Talk:Drudge Report: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 09:24, 10 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Drudge Report article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2018.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Florida Low‑importance

	Florida portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

The irony

Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede: " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question"

Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation!

It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite.

Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!" [Really?!? What a shocking surprise! Romney! Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. 96.239.90.181 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drudge's company name and U.S. Trademark registration

As I write this, the article does not mention the name of Drudge's company or his successful "Drudge Report" trademark filing, so here it is, all public domain information:

As an individual (not Digital, LLC), Matthew Drudge was granted U.S. Trademark protection for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018. He did not get protection for the word "Report" or for the use of any particular font stylings or color, just the basic letters forming the words. The filing included a screenshot of his website. He used a Trump photo and headline "TRUMP GOES BIG" from 2018. The Miami, Florida address given for the trademark registration is the same address for his Digital, LLC business name. Why he sought trademark protection as an individual and not under his company name is unclear. However, such an action would allow him to sell the website specifically in the future and still use his business name for other commercial projects. I don't intend to edit the article, so I am providing this information for anyone who is interested. 5Q5|^✉ 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may add a line or two to the article eventually if no one else does. 5Q5|^✉ 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Drudge?

The page massively supported Trump in 2016 and mocked him throughout the entire 2020 re-election campaign. The decline of the website confirmed by the Alexa ranking is massive, the page has lost nearly half of its readers compared with only one year ago indicating that many Conservatives and patriots are leaving this place as a source of information. Any further information why Drudge Report changed so drastically? 80.131.51.178 (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If evidence ever comes forward citable to a reliable or notable source making the claim that Drudge was paid to make the site switch to anti-Trump in 2020 and/or a bonus in the millions offered if Biden won and became President then it might be suitable for inclusion in the article. As of this date I haven't seen any business record evidence that the website has been sold; however, it might be possible to furtively structure a deal in the millions so that editorial control was sold while Drudge remains technically the backseat owner on record. Without Drudge, it's not easy to continue calling it the Drudge Report. 5Q5|^✉ 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for update

I have made some preliminary changes here [[1]], while leaving the current structure/organization intact—but believe it's well worth adding and/or expanding some related parts of the article. A couple brief examples:

The "business model" needs to explain how unique the Drudge Report is, how much it's worth (recent estimates of $100-200+ million), etc.
A "traffic" section should be separate. And the most recent and ongoing decline attributed to a change in Trump coverage means little without an understanding of the enormous traffic Drudge has historically attracted (as well as a huge prior decrease widely attributed to the explosion of Twitter and other social media).

Those are just a start—the Drudge Report was and continues to be an amazing phenomenon, one that nobody has been able to replicate, and IMHO the current article fails to convey how unusual it's history has been, in so many different ways. Any thoughts? And anyone want to collaborate on adding and organizing some of the above? Thanks so much! Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge Report is just a three-column newspaper, a masthead with three columns beneath it containing textual news, some imagery, separated by vertical lines. The three-column format has been around in newspapers since the 1700s. Drudge can't copyright the format and would lose any infringement or trademark lawsuit if someone did their own "Report." He couldn't get trademark protection in 2019 for the word "Report" because of the commonly used terms "news report," "special report," etc. It would require a lot of start-up money for tech support and be willing to find links 24/7 to create a competitor website. Unique? Only in name recognition and influence I guess. The Connecticut-based Capitol Report and New York-based Empire Report have used an identical format to the Drudge Report for years. See this 2018 news story on both. I've never edited the Drudge Report article before, and don't intent to become a regular, but I'm working on a line or two to mention his business name and trademark filing, probably for next week. 5Q5|^✉ 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an interesting and welcome addition. I don't know about trademarks and the like—but I'd point out that although a competitor would only require a single person with a computer, no one has imitated him with anything remotely like his level of success. The two sites you cite appear to be direct imitations of Drudge, and whatever its strengths may be, the Capitol Report got 12 million views a year—while Drudge has had 1500 times more, with 1.5 billion views in a single month, putting it ahead of Disney (including ESPN, ABC News, etc.), Yahoo, Google, Time Warner, and every other media source save MSN.^[1] That's more than triple the numbers for The New York Times. Drudge's format—it's almost an anti-format—is surely a throwback to newspapers, but it was unique in the world of internet news. And what's most remarkable isn't the look of the site, but the influence wielded by a man in his bedroom who simply aggregates links. He drove enormous amounts of traffic to specific stories and outlets. What explains his incredible success—his curatorial skill or "taste" in articles?

^ "U.S. Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016". Similarweb. Retrieved 2020-11-27.

Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge Report uses a javascript code to auto refresh the page (Google search) at regular intervals; thus, massively inflating its page views. In addition, since it's a link site, the same people return multiple times to go to the next link. I would trust only the number of unique visitors in a site like Drudge. Page views have less meaning if you know the system is being gamed. 5Q5|^✉ 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From 5Q5 - PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE as the opening paragraph in the Business model section:

Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned company called Digital, LLC, a limited liability company.^[1]^[2]^[3] As an individual, Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.^[4]^[5] The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color." The address recorded for the owner of the U.S. Trademark; that is, Matthew Drudge, and Drudge's Florida business entity Digital, LLC are the same.

^ "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

The references will of course appear in the article's lower reference section. If there is agreement I will publish it. 5Q5|^✉ 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FROM 5Q5 - PROPOSED REVISION, SIMPLIFIED:

Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned limited liability company called Digital, LLC.^[1]^[2]^[3] Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.^[4]^[5] The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color."

^ "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
^ "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

I omitted the last sentence about addresses matching, as it seems unnecessary, though it is true. If there is no objection after a week sitting here on the talk page, I will go ahead and publish it in the article, sometime next week. 5Q5|^✉ 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 5Q5|^✉ 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Russian government sources

As of 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC), Drudge has a second leading headline directly linked to Sputnik (news agency), a Russian propaganda outlet devoted to state-sponsored disinformation. Drudge has done this quite a bit over the years, and is not alone, with most right-leaning, conservative news aggregators making use of Russian disinformation sources to criticize liberals and Democrats in the US. I would like to see a sourced section in this article describing this phenomenon of the right wing in the US depending on Russian disinformation for their news. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Information

The Drudge report is no longer conservative, nor is it no longer owned by Matt Drudge: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off 172.79.199.4 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems very speculative, and they never say definitively he sold it. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "U.S. Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016". Similarweb. Retrieved 2020-11-27.

[2] "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[3] "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[4] "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[5] "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[6] "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[7] "Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC". Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[8] "Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC". floridacompanysearch.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[9] "OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC". opencorporates.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[10] "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report". uspto.gov. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[11] "DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information". trademarkia.com. Retrieved November 28, 2020.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Skip to talk}}
 {{Talk header|search=yes}}
+{{Controversial}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
+{{On this day|date1=2018-01-17|oldid1=820942393}}
-{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Florida|class=B|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
-{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}}
-{{WikiProject Websites|class=B|importance=Low|computing-importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Florida|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Low|computing-importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Low}}
 }}
+{{annual readership |expanded=true}}
-{{OnThisDay|date1=2018-01-17|oldid1=820942393}}
-{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|small=yes|age=30|index=./Archive index}}
 {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
 |target=Talk:Drudge Report/Archive index
@@ Line 23: / Line 25: @@
 }}
-== Sourcing issues ==
+== The irony ==
+Why was "conservative" removed from the first sentence? Has the source suddenly become mainstream or centrist? [[User:Gamingforfun365|'''<span style="color:#484800">GaɱingFørFuɲ</span>''']][[User talk:Gamingforfun365|<sup><span style="color:darkred">3</span><span style="color:darkgreen">6</span><span style="color:darkblue">5</span></sup>]] 00:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
-Concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=771282767&oldid=771230048 this bit], {{u|DrFleischman}}, Washington Times and The Washington Examiner are not RS, wouldn't you agree? I removed the others based on [[WP:DUE]] - there's already a Financial Times reference, it seems that adding the other minor ones is only to give undue weight to an already credible statement (see also [[WP:OVERREF]]). I noticed the Washington Times is also used as a ref in other parts of the article, though I didn't check all references yet. [[User:Saturnalia0|Saturnalia0]] ([[User talk:Saturnalia0|talk]]) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
-:Actually, if you look through the [[WP:RSN|RSN]] archives, you'll see that the Washington Times and Washington Examiner are often treated as reliable news outlets, as [[WP:BIASED|biased]] as they often are. They have a staff of professional journalists and editors and are widely cited (the Times especially). When it comes to labeling a media outlet such as Drudge as "conservative," it strikes me that other conservative media outlets may be seen as some of the ''most'' reliable sources for this type of assertion - if of all sources the ''Washington Times'' and the ''Examiner'' call Drudge conservative, then it must be conservative, right? As for there being too many sources, that's never a WP:DUE ([[WP:NPV|neutrality]]) problem; there's nothing in [[WP:NPV]] about the number of sources. Rather, it's a potential [[WP:CITEKILL|citation overkill]] (stylistic) issue. I'm generally sympathetic to citekill issues, but I hesitate here since inexperienced editors are constantly trying to get the "conservative" label removed from this article, and we could use the firepower of this wide variety of sources. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
-:: Well I always saw someone saying "it's not a reliable source" every time those two came up in talk pages... I guess I have some reading to do. Thanks for the pointers. [[User:Saturnalia0|Saturnalia0]] ([[User talk:Saturnalia0|talk]]) 19:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
-== External links modified ==
+Well, wouldn't we all agree that now it is more than just a little bit absurd that this is in the lede:   " . . . run by Matt Drudge . . . generally regarded as a conservative publication . . . though its . . . political leanings have recently been placed in question"
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+Talk about, understatement, hyperbole, and obfuscation!
-I have just modified 2 external links on [[Drudge Report]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=800546571 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Corrected formatting/usage for http://gawker.com/5044885/andrew-breitbart-drudges-human-face
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318162013/http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2012/03/07/matt-drudge-intentionally-ignored-negative-stories-to-help-elect-barack-obama/ to http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2012/03/07/matt-drudge-intentionally-ignored-negative-stories-to-help-elect-barack-obama/
+It may used to have been conservative (even up to 2017), but now it is obviously the opposite.
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
+Considering, for example: the beacon flashing "Drudge" red-bolder-headline today [2020-6-6] is: "ROMNEY WILL NOT SUPPORT TRUMP IN NOVEMBER!"  [Really?!?  What a shocking surprise!  Romney!  Of ALL people!], I'd say that Drudgereport at this point is in the same category as Huffington Post. [[Special:Contributions/96.239.90.181|96.239.90.181]] ([[User talk:96.239.90.181|talk]]) 01:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
+== Drudge's company name and U.S. Trademark registration ==
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
+As I write this, the article does not mention the name of Drudge's company or his successful "Drudge Report" trademark filing, so here it is, all public domain information:
-== Far-right ==
+* [http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 State of Florida Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC]
-I removed far-right from the lead since it was poorly sourced for contriversal material [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=807856217&oldid=807836102 here]. [[User:DrFleischman|DrFleischman]] reinserted it [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=807906075&oldid=807856217 here], stateing there is nothing unreliable about this sources. From what I see the only source listed for that statement is a 6 year old textbook that in the whole book, which is largely not even about the Drudge Report, mentioned it once in passing. Stronger sources are needed for such a statement classifying Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report as far-right. Looking at the history of the page it was recently added to the article by [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=806204547&oldid=806204148 here], with a slow edit war going on to keep it in the article despite several edits challenging that addition and no one going to the talk page. So unless better sources are found for this, it should be removed. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
+* [https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC]
-:[https://books.google.com/books?id=Hv6SvKWS9MgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=drudge+report+%22far-right%22&source=bl&ots=tyjM9CYb65&sig=GGkar79_nIQ5TqQvsygCG1F_-C0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifzIX0mP_WAhXBORoKHRI4Da04ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=drudge%20report%20%22far-right%22&f=false This is a book] that was edited (i.e. fact-checked) by [[SAGE Publications]], a reputable, established publisher. The fact that it's a textbook, or that it was published 6 years ago, or that it was a passing mention in the source, none of those bear meaningfully on whether the source is reliable. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-::Again completely undue for controversial claims about a BLP, you are more than welcome to find better sources. Until then, it is a laughable source for that label, it completely fails weight for such a claim. Especially given the history of one of the authors. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-:::I don't follow. I thought we were talking about the reliability of this particular source, not anything about undue or weight (by which I presume you're referring to our neutrality policy). And your mysterious comment about the "history" of one of the authors doesn't advance the discussion. ''What'' about the history of which author? --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
-::::Sorry if I have been difficult to follow. Yes, when I was saying a better source is required that was an argument from [[WP:DUE]]. That a stronger source is needed to make that claim. Yes the publisher is generally considered a RS and text books are allowed. But that more or a more authoritative source on the subject is required, perhaps something dealing specifically with the Drudge Report and how it is far right. Also as far as I can tell it falls under [[WP:BLPSOURCE]] since the Drudge Report is an extension of [[Matt Drudge]]. So with that care must be taken with "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and given how you two have been edit warring over the past week with several people challenging that specific entry it would be prudent to beef up the source. Shouldn't be hard to do if it is not a fringe viewpoint. Lastly I was refering to Dr Lee Salter and the conviction for assault on a female student of his noted [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sussex-university-lecturer-student-girlfriend-criminal-conviction-beat-up-assault-lee-salter-a7183391.html here]. Which does not make him less of a expert in the field of media, but perhaps is not someone to spotlight as a source since that is no longer what he is best known for. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-:::I have to admit you've lost me in the intersection among our verifiability, neutrality, and BLP policies. I have never known them to interact that way. I was going to suggest you post something at [[WP:RSN]], but that's about the reliability of sources, and now you're saying this is a neutrality or BLP issue, so perhaps [[WP:NPOVN]] or [[WP:BLPN]] are the appropriate places? You'll have to decide since I'm totally befuddled at this point. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 03:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-::::I have explained the policies that apply in this situation and why they apply. Since the first edit summery it has been an issue of weight and BLP policy. Do you have a policy based argument to refute that? Otherwise it will be deleted. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-:::First off, don't threaten to edit war just because we're having trouble understanding each other. That doesn't facilitate consensus-building. Second, I'm still not clear on what policies you're saying this content is in violation of. Specifically, many of your original and ongoing arguments certainly sound like verifiability arguments, but now you're saying this is really about neutrality and BLP. Pick your poison. If you say all three, then that's fine, we can go through them one by one, perhaps in separate subsections. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-::::So that is a no on policy based arguments then? [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 18:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
-:::No it's not. I'm saying I don't understand your concern sufficiently in order to respond to it in a meaningful, policy-based way. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
+As an individual (not Digital, LLC), Matthew Drudge was granted U.S. Trademark protection for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018. He did not get protection for the word "Report" or for the use of any particular font stylings or color, just the basic letters forming the words. The filing included a screenshot of his website. He used a Trump photo and headline "TRUMP GOES BIG" from 2018. The Miami, Florida address given for the trademark registration is the same address for his Digital, LLC business name. Why he sought trademark protection as an individual and not under his company name is unclear. However, such an action would allow him to sell the website specifically in the future and still use his business name for other commercial projects. I don't intend to edit the article, so I am providing this information for anyone who is interested. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 17:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
-=== Second Pass ===
+:I may add a line or two to the article eventually if no one else does. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
+== What happened to Drudge? ==
-Okay, lets try this one last time. Start fresh and we can find out if there is any reason to keep far-right in there. I will list the policy based reason I think it should not be included and we can go from there.
+The page massively supported Trump in 2016 and mocked him throughout the entire 2020 re-election campaign. The decline of the website confirmed by the Alexa ranking is massive, the page has lost nearly half of its readers compared with only one year ago indicating that many Conservatives and patriots are leaving this place as a source of information. Any further information why Drudge Report changed so drastically? [[Special:Contributions/80.131.51.178|80.131.51.178]] ([[User talk:80.131.51.178|talk]]) 02:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
-:1 - BLP applies here since Drudge Report is a direct extension of [[Matt Drudge]]. As such [[WP:BLPSOURCE]] is applicable, specifically the section that states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The source listed for that claim is poorly sourced, and a stronger one is required to make that claim.
+:If evidence ever comes forward citable to a reliable or notable source making the claim that Drudge was paid to make the site switch to anti-Trump in 2020 and/or a bonus in the millions offered if Biden won and became President then it might be suitable for inclusion in the article. As of this date I haven't seen any business record evidence that the website has been sold; however, it might be possible to furtively structure a deal in the millions so that editorial control was sold while Drudge remains technically the backseat owner on record. Without Drudge, it's not easy to continue calling it the Drudge Report. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 13:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
-:2 - It violates [[WP:LABEL]] also applies. The section of the policy is "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Given that only one weak source is given for the claim with no in-text attribution, it fails this section.
+== Suggestions for update ==
-:3 - It does not meet the [[WP:DUE]], again because of the poor sourcing and lack of wide spread reporting that refer to them as far-right. As such is amplifying a minority opinion and giving it undue weight.
+I have made some preliminary changes here [[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=990636950&oldid=988684980&diffmode=source]], while leaving the current structure/organization intact—but believe it's well worth adding and/or expanding some related parts of the article. A couple brief examples:
-Those are the quick 3 reasons that far-right is not appropriate as a description of the Drudge Report given the source listed. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
+* The "business model" needs to explain how unique the Drudge Report is, how much it's worth (recent estimates of $100-200+ million), etc.
+* A "traffic" section should be separate. And the most recent and ongoing decline attributed to a change in Trump coverage means little without an understanding of the enormous traffic Drudge has historically attracted (as well as a huge prior decrease widely attributed to the explosion of Twitter and other social media).
+Those are just a start—the Drudge Report was and continues to be an amazing phenomenon, one that nobody has been able to replicate, and IMHO the current article fails to convey how unusual it's history has been, in so many different ways. Any thoughts? And anyone want to collaborate on adding and organizing some of the above? Thanks so much! [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
+:The Drudge Report is just a three-column newspaper, a masthead with three columns beneath it containing textual news, some imagery, separated by vertical lines. The three-column format has been around in newspapers [https://www.google.com/search?q=revolutionary+war+newspapers&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiirK_0laPtAhXnRDABHRAPBvcQ_AUoAXoECA4QAw&biw=1280&bih=579 since the 1700s]. Drudge can't copyright the format and would lose any infringement or trademark lawsuit if someone did their own "Report." He couldn't get trademark protection in 2019 for the word "Report" because of the commonly used terms "news report," "special report," etc. It would require a lot of start-up money for tech support and be willing to find links 24/7 to create a competitor website. Unique? Only in name recognition and influence I guess. The Connecticut-based ''[http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/ Capitol Report]'' and New York-based ''[https://empirereportnewyork.com/ Empire Report]'' have used an identical format to the Drudge Report for years. See this 2018 [https://auburnpub.com/blogs/eye_on_ny/empire-report-aggregator-serves-as-one-stop-shop-for-ny/article_cc90df44-f310-11e7-ad07-d7294c19fc9a.html news story] on both. I've never edited the Drudge Report article before, and don't intent to become a regular, but I'm working on a line or two to mention his business name and trademark filing, probably for next week. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+<div>Sounds like an interesting and welcome addition. I don't know about trademarks and the like—but I'd point out that although a competitor would only require a single person with a computer, no one has imitated him with anything remotely like his level of success. The two sites you cite appear to be direct imitations of Drudge, and whatever its strengths may be, the Capitol Report got 12 million views a year—while Drudge has had 1500 times more, with '''1.5 billion views in a single month''', putting it ahead of Disney (including ESPN, ABC News, etc.), Yahoo, Google, Time Warner, and every other media source save MSN.<ref>{{Cite web|title=U.S. Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016|url=https://www.similarweb.com/corp/blog/us-media-publishers-july-2016/|access-date=2020-11-27|website=Similarweb|language=en}}</ref> That's <u>more than triple the numbers for The New York Times</u>. Drudge's format—it's almost an anti-format—is surely a throwback to newspapers, but it was unique in the world of internet news. And what's most remarkable isn't the look of the site, but the influence wielded by a man in his bedroom who simply aggregates links. He drove enormous amounts of traffic to specific stories and outlets. What explains his incredible success—his curatorial skill or "taste" in articles?{{reflist}}</div> [[User:Ekpyros|Elle Kpyros]] ([[User talk:Ekpyros|talk]]) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
-This is PRECISELY the kind of crap that reveals the overwhelming bias of Wiki editors and Wikipedia at large.   Listing Drudge as 'far right' in the introductory statement is specifically meant to defame Drudge.  Period.  This should be removed.   Drudgereport is a news aggregate site run by Conservative Matt Drudge.   That is a better statement.  But why even attempt to edit when leftist Wiki editors with an agenda will just restore it later.    <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.195.5.200|71.195.5.200]] ([[User talk:71.195.5.200#top|talk]]) 21:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:The Drudge Report uses a javascript code to [https://www.google.com/search?ei=4EzCX96iBKeOwbkPu8mx-AI&q=javascript+auto+refresh+Drudge+Report&oq=javascript+auto+refresh+Drudge+Report&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgQIABBHOggIABDJAxCRAjoICAAQsQMQkQI6AggAOgUIABCxAzoFCAAQyQM6BggAEBYQHjoICAAQFhAKEB46CAghEBYQHRAeOgUIABDNAjoHCCEQChCgAToFCCEQoAFQ-98BWNKiAmDQpgJoAHACeACAAWCIAa0PkgECMjaYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwjekpjMqKXtAhUnRzABHbtkDC8Q4dUDCAw&uact=5 auto refresh the page] (Google search) at regular intervals; thus, massively inflating its page views. In addition, since it's a link site, the same people return multiple times to go to the next link. I would trust only the number of unique visitors in a site like Drudge. Page views have less meaning if you know the system is being gamed. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
-::Thanks for clarifying.
-::* BLP: BLP does not apply to websites. The content in question is not about Matt Drudge. Your take on our BLP policy is understandable but there simply isn't support for it. I have little doubt that a consensus of disinterested editors would find it an example of [[WP:CRYBLP]].
-::* WP:LABEL: We describe the political ideologies of groups and media outlets all the time, and arguments for excluding them based on WP:LABEL always fail, which is why we see such descriptors all over Wikipedia. This is because standard ideological descriptors such as these (liberal, conservative, far left, far right, etc.) are informative, non-value-laden terms used by a wide array of reliable sources. It's not the same thing as calling Drudge Report a "cult" or "controversial." --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
-::* WP:DUE: WP:DUE is not about quality of sourcing. If the source satisfies our reliability criteria, which this one does, then per WP:DUE it actually ''must'' be reflected. Regarding in-text attribution, I am not opposed to that; we can include an additional section in the body of the article that lists which reliable sources call Drudge Report conservative, which call it right-wing, and which call it far right. Perhaps that would be an acceptable resolution?
-::--[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
+From 5Q5 - PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE as the opening paragraph in the Business model section:
-:::So a few things here.
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
-:::*Since Matt Drudge is the face and main editor of the website the views of the website are his views. That is why when mentioning the views of the website, it is mentioning his views. You see this when other source are referring to the Drudge Report they put it in terms like [http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/26/media/matt-drudge-donald-trump-coverage/index.html this] "Matt Drudge is firing warning shots at Trump". Then they go on to talk about stories covered on his website. Indicating that the website is his personal views. Also per BLPN [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive163#Drudge_Report] is the closest I can find relating the Drudge Report to Matt Drudge.
+Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned company called Digital, LLC, a [[limited liability company]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 |title=Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ |title=Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC |website=floridacompanysearch.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/L14000155498 |title=OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC |website=opencorporates.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> As an individual, Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87922097&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch |title=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report |website=uspto.gov |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://trademark.trademarkia.com/drudge-report-87922097.html |title=DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information |website=trademarkia.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color." The address recorded for the owner of the U.S. Trademark; that is, Matthew Drudge, and Drudge's Florida business entity Digital, LLC are the same.{{reflist}}</div>
-:::*For label, are you trying to suggesting that [[far-right]] is not a value laden label? That is the term our own article ascribes to Nazism, chauvinist, xenophobic, racists, and terrorists... There are absolutely negative and contentious views with that term. Which is why for far-right label applies.
+The references will of course appear in the article's lower reference section. If there is agreement I will publish it. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
-:::*With Due, you focus on the first part poor sourcing. Which is not the whole argument. The part that actually gives the source we sight weight, and not a fringe view, is wide spread reporting of it as fact. Which it does not and is giving a larger voice to a minority viewpoint.
-:::Now with all that, I have nothing for or against labeling the Drudge Report far-right. But with all that listed above, the source needs to be improved. Again, I am '''not''' saying the source is not reliable. Heck I would pretty much be happy with just two or three sources listed after that claim. Like we do for conservative and right wing, both of which are much less contention but far better sourced in our article. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
-::::Does my [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Drudge_Report&diff=808321474&oldid=808082597 addition] of the Wired source resolve this matter then? --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
-:::::Actually when I looked at the source added, I decided if I could find a better one that supports the claim that Drudge is far-right. One that actually talks about the site being far-right and not lumped into a single unexplained sentence. I am having the darndest time. Got about 3 pages into the googles and no big sources seem to be calling them that. I see a lot of right-wing and conservative, but none calling them far-right. Even [https://www.salon.com/2017/05/17/fox-news-contributor-turns-on-fox-news-after-report-on-a-dnc-murder-conspiracy-falls-apart/ Salon] makes the distinction that they are conservative and not far-right. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 14:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
+FROM 5Q5 - PROPOSED REVISION, SIMPLIFIED:
-== RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right? ==
+<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
+Matt Drudge's business entity in Florida is a privately owned [[limited liability company]] called Digital, LLC.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=DIGITAL%20L140001554980&aggregateId=flal-l14000155498-981cab62-062f-4469-bded-1c80d420f870&searchTerm=Digital%20LLC&listNameOrder=DIGITAL%20H053500 |title=Florida Department of State Division of Corporations - Digital, LLC |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.floridacompanysearch.com/company/L14000155498/ |title=Florida Companies Directory - Digital, LLC |website=floridacompanysearch.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_fl/L14000155498 |title=OpenCorporates - Digital, LLC |website=opencorporates.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> Drudge applied for and was granted a U.S. Trademark registration for the phrase "Drudge Report" on January 15, 2019, filed on May 15, 2018.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87922097&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch |title=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Drudge Report |website=uspto.gov |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://trademark.trademarkia.com/drudge-report-87922097.html |title=DRUDGE REPORT Trademark Information |website=trademarkia.com |access-date=November 28, 2020}}</ref> The registration excludes the word "Report" from protection outside of the exact two-word phrase use and is for "standard characters without claim to any particular font style, size, or color."{{reflist}}</div>
+: I omitted the last sentence about addresses matching, as it seems unnecessary, though it is true. If there is no objection after a week sitting here on the talk page, I will go ahead and publish it in the article, sometime next week. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 17:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
+::{{done}}. <span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 4px 4px 4px;padding:1px 4px 0px 4px;">[[User:5Q5|<span style="font-family:arial;color:#DC143C;"><b>5Q5</b></span>]]&#124;[[User talk:5Q5|<sup>&#9993;</sup>]]</span> 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Use of Russian government sources ==
+As of 23:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC), Drudge has a second leading headline directly linked to [[Sputnik (news agency)]], a Russian propaganda outlet devoted to state-sponsored disinformation.  Drudge has done this quite a bit over the years, and is not alone, with most right-leaning, conservative news aggregators making use of Russian disinformation sources to criticize liberals and Democrats in the US.  I would like to see a sourced section in  this article describing this phenomenon of the right wing in the US depending on Russian disinformation for their news. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
-Should the following bolded language be removed from the article?
-::{{tq|''"It has been variously described as [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]], right-wing''', and [[far-right politics in the United States|far-right]]'''."''}}
-The supporting sources for the "far-right" descriptor are:
-* {{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hv6SvKWS9MgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=drudge+report+%22far-right%22&source=bl&ots=tyjM9CYb65&sig=GGkar79_nIQ5TqQvsygCG1F_-C0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifzIX0mP_WAhXBORoKHRI4Da04ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=drudge%20report%20%22far-right%22&f=false|title=Digital Journalism|last=Jones|first=Janet|last2=Salter|first2=Lee|date=2011-11-10|publisher=SAGE|isbn=9781446254042|language=en}}
-* {{cite journal|url=https://www.wired.com/2017/05/seth-rich-filter-bubble/|title=The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory: A Tale of Two Filter Bubbles|journal=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|date=May 18, 2017|first=Emma Grey|last=Ellis}}
---[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 16:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
-=== Survey ===
+== Outdated Information ==
+The Drudge report is no longer conservative, nor is it no longer owned by Matt Drudge:
-*'''Remove''' - Undue, most sources refer to them as conservative and right-wing. Very few list it as far-right, failing weight and the ones that do mention it are in passing. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 00:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
+https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/matt-drudge-logs-off [[Special:Contributions/172.79.199.4|172.79.199.4]] ([[User talk:172.79.199.4|talk]]) 05:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
-*'''Keep.''' Removal would be blatantly non-neutral. As [[WP:NPV]] indicates, we describe disputes among reliable sources, we don't hide them. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 02:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
-::Neutral would not using a fringe label for him in the lead. NPV also indicates we describe disputes if there is weight to the claim, otherwise it is [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:FRINGE]]. This also touches on [[WP:LABEL]], which far-right easily qualifies under. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Move to body or remove''' Far right is often seen as a derogatory label.  It seems the sources for the claim are of limited weight. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 00:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' - per PackMecEng. It's risible to call Drudge Report "far-right" as it doesn't meet any objective definition of the term, but I'm sure it will end up staying anyway. WP doesn't do NPOV on political topics. [[User:Edgespath24|Edgespath24]] ([[User talk:Edgespath24|talk]]) 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' Undue. I also don't like the weaselly, "has been described as" passive voice either. When ever you write like that, add the attribution and see if it looks DUE when the attribution is up there. In this case it doesn't. It's better to just call it whatever it's uncontraversially described as by a reasonable majority, without any attribution or passive voice. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' [[WP:Undue weight|Undue weight]], I don't like the weaselly wording either, and I agree with {{ping|Edaham|p='s}} proposal.&thinsp;<small>''([[WP:Feedback request service|Summoned by bot]])''</small>&thinsp;'''&thinsp;&mdash;'''&nbsp;[[User:Mr. Guye|Mr. Guye]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mr. Guye|talk]])&nbsp;([[Special:Contributions/Mr. Guye|contribs]])&thinsp; 05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' per [[WP:LABEL]]. Minor passing references should not be used in this manner in an encyclopedia. For some everything that disagrees with their viewpoint is "far-left/right"/"alt-left/right". [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Obvious keep''' — This is undisputed in reliable sources. It belongs in the lede. We should also remove "has been described as". What does that mean? It's [[WP:WEASEL]]. [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' - The standard for "far right" continues to be redefined by people who seem to have an agenda in doing so. Specifically tell me where Drudge has posted a link to the Daily Stormer. These increasingly zealous edits by left-wing editors wishing to ride in on their high horse to tell us all concerned with the truth about why their view of politics is "indisputable" by linking to some clown writing for a random rag of a paper is destroying the reputation of this encyclopedia. "Conservative" perfectly defined Drudge Report's leaning for years. This should apply as long as Huffington Post is labeled Marxist, since the objective standards for once commonly agreed upon labels have changed for political expediency. [[User:Bigeyedbeansfromvenus|Bigeyedbeansfromvenus]] ([[User talk:Bigeyedbeansfromvenus|talk]]) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' per [[WP:Undue]]. Conservative is supported by sources, far-right is not. One or two passing references by opinionated sources does not give far right due weight to be included. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 16:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
-::It is verifiably false to say far-right isn't supported by sources. The sources are reliable. Wired and SAGE are reputable publishers. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
-*'''remove'''. It's totally fine to call it Conservative, even right-wing, but "Far-right" is more subjective, value-laden, and likely to cause repeated objections. FWIW, I think it's also poor form to shoehorn value-laden adjectives like conservative and liberal into the first sentence, ''before even defining the damn subject''. I'd much like to see articles like this begin: "X is an American newspaper or news website, full stop. Founded in 1992, it has won several awards. It has a (liberal/conservative) editorial stance, and predominantly features (liberal/conservative/libertarian/Martian) writers..." Slapping a label onto the first sentence, even if it's a widely agreed label, seems to serve only the interests of those seeking to disregard it right off the bat. Significant biases and controversies should certainly be described in the article, maybe even mentioned in the lead, but should not be the first thing a reader sees. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' In writing journalese, especially headlines, authors often go for the shortest words possible, even if they are not the best ones to use.  For example, "[[Sticks Nix Hick Pix]]."  And all writers tend to alternate phrases in order to lessen tedium.  Instead of every fifth word in an article being "conservative," they thrown in a few "far rights" for variety.  Reasonably competent readers are able to determine what the writer means through the context in which the terms are used.  Furthermore, the comment is original research, we would need a competent reliable source to make that observation.  [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Remove''' per reasoning of {{user|Animalparty}} also per [[WP:LABEL]]. Perhaps a section named reception to include such opinions, giving them whatever due weight may allow, would be a better place for that type of content. Some sources may verify the website is conservative, some might verify the website is right populist, or whatever. This would be similar to how many media articles have.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 06:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
+:I didn't read the whole thing thoroughly, but it seems very speculative, and they never say definitively he sold it. <span class="nowrap">–[[User:CWenger|CWenger]]</span> ([[User talk:CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>^</big></span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/CWenger|<span style="font-family:Webdings;"><big>@</big></span>]]) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
-=== Extended discussion ===
-{{u|Edaham}}, outside of the scope of this RfC, if the "and far right" is removed from the sentence, do you have any suggestions to improve this sentence? A whole bunch of sources call DR right-wing and a whole bunch call it conservative. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
-*Yes {{u|DrFleischman}}. How about, ''"The Drudge report is an [[Conservatism_in_the_United_States|American conservative]], [[right-wing]] news aggregation website"''
-*:I've put "American conservative" together and linked to conservatism in the United States, as the editorship is made up of conservative editors but it is an aggregation of news which includes sources from outside the US. It is uncontroversial to flatly state that they are right wing without attribution as it is well cited in the body. Anything further than that requires attribution and would be pushing against the UNDUE boundary. The whole ''"variously described"'' part, is a text book example of weaselly phrasing. What ever adjectives you put after a statement like that are going to sound weak, controversial and ambiguous. [[User:Edaham|Edaham]] ([[User talk:Edaham|talk]]) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
-*:: works for me [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
-*Just an aside: While I don't agree with where this RfC is going, my edit is to be read as reverting what is essentialy a [[WP:VANDAL]] edit, which also removed that the site is a [[news aggregator]]. Do what you will now, but the IP edit was disruptive.  [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225;font-family: sans-serif;">Carl Fredrik</span>]]<span style="font-size: .90em;">[[User talk:CFCF|<sup> talk</sup>]]</span> 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
-== External links modified ==
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-I have just modified 5 external links on [[Drudge Report]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/814511591|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
-*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/comment/Profile-Matt-Drudge--Webmaster.3834340.jp
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050829141236/http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/2001-06-28/news/feature.html to http://www.miaminewtimes.com/Issues/2001-06-28/news/feature.html
-*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=84800
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017074336/http://sites.utexas.edu/straussinstitute/2012/09/11/the-drudge-report-has-a-limited-effect-on-what-stories-the-media-cover/ to http://sites.utexas.edu/straussinstitute/2012/09/11/the-drudge-report-has-a-limited-effect-on-what-stories-the-media-cover/
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823062024/http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/9420.html to http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/9420.html
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025143418/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9411R800&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9411R800&show_article=1
-*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025161605/http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_aide_gave_reporters_inc.php to http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/mccain_aide_gave_reporters_inc.php
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
-== Lead of This Entry ==
-The first sentence in this Wikipedia entry reads:
-<blockquote>The Drudge Report is an American conservative,[4] right-wing[5] news truth spreading website.</blockquote>
-Compare to the opening paragraph for the entry on Huffington Post:
-<blockquote>HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions. It was founded in 2005 by Andrew Breitbart, Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti.[3][4] The site offers news, satire, blogs, and original content and covers politics, business, entertainment, environment, technology, popular media, lifestyle, culture, comedy, healthy living, women's interests, and local news.</blockquote>
-Notice a difference?
-Only the Drudge entry uses not one, but two political adjectives as a description in the opening sentence. Both entries provide information on their political leanings (Drudge is right; HuffPost is left) further into the entry, but only Drudge leads with it.
-The HuffPost entry could lead with:
-<blockquote>HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American liberal, left-wing news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions.</blockquote>
-The Wikipedia guidelines state that Wikipedia entries should have a neutral point of view. The choice of words used in the opening sentence for the Drudge entry and the fact that information is included in the opening sentence does not come across as a neutral point of view.
-P.S. I had never seen the Drudge website before, but I am a regular reader of HuffPost. This critique does not come from a partisan angle.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Auctoris|Auctoris]] ([[User talk:Auctoris#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Auctoris|contribs]]) 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-:[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]] does not mean even-handedness to subjects but that articles should reflect how they are usually described in reliable sources. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
-:: The HuffPost is described as being liberal in its Wikipedia article. So reliable sources have stated that it is liberal. Should we move that adjective to the opening sentence? I ask that question honestly.[[User:Auctoris|Auctoris]] ([[User talk:Auctoris|talk]]) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)