employed him, when so did many other publications. Furthermore, Brimelow was vigorously advocating white supremacy in the 1970s in otherwise reputable publications, so it's not as if no one else knew about it.

I am not saying that they or any other medium should have published his articles. However, I would like to see reliably sourced expert commentary about why this crossed the line compared with other publications. TFD (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that The Daily Caller published threefour Peter Brimelow articles -- March 14 2017, April 4 2017, April 12 2017, September 14 2017 -- and later erased them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Update: there were four in the last complete archived copy that I could find of the Daily Caller's (now erased) author page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

For the sentence in the lead "Until 2018, the website had also published articles by white supremacists such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow.[15][16]": I looked at an archived copy of cited source [15] Atlantic, it doesn't mention Peter Brimelow. I looked at cited source [16] Snopes, it doesn't say the publishing of Peter Brimelow went on until 2018. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence more or less implies that this publishing lasted for years up to that point. If no prior publications are identified, it should say that in 2017, the website published articles by these people. BD2412 T 19:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that The Daily Caller published three Jason Kessler articles -- April 3 2017, April 26 2017, May 14 2017 -- and later erased them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Brimelow is the 3rd of at least 4 white supremacists discussed in the article. Andre🚐 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So what? White supremacists are routinely published by all major media. You need to explain in the article why publishing three articles by Brimelow reflects badly on the ''Daily Caller'', while it doesn't reflect badly on the ''New York Times'' and other mainstream media.

The section about Kessler is confusing. He was a supporter of Barack Obama whom the outlet hired to write two or three articles. He later went on to organize the United the Right Rally, at which point the outlet removed his writings from their site. So what exactly is the claim of wrong-doing?

From your comment that at least three or four white supremacists are mentioned in the article, I assume that listing them is intended to imply to readers that the Daily Caller is white supremacist. But articles should not imply information. Facts should be stated explicitly and opinions should always have in text citation. It's the failure to do that which makes this a hit piece, rather than an encyclopedic article. TFD (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The statement that Daily Caller is associated with white supremacists comes from reliable sources and is attributed where appropriate. Such as the SPLC. Andre🚐 20:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, was associated, not is associated. The SPLC released its statement five years ago, and the Daily Caller cut ties with the named individuals four years ago or more. BD2412 T 21:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a fair argument, and if you have newer sources that show the Caller is cleaning up their act, we could and should portray that change. Andre🚐 21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources presently in the article showing that the outlet cut ties with the persons complained of are those sources. BD2412 T 22:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

When said incidents occur, they don't go into the memory-hole. What is needed is a source that says that since 5 years ago, the Caller has been a higher quality or more reputable outlet since addressing those particular incidents that are detailed in the article. Their lauded Murrow award was from 2012. Anything recently? Andre🚐 22:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So a ten-year old award is of no moment but a five-year old criticism with a reported four-year old resolution is current absent a source to prove the negative - does that mean that in five more years the critism, being ten years old, will be of no moment? For what its worth, the 2020 New York Times article cited in this article describes the controversies of the Daily Caller in the past tense. BD2412 T 22:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Both the award and the criticism are fair for inclusion, and both should be included and in appropriate weight and context. My point about the award was that, if the Daily Caller is turning over a new leaf and becoming a better quality outlet, you might expect them to win at least 1 award after the change in ownership. Andre🚐 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The SPLC is a reliable source and is routinely cited in reliable sources. I have no problem in using it as a source. However, this is not an issue of reliability, it is weight. We mention the SPLC's opinion of groups they designate as hate groups because mainstream media routinely mention their classification in stories about the group.

SPLC articles by their nature express their own opinions and do not seek different opinions or ask their subjects for their responses. We need secondary sources to establish the weight of the SPLC's conclusions.

To be fair, the SPLC is itself subject to negative opinion pieces and investigative journalism. And my reply on the talk page of its article is that in order to include that material we need to establish weight by showing that it was picked up in reliable secondary sources. When that happens, other views are sought and the SPLC is allowed to reply. Otherwise that article would also turn into a hit piece. TFD (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked out the article for the SPLC or edited it that I can recall. But I've used it to read up on things that SPLC has covered. I know that the SPLC can sometimes have an ideological perspective, and that's fine. That doesn't stop it from being mostly reliable for facts and information, and attributable where appropriate. Criticism of SPLC in RS is in the same vein. And I agree with you. We need to describe how the SPLC is viewed in RS by its critics in accordance with prominence of those descriptions and their appropriate reliability, or attribution as needed. Some criticism of the SPLC is trivial or unreliable or needs to be appropriately contextualized and rebutted. But for the most part, SPLC is considered a reputable organization and is regarded as within the mainstream of reputable organizations, if activist or advocacy-leaning.

The Daily Caller is much different. It's not a well-regarded organization at all. It's regarded as the butt of jokes, probably. We have to be fair to it, but we don't need to create a false balance where one doesn't exist. The Daily Caller doesn't get to have an article balanced 50-50 between Daily Caller is great and Daily Caller ain't too great. We just report what the sources say, proportional to the rough scope of their expression of what they say to the best of our ability. So far I haven't heard anything egregious about the present article, but of course editors are free to continue. Andre🚐 23:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No one, literally no one, is calling in these discussions for such a 50-50 balance. No one is taking the position that The Daily Caller is a great news source. The sole point of contention really is that the article should not read like a gripe site. BD2412 T 23:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, it just reads to me like a fairly average Wikipedia entry about such a topic. According to a study by Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, The Daily Caller was among the most popular right-wing news sites during the 2016 United States presidential election. The study also found that The Daily Caller provided "amplification and legitimation" for "the most extreme conspiracy sites", .... "utterly unsubstantiated and unsourced claim".... Seems to check out per Valjean's point that "they wield huge influence in the right-wing and far right-wing bubble" Andre🚐 00:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out earlier, the tone is far more negative than the article about the Der Stürmer. The justification seems to be that we don't need to warn people about Der Stürmer because it is no longer publishing and its views are very unpopular. But we need to use a highly negative tone in this article because the publication is in existence and is very popular.

Of course there is nothing wrong with writing an article that says the Daily Caller sucks. It's just that it violates policy to include such an article here.

In the example I provided above, the article mentions that the Dailer Caller published three articles by a white supremacist, which is reliably sourced. But that author published far more articles in mainstream media, such as the ''New York Times''. You need to explain why this case was different or rather cite rs that explain it. So that make take a bit of research and it may be there is no answer. TFD (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, nobody is saying we need to "warn" or we need to have a negative tone. We reflect the tone of reliable sources. It just so happens most reliable sources don't regard unreliable ones in a positive light, so we simply follow, not lead. Andre🚐 06:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeing that nobody has come up with anything suggesting Peter Brimelow wrote anything more than the four 2017 articles, I support removing "... and Peter Brimelow" from the sentence. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I agree, and I wonder how many of the other named writers complained of are similarly overstated. BD2412 T 14:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a problem with how articles report implicit rather than explicit criticism. Either we explicitly state what the implicit criticism is, which violates OR, or we merely repeat it, which violates impartial tone. To me, the solution is that if no reliable secondary sources report the criticism, then we omit it per weight.

Saying that the Daily Caller published white supremacists implies that it is itself white supremacist. But we need a reliable source that makes that claim directly.  Better still, we need a secondary source that reports on this criticism of the Daily Caller. It isn't acceptable to say that we have to work with the few sources we have, because if the issue has had little coverage, then there is no reason to include it. TFD (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, your suggestion that the article should "reflect the tone of reliable sources" goes against policy. Impartial tone says, "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." I suggest editors read the entire section.

The section also says that we should avoid direct quotes of commentators and instead summarize what they say, which is another reason this article lacks impartial tone. Wikipedia articles should be written from the perspective of an impartial observer, not a partisan.

Mosquitoes are responsible for the deaths of 52 billion people,[1] which is more by far than humans themselves have killed. Yet the article does not pass judgment on them.

TFD (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a misunderstanding about what the article actually does and what the guideline does. The article is not passing judgment: the tone is simply negative because the material is negative: but a negative tone in this case is an impartial reflection of the sources. The article should reflect "unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions" in reliable sources. No reliable sources seriously take the side that the Daily Caller is actually a reasonable and reliable publication, so our article doesn't either. The impartial tone guideline suggests not quoting participants in a heated dispute. It does not categorically recommend against quoting and attribution of material at all. Wikipedia:Attribution Editors should provide attribution for quotations. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_"equal_validity"_can_create_a_false_balance WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Andre🚐 17:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that Wikipedia present The Daily Caller as "actually a reasonable and reliable publication"; but are there any sources that present little more than a laundry list of grievances against The Daily Caller (including some items that are not practices out of the norm for media at all, but are presented as grievances with respect to this particular publication)? BD2412 T 18:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, but please note nobody has objected to the reasonable trimming and encyclopedization. But there seems to be an idea that summarizing certain associations or practices is airing dirty laundry. If white supremacists wrote for the Washington Post, and then other reliable sources wrote an article discussing that, that is fair game for our article: it's not automatically undue negative partisanship to say that this coverage is as TFD says, implicit criticism. It just so happens that most of the time, white supremacists don't write for non-white-supremacist publications because when they do, there is understandably a bit of a firestorm and judgment gets passed. But we have to be really clear: and I'm refuting TFD and not what you've just written BD2412: _Wikipedia quoting and/or summarizing a scandal is not passing judgment on the subject of the scandal, and information that the subject might want to make go away isn't automatically partisan criticism_. Andre🚐 18:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You do not appear to undertand what tone means. See grammarly: "What does tone mean?"

"Tone reveals the author’s attitude about a subject or topic to their reader. It can be delivered in different ways, like through word choice, punctuation, and sentence structure.

"It’s similar to when you’re engaging with someone in person. Your facial expression, vocal pitch, and body language might convey a certain tone that informs the language you use in conversation.

"By using the right tone in your writing, your readers can better understand your emotions regarding a topic. It’s a signal to your reader about how your writing should make them feel. Your tone might be delightful or sarcastic, lighthearted or aggressive, among other types of tones, all through your writing."

Wikipedia articles are supposed to have an impartial tone. You are not supposed to inject your feelings and views into articles, no matter what the sources do. TFD (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But again, nobody is doing that. You're interpreting a critical or negative tone in this article because the reliable sources we rely on for the article have a critical or negative tone. However the article itself simply neutrally reflects that reliable sources have been critical. We are not injecting feelings or views into the article. In fact I've scarcely edited the article. I'm sure the article entirely organically has ended up the way it is: it is not a hit piece and to suggest that it is, is a violation. Andre🚐 21:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, Peter Brimelow does write for non-white-supremacist publications most of the time, which is why you need to explain why his writing for the Daily Caller is noteworthy. In fact he has written for CBS Marketwatch, Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Commentary and Macleans and the Financial Post in Canada. Lou Dobbs, who defamed Latino immigrants, according to the SPLC, was broadcast 4 hours per night for years on CNN. Tucker Carlson, who has been criticized for his ties to white supremacists, had shows on CNN and MSNBC. Why is Brimelow's publication of 3 articles in the Daily Caller significant? I am not saying it is not significant, just that we need a reliable source that explains this before including.

Some could argue that none of these publications should ever have published these authors, and the fact they did shows that they are white supremacists themselves. But that still brings us back to why you single out the Daily Caller. TFD (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you're doing too much. Just write what reliable sources say. Do reliable sources say it about CBS? If so, add it there. The sources do say it about the Daily Caller.[2][3][4][5] publishing a regular column by the elder statesman of the racist movement, Peter Brimelow. Brimelow wrote four op-eds for the Caller in 2017. He is a “zealous promoter of white-identity politics” whose anti-immigrant website VDare.com is “popular with the alt-right” and, by Brimelow’s own admission, publishes white nationalist writers, according to The Washington Post. Brimelow was a guest at the home of Larry Kudlow, President Donald Trump’s chief economic advisor, in August. His first piece for the Caller, in March 2017, defended Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) racist remark that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” Andre🚐 21:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See "SPLC PRESIDENT CALLS ON CNN TO REMOVE LOU DOBBS FROM AIR, CITES NEWSMAN'S SUPPORT FOR EXTREMIST-INSPIRED 'BIRTHER' CLAIMS" (SPLC July 24, 2009). Many reliable sources noted that Lou Dobbs' connections with [I don't want to violate BLP but you know who and what]. Dobbs was broadcast on CNN four hours every week night for years, while the Daily Caller published three or four articles by Brimelow.

Why do you think that this article should have extensive information about Brimelow, while the CNN article shouldn't mention Dobbs? And why do you find it significant that Brimelow knows Kudlow, yet don't think the article about CNBC should mention Kudlow, even though he worked there for 13 years?

Why do you think we should only report SPLC criticism when it is directed against right-wing publications and not when it is directed against mainstream media? TFD (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Simple answer, I think the CNBC article should mention Kudlow and I think the CNN article should mention Dobbs. CNN has also run noted religious right homophobe Rick Santorum. This info should be in its article. Andre🚐 00:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you arguing for that over on those articles then?

I would agree with you provided we had a source that explained why it was significant and how it compared to other mainstream media. As far as I can tell, a few Democrats have brought up Brimelow but don't complain about pro-Democratic media for doing the same thing. It's the pot calling the kettle black and it's disingenuous no matter which side does it. TFD (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In this thread two editors, Peter Gulutzan + BD2412, support removing "... and Peter Brimelow" in the lead sentence mentioned in this thread's first sentence. Two editors, TFD + Andrevan, have not (as far as I can tell) said they support or oppose that specific suggestion. Are there watching editors with an opinion on this specific suggestion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if anyone could explain the significance of the section. By all means remove anything or everything from it. TFD (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I would reduce it to perhaps two sentences, and qualify that the same writers were also published on media outlets across the perceived political spectrum. It does not belong in the article lede. BD2412 T 18:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the thread topic is Peter Brimelow. I removed "... and Peter Brimelow" from the lead sentence as discussed, and if the removal survives we should look at cutting down or removing what's about him in the body. Looks like the first insertion was a bold edit by Avaya1 and expansion came later. Suggestion: remove "... by Peter Brimelow, founder of the white supremacist website VDARE,[92][98] and ..." but keep and link Peter Brimelow in the next paragraph after changing the first sentence to "A Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) blog said in 2017 that The Daily Caller had a "white nationalist problem", citing contributions by Jason Kessler, Peter Brimelow, Greer, and Ilana Mercer.[93]" For adding that they were published elsewhere, we'd need cites. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the removal from the lede but I will certainly revert the removal from the body if you do that. There is no consensus to whitewash this. Andre🚐 16:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Three editors agree there should be reduction of Peter Brimelow material in the body but haven't agreed about the specific wording/citing change so no progress. For Jason Kessler I'll start a different thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Who "discovered" that they were publishing white supremacists?

Re: this revert, no. The Caller did not "repudiate" Spencer et al. after their bigotry was "discovered". This wording is euphemistic to the point of absurdity, if not outright dishonesty.

The cited sources are pretty clear about this:

• Snopes notes that ProPublica "discovered" that the Caller was publishing white supremacists, and even then the Caller initially refused to take down the material because they felt it was "factually accurate".
• CNN says that the Caller published incitements encouraging peopel to mow down protesters with their cars, and removed them only after a right-wing extremist did exactly that in Charlottesville. To say that the Caller "repudiated" the work after "discovering" its bigoted or extremist nature is just plain false—they repudiated it in the wake of extremist violence of the kind which it had encouraged.
• The Times likewise makes absolutely clear that the Caller backed off its extremist content in response to the murder of a protester in Charlottesville—not because it "discovered" its writers' white-supremacist ties.

Time to make the article reflect the actual sources; I'm pretty alarmed by the re-write which seems to seek to bludgeon people into whitewashiing what sources say. MastCell ^Talk 01:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any movement towards putting similar statements in the lede of all the other and more moderate outlets in which the same people were published, so have those been whitewashed as well? Or is there some bias that militates towards picking out one particular outlet for anomolous treatment? BD2412 T 02:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You're not seeing that because reliable sources don't support it. Reliable sources discuss the Caller as an outlet that has repeatedly published white supremacists and other right-wing extremists. If reliable sources say similar things about other outlets, then those articles should of course be edited to reflect those reliable sources. But that's not an excuse for censoring or bowdlerizing reliable sources on this article, as you're attempting to do. MastCell ^Talk 02:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is repetitive of discussions in previous sections. Multiple less derided outlets "repeatedly" published the same authors. Snopes is of questionable value here as the sole source to lean on for this, and even Snopes only references one such author, and notes that The Daily Caller had suspended their relationship with that one auther well before Charlottesville. BD2412 T 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This "other outlets" argument continues not to hold water. Let's go and improve those other articles, then. Andre🚐 02:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is, again, the entire discussion we have had two sections above this. The DC published a relative handful of articles by freelance journalists also published by numerous other publications, and apparently cut ties with all of those journalists half a decade ago. The significance of this is inflated to WP:COATRACK proportions by mentioning it in the lede. BD2412 T 02:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The CNN article saying that the Daily Caller incited the violence was published as opinion and/or analysis and therefore is not reliable for a statement of fact. Incitement to violence is a crime and AFAIK no one at the Caller was charged with this. While BLP crime may or may not apply, we shouldn't accuse people of crimes unless they have been convicted.

Note that Donald Trump was impeached for allegedly inciting the 1/6 attacks and may face criminal charges. Incitement to violence is prosecutable.

The problem is that we don't have adequate sources to write a neutral article beyond a stub. Editors who want a descriptive article should go to the library and find reliable sources instead of arguing on the talk page.

I would welcome a comprehensive article about the Daily Caller and would contribute if anyone could find reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's no consensus to stubify the article so you may as well abandon that line of argument. Andre🚐 03:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if we left the "History", "Political stances", "Staff, contributors and organization", "Check Your Fact subsidiary website", and "Awards" sections as is, reduced the "Journalistic standards" to the lede of that section and a paragraph summarizing the other matters, and jettisoned the rest, it would not be a stub at all, but a reasonably informative article of reasonable length. BD2412 T 04:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I set up a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#News media coverage. This seems to be a general problem sith marginally notable topics. They make the news when things go wrong, not when things go right. Since there is substantial coverage of major topics, such as CNN, criticism of them by the SPLC is given little or no weight, while it dominates this article. TFD (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Mastcell here: The passive "it was discovered" omits the fact that other media outlets pointed out it to them, which seems to be a pertinent detail to include. We need to be very careful to avoid the appearance of whitewashing here.

As for the other outlets who haven't published them, OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to remove content here. Feel free to add that information to those other articles if it has been covered by reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a serious failure of verification in the sources provided to support the assertion in the lede implying that there were multiple instances of contributors being repudiated "after other outlets highlighted their white-supremacist and extremist links, or after acts of right-wing violence"; while there are multiple contributors or pieces that have been repudiated, the sources all reference a single contributor, and a single instance of violence which occurred, after the repudiation of that contributor. The lede currently presents the false claim that there were multiple such instances. If there is only a single one receiving coverage, that doesn't merit inclusion in the lede at all. BD2412 T 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and reworded the passage so that it can be clarified and verified here first. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is about arguments to keep articles in deletion discussions. Can you explain its relevance to this discussion? Or did you mean WP:OTHERCONTENT? TFD (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with dlthewave and MastCell. It's fallacious reasoning to complain that other articles are treated more kindly. Just improve those articles and stop the no-consensus crusade to whitewash this one. edits [Andre🚐 17:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)] Andre🚐 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

How do you suppose it would play out if we tried to add a line to the lede of The New York Times stating that they published pieces from White supremacists, and only stopped when others called out those writers? Also, given that the NYT was founded in 1851, it is a statistical certainty that the NYT has published far more from White supremacists than the DC ever has. BD2412 T 16:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have some RS that talk about the NYT's publication of white supremacists? Start with what the RS say. Andre🚐 17:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if the exact same freelance journalist has pieces published in the NYT and the DC, they are only a White supremacist with respect to their pieces published in the DC? BD2412 T 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously a straw man: again, our own research and our own opinions are irrelevant: what matters is what RS say. If RS write up the DC saying they publish white supremacists, that is relevant. If RS say the same about CNN or NYT that is relevant. If RS have a gap in their fact pattern, we're going to reflect that same gap, and not correct it. DC according to RS, publish[ed] a regular column by the elder statesman of the racist movement, Peter Brimelow. Did NYT do the same? Andre🚐 18:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT say, "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists...in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article....comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."

IOW we can't compare this article with random others because they may be as bad as this one. But we can compare it with good articles such as CNN, which had good article status from 2008-2018 or The Washington Post (featured article (featured article 2013).

in any case, the response to a comparison should be WP:RANDOMPOLICY, but an explanation of why the comparison is invalid. You can say for example that the CNN and NYT articles are flawed, which raises the question of why you are working on this article rather than them, since they have wider readership. WP:OTHERWHATEVER isn't a magical incantation that should substitute for reasoned argument. TFD (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to work on whatever article they find interesting. Andre🚐 17:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ask you whether you were allowed to work on articles you find interesting, but why you find it interesting to work on this one rather than CNN or NYT. A simple "I refuse to answer that question" would have sufficed, and I could have drawn my own conclusions. TFD (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I very well may work on the CNN or NYT article, but I'm not the person who wrote any of this article, so I was speaking more in general. Editors are going to do what they do. Andre🚐 20:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan: Accusing other editors of a crusade to whitewash crosses several lines. Levivich (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, though it may be toeing close to the line, but I agree with MastCell's comment that I'm pretty alarmed by the re-write which seems to seek to bludgeon people into whitewashiing what sources say. Andre🚐 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Reducing a current state of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK coverage does not amount to whitewashing. To repeat for the umpteenth time, no one is advocating for saying that The Daily Caller is a good source, or a reliable source, or a politically mainstream source. BD2412 T 17:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll strike my comment since MastCell said it better. This has nothing to do with COATRACK and that's a misuse of that essay. Read the COATRACK article. It's not about negative information, it's about tangential info. Nor is it UNDUE if the RS cover it: we reflect what RS say proportionally, and it so happens this gets attention. Andre🚐 17:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Information presented substantially out of proportion to its relevance to the subject is certainly tangential. BD2412 T 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Am not trying to quibble on semantics here but "tangential" means following a line that is at best peripherally or anecdotally related, or is orthogonal to the material. The Daily Caller, and the right-wing media as a whole, coming under fire for criticism for working with white supremacists, is hardly tangential. The Daily Caller published an op-ed by anti-immigrant white nationalist Peter Brimelow defending Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) racist remark [6] if other outlets do that, please write about it on their article too. Andre🚐 19:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the presentation of this content in this article is disproportionate. Of all of the content published by the DC, only a slim fraction is attributable to people who have been identified as having such affiliations; conversely, of the thousands of articles about the DC, only a slim fraction address contributors having such an affiliation. I realize that this is difficult to parse in normal searches because of the large number of results that will be from, rather than about, this media, but a search of Newspapers.com (which does not index the DC) returns thousands of articles about the subject, but looking through at least the first few hundred of those fails to turn up any mention of the outlet publishing work by White supremacists. So far, the one piece I have found mentioning both terms ("Daily Caller" and "White supremacist") is a 2018 piece by Michael Barone writing for the Washington Examiner, merely noting that the Daily Caller had reported a quote about Dana Bash supposedly flashing a White supremacist hand gesture at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. BD2412 T 20:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Daily Caller" returns 3,823 hits in print media. "Daily Caller" and Brimelow returns zero print media results; "Daily Caller" and Kessler returns 17, or 0.45%, with the actual content being a mixed bag. A 2020 story notes this in a paragraph in passing, and says that according to Neil Patel, "the Daily Caller had not published articles with those views and now vets its authors more thoroughly". Tom Halleberg, "Jackson busines owners enforce piecemeal mask restrictions", Casper Star-Tribune (June 30, 2020), p. A1, A4. Perhaps more interestingly, an article published a month before the Charlottesville rally already refers to Kessler as "a local blogger who was recently fired by conservative website the Daily Caller for his support for white supremacist groups". Michael E. Miller, "Charlottesville on edge again as KKK wants to rally", The Daily News Leader via The Washington Post (June 7, 2017), p. A1. It seems odd in that context for Wikipedia to convey the impression that the Daily Caller acted in response to the violence at Charlottesville over a month before that violence occurred. BD2412 T 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

All this Google Fu doesn't prove much. Just look harder. Aside from the sources already in the article and already presented above, there are quite a few. First of all, you skipped Greer. The Atlantic last week was the first to report ties between a former Department of Homeland Security official, Ian Smith, and a group of known white nationalists, including Spencer. Greer’s role at Radix offers yet another glimpse into how members of an underground white-nationalist scene—emboldened by the rise of Donald Trump during the 2016 election—were able to operate relatively undetected in conservative institutions. [7] The Daily Caller harbored a racist. Or, better said, another racist. The Atlantic’s Rosie Gray uses leaked chat logs to establish that Scott Greer, who joined the Daily Caller in 2014, posted under the name “Michael McGregor,” on Radix Journal, a publication founded and published by white nationalist Richard Spencer.[8] [9] Andre🚐 20:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Greer is a problem in itself. We appear to be saying that the Daily Caller is culpable for someone posting under a pseudonym which was revealed only after he left the outlet. If Greer is at all notable, this should be in an separate article about Greer. BD2412 T 20:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Culpable"? The Daily Caller is not on trial, or charged with a crime. The Daily Caller is not a person. It is notable and significant that the Daily Caller had a columnist that was a secret white supremacist because his ideas and his entire intellectual foundation are implicated. We should write about what is significant and interesting and noteworthy, and let the reader decide what the implication is. It's a significant story and we should not be engaged in a tactic of trying to avoid making an outlet look bad. Andre🚐 20:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor should we be engaged in a tactic of trying to make an outlet look bad by providing a drawn-out narrative of things that those running the outlet could not have known about. There is a balance to be struck with this, and this article is very far on the side of intently trying to make things look much worse than the facts allow. BD2412 T 21:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the problem with saying the Daily Caller "published an op-ed by anti-immigrant white nationalist Peter Brimelow defending Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) racist remark." (The remark was, “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”) It's an opinion and therefore should be reported as such with intext attribution. In fact it was published by MMfA, which is strongly supportive of the Democratic Party, or at least the segment that supports the current leadership. CNN refered to the comments as "appeared to criticize foreigners and immigrants," and said that King said it was not racist.

In fact Steve King's comments received less note in his own article than they do here, and the term "racist" was not used. How is it that this article gives more criticism to the Daily Caller for publishing an article in defense of the comments than is given to the person who actually said them?

I question too how someone who began his career by trashing Bill and Hillary Clinton, and wrote a book trashing Anita Hill, with false claims should now be seen as a paragon of truth.

TFD (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MMFA aside, the facts are not in dispute. Steve King has made many racist remarks according to the NYT [10] WaPo [11] "embraced white supremacy" Politico [12] So, your digression and diversion about the Democrats and the Clintons is irrelevant and offtopic. Andre🚐 21:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source....if one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." What an article that doesn't mention the Daily Caller says about King or Brimelow is unusable as a source for this article.

The problem with your approach is that you want the article to say things you know to be true what aren't explicitly stated in any reliable source. It doesn't matter that your beliefs may be true or that you can prove them. If you would just limit yourself to policy and guideline based editing, we could avoid all this discussion. TFD (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Au contraire: it is not original research to write that Daily Caller published an op-ed defending Steve King's remarks. Reliable sources state that full-stop. As stated in MMFA and SPLC. These sources are reliable for facts but opinionated for attribution. If it's a given fact in other reliable sources that Steve King's remarks are racist, that eliminates the need to attribute the description. Original research and synthesis do not prohibit simple juxtaposition of reliably referenced basic background facts and corroboration of supporting facts (NOT conclusions). WP:SYNTHNOT. Furthermore, the incident is notable because the Caller themselves (along with GOP figures like McCarthy) joined in the condemnation of white supremacy by cutting ties with these individuals. In another circumstance: [13] Neil Patel, the publisher of the Daily Caller, told reporter Rosie Gray in response to her request for comment over a series of emails McHugh and Brooks exchanged after the former was fired by Breitbart in 2017, that “we have absolutely zero tolerance for these insane white supremacy types…We have dismissed Dave Brooks effective immediately based on the email correspondence you sent which we had never previously seen.” Rep. Steve King, a hero to white nationalists [14] Ingersoll responded by saying he was "insulted" by our questions and that he would have "fired Scott Greer instantly if I ever knew about his posting to that website." He also maintained that he has "rebuilt the process for vetting opinion contributors and for vetting news contributors," [15] Andre🚐 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, all of this happened 4-5 years ago. We're not discussing anything relevant to current processes or activities of the Daily Caller. BD2412 T 21:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

But articles aren't point-in-time scrubbed to eliminate past scandals. Those scandals are part of the historical and source record. Otherwise we may as well delete the USSR article since that's not a place anymore. Andre🚐 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The timeframe and scope of an issue relate to the amount of space an article should spend on the issue. Similarly, the comment that "All this Google Fu doesn't prove much" is too quick to dismiss what it does prove, which is that there is a proportionate amount of discussion in sources (that proportion being not much) from which this article is out of balance. BD2412 T 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That an opinion is held by more than one person and reported in more than one source does not transform it into fact. It is only when reliable sources say that there is a consensus that it was racist can we state that without attribution.

BD2412's comments about age brings up the issue of weight. You have failed to present any article specifically about the Daily Caller that could be used to establish the weight of the various stories written about it. While your efforts to boldly go where no one has gone before and determine what about the Daily Caller is noteworthy and what isn't, the result is a POV nightmare. TFD (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not need to state a consensus. Reliable sources, unrebutted, making statements corroborated by other reliable sources, have given us facts. Your own personal opinions and original research do not trump reliable source facts. Facts are what I'm referring to and not opinions. Steve King is a racist. That's a fact based on the fact that reliable sources state that he has literally performed racism and that makes him a racist, in Wikivoice. The Daily Caller isn't racist, but they've been associated with racists. Andre🚐 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)