Jump to content

Talk:Drudge Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Auctoris (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 20 October 2018 (→Lead of This Entry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sourcing issues

Concerning this bit, 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. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look through the RSN archives, you'll see that the Washington Times and Washington Examiner are often treated as reliable news outlets, as 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 (neutrality) problem; there's nothing in WP:NPV about the number of sources. Rather, it's a potential 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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Drudge Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right

I removed far-right from the lead since it was poorly sourced for contriversal material here. DrFleischman reinserted it 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 Snooganssnoogans 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. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 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. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So that is a no on policy based arguments then? PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Pass

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.

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.
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.
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.

Those are the quick 3 reasons that far-right is not appropriate as a description of the Drudge Report given the source listed. PackMecEng (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.5.200 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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?
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So a few things here.
  • 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 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 [1] is the closest I can find relating the Drudge Report to Matt Drudge.
  • 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.
  • 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. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does my addition of the Wired source resolve this matter then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Salon makes the distinction that they are conservative and not far-right. PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the article say that Drudge Report has been described as far-right?

Should the following bolded language be removed from the article?

"It has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right."

The supporting sources for the "far-right" descriptor are:

  • Jones, Janet; Salter, Lee (2011-11-10). Digital Journalism. SAGE. ISBN 9781446254042.
  • Ellis, Emma Grey (May 18, 2017). "The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory: A Tale of Two Filter Bubbles". Wired.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Springee (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Edgespath24 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Edaham (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Undue weight, I don't like the weaselly wording either, and I agree with @Edaham's proposal. (Summoned by bot)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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". Buffs (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Carl Fredrik talk 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is verifiably false to say far-right isn't supported by sources. The sources are reliable. Wired and SAGE are reputable publishers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. TFD (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per reasoning of Animalparty (talk · contribs) 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.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes DrFleischman. How about, "The Drudge report is an 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. Edaham (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    works for me Buffs (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Carl Fredrik talk 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Drudge Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead of This Entry

The first sentence in this Wikipedia entry reads:

The Drudge Report is an American conservative,[4] right-wing[5] news truth spreading website.

Compare to the opening paragraph for the entry on Huffington Post:

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.

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:

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view does not mean even-handedness to subjects but that articles should reflect how they are usually described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.Auctoris (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Right-Leaning

Right now the opening sentence calls it a "conservative, right-wing news aggregator". "Right-wing" is a politically charged word, and two of the three sources cited for it may be problematic. I was recently involved in a discussion on the HuffPost article that resulted in a change of the opening sentence. The descriptor "politically left-leaning" was added to the opening sentence. Further discussion of the sites politics is discussed in the appropriate section of the article.

I know we all want Wikipedia to be as objective as possible. The HuffPost has at least one reliable source using the term "left-wing" in relation to it. But that is a politically charged word and not helpful to include in the HuffPost article.

I suggest mirroring the wording of the opening sentence in the HuffPost article and describing the Drudge Report as a "politically right-leaning news aggregator". Then, like the HuffPost article, the Drudge Report's full political leanings are discussed in the appropriate section of the article. What do you think?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drudge_Report&oldid=864885153"