Talk:Matt Drudge

Note: Much of the discussion below refers to material that may currently reside at Drudge Report.

Populist and Libertarian?

The article refers to Drudge as a populist and a libertarian. Is that possible? At least according to the Nolan Chart it isn't. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand Drudge has used both terms for himself. While Dave Nolan's chart is interesting, it does not claim anyone must be so absolutely consistent in their positions that they must occupy a specific "dot" on the chart. Collect (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

where an adjective is used eight times in one article - has it been overused?

"Conservative" now appears eight times in this article. I woulda thunk anyoine reading an article where a word is used that many times would think the article needs trimming <g>. I found, by the way, no other BLP where such adjective overkill occurs. Collect (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I returned one instance of the word "conservative" to the section describing the Drudge Report. That section had zero iterations of the word, and the main Wikipedia article on the same topic appears to indicate the description is not only accurate, but apparently a defining characteristic. I can't comment on the other seven appearances of the word. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality/homophobia allegations

Were removed in June 2010 - and stayed out until an editor asserted that consensus was to have them in the article. They were removed on the direct requirement of WP:BLP Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect removed them in June 2010, without any Talk Page discussion. He used the hoary, catch-all "BLP Violation" ruse in his edit summary, and then continued to revert anyone who restored the well-sourced section which, these talk page archives will show, was agreed upon by consensus to include.

A look at Collect's history shows many warnings and blocks for revert wars on politically-themed pages. It looks like he's engaging in a slow revert war here. I'd like a disinterested admin to step in, considering the edit history of this particular user. Cheers. --BozellHammer (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? You suddenly appear - make a huge change to a stable article, and then attack me personally? And as a brand new user you assert knowledge of my edit history? Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(addressing BozellHammer) Be that as it may, what's the rationale for adding the material? That's not a rhetorical question, but a request for discussion. I don't remember if I participated in this last year. But I agree with Collect, whatever happened back then the article has been stable for a long while, and adding this much content on a contentious subject is a bold proposal that needs to be hashed out if there's a viable objection. Let's avoid getting personal here, okay? If anyone's a snoot muffin or whatever, there are other pages to deal with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There was never consensus to remove the section, merely a slow revert war conducted by Collect. That's hardly "stable." One of the rationales for keeping the material, which was agreed upon by consensus, is that while Drudge has a history of homophobic attacks on persons he disagrees with, several people are on the record, in reliable sources, revealing first-hand knowledge of Drudge's homosexuality. Drudge's homophobia hypocrisy has been written about in several reliably sourced articles, and that's why many editors reached consensus to place it in the article. Drudge's homosexuality is not included to be damning, or salacious, but reflects that several reliable sources find Drudge's hypocrisy newsworthy.

This article was not "stable." It's not uncommon in Wikipedia for several months to pass before a huge deletion comes to light. A major section was deleted without consensus or discussion -- by an editor with a long history of being blocked and warned for revert wars on politically themed articles -- and now the section has been, quite correctly, restored. --BozellHammer (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the deletion was backed by others and stood for almost a year. You appear out of the blue, making inapt assertions and doing your best to edit war. And note also that my list of watchlisted articles is at User:Collect/watchlisted articles with the express purpose of making accusations about me be shown for what they are. Meanwhile, Ratel remains indeffed for his socking, so he can't appear here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent and edit conflict...) Would you mind linking to that discussion? Personally, I'm not particularly interested in the history or who's edit warred when. Assuming it's verifiable that he routinely attacks gays, and that he himself is (or is said to be?) gay himself... there are several more steps. First, this has to be sourced to reliable neutral secondary sources. Not examples of his attacking gays but an authoritative source saying that he attacks gays. Not an example of someone saying he is gay, but a site mentioning that others say he is gay. And finally, Wikipedia cannot opine that he is hypocritical, or try to make it seem that way, but could only cover that some have opined that he is hypocritical. However, negative opinions about people aren't terribly encyclopedic and do raise BLP concerns. Even where we do have sources there is a potential problem. I assume he hasn't self-identified as gay and perhaps he's denied it. I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument, but how do we handle that elsewhere? Cases like Tom Cruise and others about whom gay rumors circulate, true or otherwise. And finally there is a WP:WEIGHT concern. That's an awful lot of verbiage for what seems like at best a secondary issue, not directly related to his notability. How important and relevant is this matter to Drudge's biography and life's work? How significant are the claims he is gay, and the criticism as hypocrisy? A gay person engaging in gay bashing isn't necessarily hypocrisy. Maybe there's a word for it, but it's a distinct phenomenon. Please forgive me for not looking at the material in detail, just trying to get some thoughts out. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - There is also a thread opened at the BLPN here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering, is there consensus here to include all these gay allegations? The desired addition seems totally uundue to me, even if it warrants a mention, the disputed addition is twenty five percent of the whole BLP content, is a quarter of his notability speculation about his sexual preferences? Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

'No Many BLP discussions have been held on such, and, almost every time, the reaction is that such allegations must be absolutely strongly sourced, and if they are sourced, they must still be directly shown to be relevant to the BLP. See the discussions on Categories about sexuality as well. WP is not a tabloid, and is not here to promote contentious claims about any living person. Additonally, it appears OTRS editors have the same opinion about including such stuff in any BLP. Note further that my position on such applies to every BLP I have edited. Collect (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to re-iterate something Off2riorob's said. This material, if retained (which is a very big if), must be shortened very substantially such that it is not undue weight. I know this is original research but I visit the Drudge Report every day and can never recall anything remotely homophobic. –CWenger (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning of the past editor (in his own words) is shown at User:Collect/BLP showing precisely why that editor sought to introduce scurrilous material into some bios. Collect (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Matt Drudge.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Matt Drudge.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

disputed content now at the BLP noticeboard

Please comment if you wish, go to the relevant section at the Noticeboard  Jabbsworth  06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And like the all the other times ([1], [2], [3], [4]) this gossip has been there - it is deemed UNDUE at the least and violative of WP:BLP as WP:BLP currently stands. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading those links is interesting, Collect. This seems to be your pet issue! It's a campaign for you.  Jabbsworth  13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- WP:BLP is my interest - and I now have edited on the order of five hundred articles in that area, with over 2200 pages on my watchlist. That you are only involved in the same BLP articles as Ratel and TickleMeister were is, however, telling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As earlier discussions have advised, you should create a brief (one-sentence if possible) passage about this issue using only the most impeccable sources, post it here, and work with other editors to get consensus for adding it. The way you are currently going about it is guaranteed to fail, but there are other approaches. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't some other editor find a sentence or two? There is so much personal animosity towards me that I'll leave it to someone else. The data is also at SourceWatch. Just go there and search for Matt Drudge.  Jabbsworth  23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And Sourcewatch.org is not WP:RS compliant. [5] Anyone can edit it. To get started, there's a link to your left on the basics of how you can help write history says it all. Many people have contributed to different parts of this project, and anyone can do so, including you! All you need to know is How to edit a page is a WIKI! About as unreliable as is possible. Do you really think a Wiki is a valid source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was a RS. I'm simply alerting other editors to the data's existence, in readable format, elsewhere. Future editors can access it there and transfer it here, or a modified version thereof. The general feeling about this data is that it is acceptable, in some form. Getting that form right is a job for the wordsmiths. Either that, or keep reverting this page ad infinitum as multiple editors try to add it, in one form or another.  Jabbsworth  01:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)