Jump to content

Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Sourcing

I removed a section sourced to a single partisan website. Many of the sections at the bottom are pretty sloppily sourced. If this is legitimate and significant content that is worth including it should be cited to reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem we increasingly face in sourcing material on Drudge and his Report website is that the mainstream media have started to ignore him. His actions are now monitored mainly in the blogosphere. There's no doubt the incident you deleted did occur (and a lot more besides, if you look at all the data Media Matters has accumulated on Drudge), it's just that the serious media find it insignificant. Much of what MD gets up to goes on under the radar, so it's always a challenge to find reliable sources (reliable by wikipedia standards, that is). ► RATEL ◄ 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute that it happened. But was it a big deal? The fact that no one covered it indicates it's insignificant. In the New York Times article is there a section on every headline that was misleading? I haven't looked, but I would expect to find a section about major issues such as accusations of bias, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, ownership etc. But not a big section on particular stories that someone took issue with. That section amounted to someone not liking the headline they stuck on a story. It was a non-issue that no one covered. We've got that it's a conservative website in the lead sentence. I think the hyped up sections of criticism should be combined into a cogent articulation of the major issues critics have with the Drudge Report and the way the site chooses and reports stories. But a section each for these "scandals" that no on covered except on some partisan liberal website seems a bit much. No? Even the accusation of the carving of a B, while the event itself was certainly a major, how big a role did Drudge play? He reported the accusation. It just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me with respect to the Drudge Report except for hyper-partisans looking for dirt. I think sourcing the accusation that they don't vet their stories well and that they don't have high journalistic standards and mentioning examples would be more appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I also think the inauguration/bankruptcy incident is not significant and that's why I did not oppose what you did. But the other errors/unsourced stories are properly cited and some were very influential, so unless similar poor source arguments can be made, I support seeing them stay. I don't think there's anything "hyped up" about most of it. ► RATEL ◄ 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


ya look at the Drudge Report RIGHT NOW....right now, and see the bullshit conservative politics Matt plays. Finally he admnits what he is without having to hide it like a weak COWARD. 71.154.212.16 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to Newsweak and the New York Times? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


We already long discussed the inclusion of 'conservative' in the header and voted for it, so whoever moves to remove it should be banned from editing (Jimdeland). Jason Parise (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative" in first line

It is obvious that the people who moderate this page (Ratel, Childofmidnight, & Jason Praise) only want THEIR view of the Drudge Report printed on wiki. They have an agenda and anyone who disagrees cannot be heard. Let me ask you this: Would an honest encyclopedia (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta) report that the Drudge Report is "an American conservative news aggregation website? I think all of us know the answer to that is a resounding no. That's the difference between Wiki and a real encyclopedia. 24.187.112.15 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you blocked 3 times for pursuing this anti-consensus agenda here? Do we have to ask admins for further action against you? ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha, there we go, a one year block for disruptive editing, and well deserved too. ► RATEL ◄ 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ratel. Gods, is a little rationality and logic so much to ask for? 71.154.212.16 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says the site isn't conservative? I think it's a bit much to have it in the first sentence, but I think the politics of Drudge and his website are fairly well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ChildofMidnight, the politics of the Drudge Report are well established by others (not us, we are mere editors, and WP is a tertiary source). There are so many sources for the descriptor "conservative" that I could fill the page with citations. But no, it is not "too much" to describe the site as conservative right in the first sentence. It's done at Huffington Post, and it is acceptable there. And BTW, there is no point in addressing editor 24.187.112.15 any longer, because he is now banned for one year for repeatedly trying to erase the word conservative from the intro. ► RATEL ◄ 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase conservative does not belong in the first sentence. You are comparing it to the Huffington Post, which is a liberal blog aggregation site. A better comparison would we with another news entry, the New York Times. The word "liberal" doesn't appear til the last sentence of the intro. The NYT is as liberal as you can get, and I can provide many sources for their liberal bias. The Drudge Report is first and foremost a news site, and its conservative bias is not what defines it, unlike HuffPo. I am removing the word "conservative" unless the NYT page is also changed with "liberal" appearing in opening sentence.Zooplibob (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, well, well, the moment the anonymous editor who keeps making this anti-consensus change is given longterm bans (on more than one sockpuppet IP), a new editor joins us to make the exact same change! Is this a coincidence? Highly unlikely, even with an assumption of good faith. The only possible reason for this sort of passion over the appearance of the solidly-cited word "conservative" in the top paragraph is because it appears in the Google search for "drudge report". And who would care so much about that but someone involved in the site itself? I bring the conflict of interest rules and guidelines of Wikipedia to your attention. Take care. If you are connected to the site, you should state so and your opinion may then carry more weight in this issue.► RATEL ◄ 06:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you think you're quite the detective, but you've got the wrong guy. I showed up a few days ago to edit the text about the most recent siren and saw this discussion. I totally agree with the guy (although not his attitude or methods). And I think its hilarious how you think only a drudge report employee would "care so much" to change the article. I could say that about any of the changes you've made. Do you work for the Huffington Post? Please provide evidence that you do not. See how absurd that sounds? I would appreciate it if you would respond to my argument about why Conservative appears in the opening sentence of Drudge yet Liberal doesnt appear in the opening sentence of the NYT, and I will not entertain any more accusations that I work for the drudge report or connected to the previous editor. ThanksZooplibob (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh Ratel, WP:BITE? Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I maintain that this is more than mere coincidence. A brand new editor pops up 24 hrs after a tendentious, block-evading editor is banned and makes exactly the same edits? And this new editor goes right ahead and makes the same exact edit, even though it is clear that this action had earned the anonymous editor a long ban? No, something smells here. Oh, and to answer your question, Zooplibob, you cannot compare a huge newspaper like the NYT to a one man website run by a recluse from a condo in Miami. The former is a broad church of many opinions, the latter is a "well-known conservative warrior" ► RATEL ◄ 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, would a newby know all of these things? Would he know that it earned another user a long ban? Also, the NYT is hardly a "broad church of many opinions" though not as partisan as Druge, it is still quite liberal in content. Soxwon (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
He know it by reading this talk page, which he already admits he did before editing. And as for the NYT not being a broad church, are you telling me they have no conservative commentators? I doubt that's true. Didn't Bill Kristol write for them? In any case, it's far more difficult to label a large organisation as being liberal or conservative. When it comes to one man and his website, it's logical and demonstrably true. ► RATEL ◄ 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The New York Times is a more "official" liberal entity than Drudge, as it has openly endorsed Democrats for many years in elected office 1 2 3 4 5 (how far back do you want me to go?). Nowhere has Drudge ever written an editorial on his site about how he supports republicans. That makes it much easier to label a large organization liberal when they openly endorse only liberal candidates for office, and that doesnt even count the bias in the news sections of the paper, which are very liberal. Ive made a compromise change to the first sentence, describing Drudge as a conservative rather than the drudge report. I hope you will find this fair.Zooplibob (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Endorsing candidates does not make a media organisation liberal or conservative; some endorse either side on different occasions. Whereas Mr Drudge votes Republican and has given money to the Republicans, and calls himself a "conservative". He also attacks the liberal side of politics every single day, and is known by everyone in the media as a GOP apparatchik. The amount of citations I can supply to support what I have just said is enormous. Whereas you can provide how many citations to support your contention that his page is not conservative? End of story. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you aren't reading anything I'm writing. Please show me where I ever denied that Drudge had a conservative slant in his article selection, because I didn't. I said its conservative slant is not what DEFINES it, as opposed to the huffington post. I agree the statement should be in the opening paragraph, but not opening sentence, which is what is done on the NYT page. And yes, endorsing only one party DOES make a publication liberal/conservative. If CNN had a story saying "We at CNN believe Obama should be president" that would most certainly make them a liberal news network. They dont do that for the very reason that they need to maintain a neutral point and not support either side they are covering. If you believe the NYT isnt liberal, please cite an election in the past 50 years where they endorsed a republican. And if you think the editors and writers at the NYT or most newspaper publications arent liberal or dont vote for democrats, see this 1. The editors in the NYT attack conservatives and Bush every single day in the editorials.
  • De-indent. You seem terribly vexed by the wording of the 1st para. And it's the only edit you feel moved to make on WP. Strange. To answer your point, I would argue that conservatism is what defines the DR website. The phrase "the conservative Drudge Report" is found all over the internet and within articles written in major newspapers in the US and abroad. Comparisons between this one page, one man (essentially) website to news media organisations employing hundreds, with hundreds, if not thousands, of webpages, is facile. Please desist. I am asking you to provide any proof at all that the DR website is not defined by its conservatism. Come on, show us why the site is not essentially conservative. ► RATEL ◄ 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Lets let google be the judge. Hit results for "The conservative drudge report" is 545 hits. Hit results for "The liberal new york times" is 13,600. According to you, that means the new york times is defined by being liberal, and thus should have that distinction in its opening paragraph, wouldn't you agree? I, on the other hand, contend that they are first and foremost news aggregation entities, that get stories from the AP. But additionally, the NYT has a section in the back where it espouses its liberal beliefs (editorials). Drudge never editorializes except on rare, breaking news, and he will *NEVER* offer opinions on his website. The liberal/conservative slant of a news site is one of the properties of it, not the definition. Just as the entry for apple doesn't say that some are red or sweet in its first sentence, neither should the properties of either NYT or Drudge. These go farther down in the intro.Zooplibob (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What if we just mention the fact that Drudge himself is conservative and the readers decide for themselves if it has a slant? Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggested that as well by moving the words "American Conservative" in front of Matt Drudge, but it was promptly reverted by Ratel. Even the article itself says the site is "generally regarded as conservative in tone". That is a lot different than being a conservative website.Zooplibob (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I can provide numerous high quality sources for Drudge Report = conservative. Why don't you come up with some that say the opposite? Then you'll have some skin in the game. Right now, you've got nada. ► RATEL ◄ 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made the change to put the reference to "conservative" at the end of the opening paragraph, in order to be consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. Any attempt to revert back to the previous revision will be considered vandalism and promptly removed.Zooplibob (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel thinks if the Drudge Report has a conservative bias, it is a conservative website. He also believes that if the NYT has a liberal bias, it is NOT a liberal newspaper. When you mention this clear hypocrisy, he hides behind the notion that Matt Drudge is a conservative (which is completely irrelevant). Ratel has been warned by admins in the past for reverting edits on this very issue (more than 3 per day) and then trying to erase it from his talk page. It is obvious that there are a lot of logical people out there who disagree with him and his twisting of the facts. However, when they try to edit this page, he immediately reverts it and cites vandalism.

  • Warning about personal attacks! They are not allowed. Check the rules. Please stick to the topic. Personal attacks can be removed from talk pages. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, do not post messages here. ► RATEL ◄ 08:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is the personal attack in this paragraph? 24.187.132.126 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, the accusations of hypocrisy, POV/agenda pushing, and trying to get around admin's actions (which it seems you are guily of, how ironic). You may disagree with Ratel, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect him. Perhaps you should see WP:CIVIL? Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, let's see. The accusations of hypocrisy are in regard to the way he moderates this page. I don't know how that can be confused for a personal attack. POV/Agenda pushing?... is that a joke? The same exact action is being done on the other side. Is it only agenda pushing when you disagree with it? I think you need to learn the difference between personal attacks and disagreeing with a user's actions in editing a page. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, you are supposed to assume good faith editing, saying he is 'twisting the facts' sounds like an accusation of POV pushing and the whole comment reads of WP:OWN. However, I don't think is going to be productive so I will leave you to continue trolling. Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

  • Ok, I've restored it to the long-standing format, the same as the one used in the HuffPo page. HuffPo and Drudge are often mentioned as competing websites (I can provide the sources). Unlike comparing the DR to the NYT (absurd) or any other major media outlet, the HuffPo-Drudge Report comparison is a logical comparison. Both partisan websites run on a small scale, seen by many as in direct competition. Now rather than edit warring this, I suggest we take it up the list of procedures used to resolve conflicts. You bring your sources, I'll bring mine. Agreed? ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Comparing Drudge Report to The Huffington Post is ridiculous. Huffington Post is a LIBERAL website. Drudge Report is an aggregate website, which may contain a bias (see the difference), just like every other media outlet. If we label one media outlet, we have to label them all. Mention the bias, don't label The Drudge Report a "conservative website," unless you want to be dishonest. A real enyclopedia would not do that. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's your original research, don't you see? But it doesn't matter what you think, you have to provide sources for your position. I'm still waiting for you to provide any sources for your views. On the other hand, I have plenty for the concept of Drudge having a conservative website (as in "the conservative Drudge Report"). ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The search "liberal new york times" comes up with more than 100x more results than "conservative drudge report". Even though that is just anecdotal, you brought up that comparison first. In addition, this article shows that even news publications like the new york times can be liberal, yet you dont see fit to put that in the first sentence. This debate is about simple logic. Huffington post is a blog, where liberal opinions are expressed, and all those expressing opinions are liberal. Thus it is a liberal blog site. Drudge report is a news aggregation site, where hard news stories are linked to, and it is run by a conservative man. By your logic, it is a conservative news site. But then the NYT, CNN, or any other news aggregation site that is run or owned by a liberal is a liberal news site. This is obviously not the case. I hope you can understand the difference between slant and outright declaration of affiliation, and why one belongs in the first sentence and one does not.192.91.75.30 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

24.187.132.126 evading blocks

Good thing that guy is banned, it's so hard to change your ip address. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You are inviting a IP range block. ► RATEL ◄ 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Given that this IP is edit warring and reverting logged-in editors claiming "vandalism" (never a good thing), could someone please remind me of what this is all about? Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
He's out to keep Conservative off of DR. That seems to be his single purpose. Soxwon (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's fine. Everyone's free to contribute and we can take the contributions for what they're worth. And it seems to be a stable IP. I was just curious about whether the statement above is some kind of admission by the editor that here evating a block. Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
see [1] where I suspect you will learn more. Collect (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the editor has just violated 3RR - I left a warning[2] (usually I give someone a chance to self-revert, rather than reporting). Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of "conservative" to describe Drudge Report (RfC)

Neutral Statement

There is a dispute over the use of the word "conservative" to describe the Drudge Report in the first line of the article. Some editors want the text:

The Drudge Report is an American conservative news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge.

Other editors want :

The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge. ... [sentence] [sentence] [sentence] [sentence] ... The website is considered by many to be conservative in tone.

Support for inclusion of "conservative" in line one

  1. The word "liberal" is used on the Huffington Post page in line one. The HuffPo website is often compared as a direct competitor to the Drudge Report in the media (sources available).
  2. The Drudge Report is characterized in numerous places on the Internet as "conservative". A small selection of verifiable sources are on the page under the section on Conservatism.
  3. The editors opposing have no sources that claim the Drudge Report is liberal or non-partisan. ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Its a news aggregator. Its American. It obviously, verifiably and unashamedly promotes a conservative perspective (and its not like "conservative" is a pejorative term). Sums it up nicely. Rockpocket 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of 'conservative', contingent to sources being provided, so as to not see this repeat itself in a few months. I am fine with citation of conservative bent being int he body, so as not to crap up the lede with numerous inline cites. ThuranX (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The way it was initially arranged was no cites in line 1 (so as not to clutter the lead), but fully cited further down the page under section on Conservatism. ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the august and respected Encyclopaedia Britannica [3] labels The Drudge Report as a "conservative news and commentary website", there is absolutely no reason why wikipedia cannot follow suit. On this basis, and with Britannica as source, it shall be put back in to line 1, and taken to adjudication if further edit warred. ► RATEL ◄ 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Ratel that was an article about The Huffington Post. And even that article did not mention that HuffPo was liberal until the end of the first paragraph. And the sentence in context is "It was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a conservative news and commentary Web site." The word "conservative" is used to describe Drudge in order to compare to the liberal Huffington Post, not as a neutral definition. A movie article might read "Saving Private Ryan was filmed in Imax, as compared to the 35mm filmed Thin Red Line." You would not start the encyclopedia entry for that movie as "The Thin Red Line is 35 mm World War 2 movie about..." The film used is not something that would go in the opening line. Please consider context when citing sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooplibob (talk • contribs) 27 February
Twaddle. You are straining at gnats. ► RATEL ◄ 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that the Drudge Report is called "the core of the conservative Internet rumor mill" in the book [4] Return of the "L" Word: A Liberal Vision for the New Century by Douglas S. Massey, published by Princeton. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
From the book Media Bias [5] "Conservatives believe that left-wing media bias is an important reason for the creation of new information sources, such as the Fox News Channel and the Drudge Report" Well, ain't that sweet? The DR lined up with Fox News, yet we mustn't label it overtly conservative? Funny. ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Using those sources is astounding, but they are not RS for this as fact. They offer their own editorial opinion which is not worth much in this instance where we are trying to deal with fact. The actual content aggregation on Drudge is pretty much down the middle -- and it lists ALL the columnists it can. You find that to be a bias? Collect (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Published books are reliable sources, mkay? And the content is not "down the middle". That's a far-out claim! Listing columnists means absolutely nothing. And the politics of the headlines' linked sites are irrelevant: the bias is almost entirely in the selection of stories (which for anyone who's actually read the site, essentially frame issues at debate in a particular way). Just to take an example from the recent past, there were countless stories in the media noting that Sarah Palin's claims about the Bridge to Nowhere were false. But Drudge linked none of those stories. Instead he linked a piece about how the media is going to be sorry for attacking her and all the Palin articles were out of line for criticizing her. So which news organizations are at the end of his links are well nigh irrelevant. It's all in the intent. ► RATEL ◄ 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to inclusion of "conservative" in line one

(Please insert below why you oppose "conservative" in line one)

  • Other than the relatively infrequent reports actually written by Drudge (which may or may not have a conservative slant, most appear, in fact, to be more general tabloidy articles) the body of the DR is links to what we would consider reliable sources, and he most decidely links to many liberal sources, which the HP does not do for conservative sources. In other words, HP sticks mainly to sources which reflest its general pholosophy, whild Drudge most certainly does not. In fact, the list of columnists linked to by Drudge is fairly inclusive. The only use of "conservative" therefore should be in reference, at best, to Drudge;s personal positions, not to his site. Collect (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Er... the articles Drudge himself authors are almost all anti-Democrat exposés, not mere "tabloidy pieces". Example [6] And his links to liberal sources, when they (rarely) occur, are to prove a point (usually made clear in the text containing the link). ► RATEL ◄ 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I noted some of the articles which he writes may be "conservative" (though he tends to write about lots of totally apolitical stuff as well). The main links on the page are basically all to RS material -- with the NYT and LAT being in the forefront. There is no apparent bias in his choice of headline links, and since they all have a "real link" to go to, there is no connection to his position in the material linked. As for the links to columnists, saying that liberals are "rare" on those links is totally unsupportable. "Woman with herpes files suit" is not very political, is it? [7] Note that he lists "special reports" maybe once a day -- and they recently are on the stock market etc. and not on particularly conservative or liberal topics. So much for "almost all anti-Democrat" anything. Overstatements of that sort do not help. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Care to provide a link to some of his "apolitical" exclusives? ► RATEL ◄ 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Try [8] ... [9] is apolitical, [10] is certainly not "conservative bias", [11] is not written by Druddge, [12] may be political (Pelosi had to go to Rome was excuse for no debate). In two weeks -- ONE article fits the "conservative bias" bit if you stretch the term. I think you will find it instructive to see how few articles he writes, and how often they are simple quotes form material also found in the NYT etc. I think the Lewinsky affaire gave him an image which is not properly ascribed to the aggregation website. HP, on the other hand, has a number of editorial columns and opinion blogs, and does not furnish a fairly comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. As I iterate, you might call Drudge "conservative" but to call the site "conservative" is highly POV. Collect (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Collect, that page [13] has a listing of poll results (no articles written by Drudge at all, so immaterial), the next page [14] is about what the chairman of Fox News (the king of conservative media outlets) thinks about the world, and the third [15] is about what a huge error a Democrat president is making by sending more troops to Afghanistan. So far so typical. Same goes for the rest of what you quote — the thrust of all articles he publishes is aimed to undermine the "liberal" side of politics. It's not very subtle. Do you think people are stupid? ► RATEL ◄ 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Try AGF [16] has "Special Reports: 5301
Duplicates mean the spider has found one of the pages at that snapshot has changed. This may even mean re-ftps an identical file. In a fast moving story the contents of the special reports gets changed. Other times, it's just the link text that was changed. Click on the latest link to see the most current report.
MURDOCH WARNS: NATIONS WILL BE REDEFINED, FUTURES ALTERED... [17]
MURDOCH WARNS: NATIONS WILL BE REDEFINED, FUTURES ALTERED [18]
Bill Ayers: Obama Making 'Colossal Mistake' sending additional troops to Afghanistan... [19]
'UH-OH'... [20]
'UH-OH'... Student wore T-shirt: 'Hitler gave great speeches, too'... New sod laid in front of school: 'The joke is they're going to take it away when he leaves'... [21]
HURRY, FELLAS, LET'S VOTE, I AM OFF TO ROME! [22]
OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH... [23]
'We are functioning from a different set of views'... [24]
OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH [25]
GREGG WITHDRAWS: CENSUS MOVE, STIMULUS BLOWOUT TOO MUCH TO STOMACH [26]
GREGG WITHDRAWS NOMINATION FOR COMMERCE SEC [27]
Gregg withdraws nomination for Commerce Secretary [28]
and so on ... note that these are not particularly partisan as a rule. And, they are not polls from last year either. As for making personal attacks here, please don't. Collect (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are, as a rule, partisan. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Would an honest encyclopedia (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta) report that the Drudge Report is "an American conservative news aggregation website? I think all of us know the answer to that is a resounding no.(copied from above) Once again I will mention that it is honest to mention the perceived bias (as is done with other media and never in the opening sentence). However, it is dishonest to label the Drudge Report a "conservative news aggregation website." The differences between Drudge and Huffington Post are innumerable. Also 99% of links on the site are to other highly respected non-partisan news outlets (Drudge very rarely writes articles for the site). 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You ask: Would an honest encyclopedia (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta) report that the Drudge Report is "an American conservative news aggregation website? YES!! To quote the most impeccable source, Britannica, we find on the Huffington Post page: "[Huffington Post] was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a conservative news and commentary Web site." [29] Game, set and match! ► RATEL ◄ 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Please defend why Britannica did not refer to the Huffington Post as liberal until the end of the paragraph. The opening sentence reads "American news and commentary Web site, with offices in Los Angeles and New York City." My argument has been from the start that the article should not open with the word "conservative" in line one. That is the the debate. Game, set, and match!Zooplibob (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not the argument. Stop changing the goalposts please. We already have HuffPo called liberal in line 1, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. All we were looking at here is whether an "honest" encyclopedia would refer to the DR as conservative. And the answer to that is YES, it does. Got it? ► RATEL ◄ 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice try but anyone can submit edits to pages on that web-based encyclopedia, just like on here. I wouldn't put it past you to have submitted that on there (especially since there is not even a page on Britannica for the Drudge Report.) 24.187.132.126 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have never edited Britannica, and I would appreciate you desisting from personal attacks. This is the umpteenth time I have to warn you about this! ► RATEL ◄ 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Per WP:NPOV we go by sources, and the orientation of such a site is a factor of significance. However, its key characteristic is of news aggregation, so maybe its orientation should come after that - second sentence? Or end of first sentence? Depending on sources. "The website is considered by many" is WP:WEASEL. Ty 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Current sources in the media

While this RfC is open, I am going to keep a list here of current references in the media to the Drudge Report, as found using Google News. ► RATEL ◄ 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. "...the conservative online news site Drudge Report..."[30]
  2. "...the conservative-leaning Drudge Report..." [31]
  3. "...the politically conservative Drudge Report..." [32]
  4. "...the right-wing Web site The Drudge Report..." [33]


Amazingly enough -- these are not "typical mainstream media" cites at all. And note above the cites for the "political" reports which are, frankly, few and far between there. Collect (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Of those 4 cited, 2 are from the Huffington Post which you yourself admitted was partisan (Haaretz was a republication of a Huffington Post article), the only one that might be considered credible would be The Hill, which only said conservative leaning. Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, these are media, these links show current opinion, and they are from the last short period. If you want similar quotes from the top media sites, we have them, (see the page itself), but then you have to look at a longer period of time. Hey, provide any source you like that says the opposite! Where's the countervailing opinion to support a non-conservative case? ► RATEL ◄ 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Those "sources" show opinion, not fact. Everybody has an opinion (2 are from the Huffington Post) which is why opinions cannot be reported as sources. There article says nothing as to why it's conservative. If it had some facts to back it up, it could be a source, but it does not. As far as finding sources that say the Drudge Report is not conservative... this whole idea is ridiculous. You can't prove a negative. For example, you can't find a source that says "So And So never took steroids." You can't prove that he didn't do something, only that he did. If he didn't do [insert action here], no one would write about it. Get it? 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
In other words, 1) you have no sources for Drudge Report being merely tabloid, or even-handed, or liberal, and 2) if we find mere "opinion" restated all over the internet, in small media outlets as well as large, it becomes the sort of multiple-sourced "opinion" we can safely quote in wikipedia. That's how wiipedia works, don't you know? It's a tertiary source. ► RATEL ◄ 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a problem there, if you quote nothing but leftist and "activists" then of course anything near centrist is going to be "conservative." The only one respectable gave a non-commital "conservative leaning." Soxwon (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
And if you want a source saying it's centrist (more so than your precious NYT): http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 A study conducted by UCLA. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh please. I wouldn't wipe my bum with that rubbish. It's well known to be so flawed as to be useless, many sources will confirm, here a liberal one [34]. ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally you are clear! The Huffington Post is RS, UCLA is not. Collect (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want an unaligned critique of that conservative study, try [35] ► RATEL ◄ 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! A blog is your RS to show that UCLA is not RS. BTW, Geoff Nunberg is an outspoken Democrat, so I can not really say his blog article is "unaligned" as you assert. He wrote: The big-D sense of Democrat persisted, of course, but only as the name of a political affiliation that had no more independent meaning than old party names like Whig and Tory. That's what allowed the Republicans of Hoover's era to start referring to their opponents as the Democrat Party. The point of the maneuver was to suggest that there was nothing particularly democratic about a party whose support was based in urban political machines. But Republicans couldn't have gotten away with it if the earlier meaning of democrat hadn't already faded from the public mind. " [36] make his Weltanschauung clear. Collect (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, there are many other people debunking that conservative-funded "study" written by authors who also happen to be former members of conservative think-tanks. Even wikipedia cites the study as flawed on the page Media bias, citing someone who looks at study methodologies, Mark Liberman, a professor of Computer Science at the University of Pennsylvania [37]. Also take a look at the attack by Dow Jones & Co [38] or the way it is ripped apart at eRiposte.com [39] etc etc [40] ... hundreds more sites ripping it apart. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Aha -- attack the authors of the study when a blog is not accepted as RS about it. Your position is clear. It is, however, not correct and iterating it a dozen more times will alter nothing. Thanks! Collect (talk)
Yes, my position is clear: my Britannica source + my hundreds of newspaper sources and book sources, versus your universally panned conservative "study". That about sums it up. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Noo, you have POV sources and where is the link for EB? The one posted is for Huffington. Also, the UCLA study seems to be everywhere so you can't just say it's "panned" w/o giving a NEUTRAL claim of such. Soxwon (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Britannica link is above. Britannica has no page on DR (I guess it's just too darned insignificant), but the only reference it does have (on its HuffPo page) is as quoted. The fact that it's on the HuffPo page makes no difference — it's still Britannica information. The UCLA study by conservatives is too contentious to be used as a source for anything but a countervailing opinion in the section on conservatism, in my opinion, if at all. It was there a few years ago, as I remember, but was a consensus withdrawal, see archives. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some cites in the media from the recent past, just to underline the obvious:

Ms. Huffington has already built her site, The Huffington Post, into one of the Web’s biggest success stories — a liberal alternative to The Drudge Report...[41]


[In ref to the Ashley Todd hoax] Matt Drudge, Mark Noonans, and Brent Bozell's "Newsbusters" were among the most vociferous purveyors of this racist hoax. The phony attack story revealed just how willing and eager are the denizens of the right-wing blogosphere and Republican echo chamber to fan the flames of racial hatred if they think it will benefit their candidate. History News Network


Indeed, voters who primarily get their news from Web sites like The Huffington Post by day and MSNBC by night, and those who primarily get theirs from The Drudge Report by day and Fox News Channel by night would have entirely different views of the candidates and the news driving the campaign year. International Herald Tribune


On the web, the rightwing Drudge Report highlights anything that favours McCain, the Huffington Post does the same for Obama, and the more independent Slate has said only one of its staff intends to vote for McCain, the other 55 for Obama. Gulf-Times.com


And let’s not forget the news bloggers and aggregators. Perhaps the most famous of them is Matt Drudge, whose conservative-leaning www.drudgereport.com led the way. The Belfast Telegraph

Hope this helps new visitors to this page frame the issue. ► RATEL ◄ 23:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Compromise edit

  • As there is no consensus for including conservative in the first sentence (undue weight, the website doesn't self identify as such, it's a news aggregation site (so this label is a bit confusing), it doesn't only run criticism of a particular party etc.) I suggest a compromise on placement and wording. I think the site makes decisions on which stories to include from a particular political perspective, and I think that's what the sources (such as they are) note and I think that would be good to make clear and include in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • My compromise is to change the Intro to look like this:

The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by Matt Drudge. Conservative in tone [insert refs], the site consists mainly of links to stories from the U.S. and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and current events as well as links to many columnists. Occasionally, Drudge authors news stories himself based on tip-offs. The Report originated around 1994 as a weekly subscriber-based email dispatch. It was most famous for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish the story.

This moves the word into sentence 2 and should satisfy the critics. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine, get reliable sources, Huffington Post is not one. Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please concentrate on the debate, and make sensible comments, or go edit something else. I have never used the Huffington Post as a source. The sources are on the existing page. ► RATEL ◄ 03:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
About the Huffington Post, whose characterization is that, Huffington's or EBs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
EB's. ► RATEL ◄ 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Web EB is not print EB, and does not have the same editorial policies. "The DR is a news aggregation website, with links to major news reports, news organizations and to a comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. The DR does not run blogs, or have any editorial conrol over what it links to other than the occasional reports written by Matt Drudge, and some of those reports are claimed to be conservative in nature." Clear. Concise. And, best of all, accurate. Collect (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Print EB contains the same text, I've checked. I don't like your edit. It's weasely and full of negatives (what the DR is not). Awful. ► RATEL ◄ 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The only "negative" is that it has NO blogs. As for stating that it does not have editorial control over anything other than MD's own reports -- can you show me another way of stating that fact? Can you find another way of phrasing that fact? As for your claim that it has right wing sites -- might you tell us how many links are on the main DR page -- how many are to "right wing sites" and how many to "left wing sites" or columnists? I think that such an exercise would be useful here. (Hint: Most of the columnists are liberals). Collect (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. You do not have a sentence saying what something "is not" in any intro of any page on Wikipedia.
  2. I do not claim that "it has right wing sites". You are not following the discussion. Please go back and re-read the debate, specifically about where I talk about "intent" (scan the page for that word).
  3. You need to study wikipedia's page on weasel wording, because you have a tendency to come up with text laden with weasel words. ► RATEL ◄ 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are in error. The lede is supposed to summarize the article, and where the article says something is not true of the subject, that fact is certainly proper in the lede, and is, in fact, correctly placed there. As to making accusations about editors, I find that not a proper use of a talk page. Collect (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated that you tend to use weasel words. This is not a personal attack and has been pointed out to you by other editors, right on this talk page. If the cap fits, wear it. Secondly, sentences saying what Drudge "is not" are not appropriate in this context in the lead paragraph. Thirdly, you are meretriciously attempting to tone down the conservatism of the DR to merely "some of the reports" to which the site links! Are you serious? You seem to have no understanding of the debate here at all, and I shall cease responding to you unless you have something sensible to say. ► RATEL ◄ 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
ratel, you do have a tendency toA)be condenscending B)be unecessarily provoking and C)make outright personal attacks (hint: saying someone has no idea what is going on is a personal attack). He has a point, all you have are links to partisan websites, opinion pieces, pieces that don't even comment on it's standing (Int. Herald Tribune, NYT) and one EB (and anything's conservative compared to Huffington). Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your ad hominem directed at me. I see that the new tack you and your allies are taking is to claim that the DR is not conservative because of the affiliation of the sites to which Drudge links. That won't wash. And you are ignoring the section on Conservatism in the main article, with the excellent sources there, which I haven't even bothered to cite in this debate, because I thought we were all on the same page about the site actually being conservative. That's not what we're debating. This debate is simply about WHERE TO PUT THE WORD "CONSERVATIVE". So, Soxon, since you too seem to have lost the thread of what's going on here, I have to make another "personal attack" and ask you please to re-read and concentrate. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I said he has a point, nowhere did I point that I thought conservatism should have been removed. Perhaps you should reread what is written? Soxwon (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Soxwon, thanks, putting that to one side, would you please give us your version of a compromise edit below? ► RATEL ◄ 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that we've all been ignoring you up until now, but please don't start adding unhelpful trolling comments to get attention. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really that hard, put the conservative by Matt Drudge instead of the site. That is not debatable and still allows for the reader to decide for themselves whether or not it is conservative, opening line would be: The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by conservative Matt Drudge. Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion bears consideration. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also for the last sentence, instead of saying "The website is considered by many to be conservative in tone," how about listing the more notable of the sources you keep claiming? Again, though I feel they don't warrant wikipedia labeling it that way, the reader can once again decide for themselves whether the sources justify the label. Soxwon (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I completely agree the last sentence should go (I never put it there BTW). The sources we've used, inter alia, up until now for the conservative tag are:
  1. "Will a funny thing happen on the way to Washington?". Edward Luce. The Financial Times. [42] . Retrieved on 2008-10-29. "...the conservative Drudge Report..."
  2. "McCain labels Obama 'the redistributor'". Stephen Dinan. The Washington Times. [43] . Retrieved on 2008-10-29. "..the conservative Drudge Report..."
  3. "MoveOn.org Targets AP's Fournier for Alleged Pro-McCain Bias". Editor and Publisher (pay site, article is available elsewhere online). [44] . Retrieved on 2008-09-10. "...the Drudge Report ....and numerous other conservative sites"
  4. "Drudge Retort Considers Lawsuit Against AP". MediaPost NY. [45] . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "...the conservative Drudge Report"
  5. "A weekly look at what's getting the most looks online". The Topeka Capital-Journal. [46] . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "...the Drudge Report, a popular conservative Web site."
  6. "Bill Clinton tells Rush Limbaugh: 'You're tan, fit, look good'". Rawstory.com. [47] . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "Limbaugh spoke about how the conservative Drudge Report first reported..."
Thanks for the suggestions. ► RATEL ◄ 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So it'd look something like this:

"The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by conservative Matt Drudge. The site consists mainly of links to stories from the U.S. and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and current events as well as links to many columnists. Occasionally, Drudge authors news stories himself based on tip-offs. The Report originated around 1994 as a weekly subscriber-based email dispatch. It was most famous for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish the story.[2]. Huffington Post, the Washington Times, and the Financial Times all argue that the site reflects Drudge's political views."

Not sure about the wording of the last statement or which sources are most notable, but that's what I would suggest in nutshell. It keeps wikipedia neutral and allows for the reader to interpret whether they are credible sources and if the site is indeed partisan. Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean ok, if that's what we have to do to get consensus. I'll go with that, reluctantly. I think if we do put that edit in, I'm still going to be reverting the $%$%$% page on a daily basis because people come along and reinsert "conservative website" all the time (just check the history). And it's hard to argue with them when they have excellent sources, from Britannica to The Financial Times. We'll put your edit in (unless there is cogent disagreement), but also leave this RfC up for a few months to see what comments come along..... ► RATEL ◄ 06:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Unsure as to in what way that is superior to (say) "The Dudge Report is a news aggregation website, with links to major news reports, news organizations and to a comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. It occasionally has reports written by Matt Drudge, and those reports are claimed to be conservative in nature. It started in 1994 as a weekly email dispatch for subscribers. It achieved fame for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish the story." Note "many columnists" is actually a fairly comprehesive list of syndicated columnists, etc. And the 1994 date is useful. Close? Collect (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not a good edit in my opinion, for several reasons. Firstly, the sentence containing "conservative" is weasely (I really wish you'd find out what weasel words are). Secondly, the sites conservatism is based on more than just the Drudge-written editorials; there are 3 things: Drudge's own conservative opinions and history (and his sidekick Andrew Breitbart's outspoken conservatism), Drudge's editorials, and (mostly) his choice of headlines (which are chosen to make the left look bad and the right look good, 95% of the time). Thirdly, I'm concerned that the entire thrust of moving the word "conservative" out of the first sentence has more to do with the commercial considerations of the site's ownership (because the first sentence appears in Google when you search for "drudge report") than for any wikipedia-based, or even partisan, reasons. That worries me. We can't have the encyclopaedia manipulated by businesses who don't want their potential clients/readers/click-thrus dissuaded from visiting by an upfront statement in Google of their actual political affiliations. (You listening, Matt and Andrew? Give it up, boys.) So I'm particularly worried by any editor who seems to have the main agenda of shifting the word further down the page for flimsy reasons. ► RATEL ◄ 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I know "WEASEL" and I know what it is not. Lecturing me is not going to win any points. As you appear to think a list of columnists has an intrinsic political slant when others do not agree with that push, I fear that you may be disappointed in a reasoned compromise which clearly states that some of the "reports" may be conservative, but that does not make the entire site conservative. As opposed to HP which does not link to all columnists, and has a clear preponderance of columnists paid by HP with particular political positions. As for attacks about "being worried by any editor" with the implication that they have a commercial interest in anything -- that should be redacted instantly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I will go along with this edit (Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)). It identifies Matt Drudge as a conservative, while citing sources later on that claim it has a conservative bias. It is not the articles job to form an opinion (yes, they are opinions) that the site is conservative. The facts are that Drudge is conservative, and less importantly that some media sources claim it is conservative. Good compromise. Zooplibob (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Soxwon won. To Collect: no redaction from me, I never named any editor, not even you, as having a commercial interest. Your phrase "those reports are claimed to be conservative" is a classic example of weasel words. And the fact that the DR has a list of columnists of all political hues at the end of his site is of negligible importance. I have never used any of those links, have you? They are there in order to get reciprocal links from other sites. Elementary, my dear Watson. ► RATEL ◄ 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I use the links, and, as I understand it, some of those sites get more than 25% of their page views from Drudge links. OTOH, I can not find a NYT link to Drudge -- so the "reciprocal" bit is quite doubtful indeed. (nor an LAT link, nor an Ebert link, nor Dowd link, nor a Helen Thomas link ... ad nauseam) And that list comprises more than one half his entire site, so I consider them to be of substantial importance. Collect (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying that because he links to Ann Coulter (extreme right wing) as well as people like Roger Ebert (not a political figure), we need to consider this when asking ourselves which way his site leans? 'Fraid not. I don't see it like that, Britannica doesn't, the Financial Times doesn't, and in fact I've never seen the link list mentioned by anyone other than you. Thinking people look at the wording of Drudge's links to news stories, the breathless editorials he writes, his own well known pro-GOP views, and so on. Nice try, Collect, but no cigar. As to the lack of reciprocal links, well, you can always live in hope. Put the links up and hope for a reciprocal one, is how it works on many sites. It also allows him to claim, just as you are claiming, that he is "fair and balanced" (a la Fox News). Not that he has ever made that claim, mind you (I guess he doesn't want to be laughed at). ► RATEL ◄ 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ratel has accused me of being Zooplibob (someone I do not know, nor have I ever communicated with). He has also accused me and others of having a "commercial interest" in the site and has told me to review "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN". I was simply trying to make WP more accurate. It seems that the overall majority agree that "conservative" does not belong in the first sentence, being that it does not define the site. Sorry Ratel, but it looks like you lost this one. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The compromise edit does contain the word conservative in the first sentence. I asked an admin to check Zooplibob's IP to see if you are the same person (which is not the same as "accusing" you of being the same person). So once again, your comments are riddled with inaccuracies. ► RATEL ◄ 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia, and this is the only article I've ever edited. And although this might not be the appropriate place to state this, I have to say that dealing with "Ratel" has spoiled the experience for me. From the start I am accused of both having a financial stake in DR as well as being another user, neither of which have any factual basis (as your little IP check will reveal). This could have been a pleasant debate on how to describe the DR website, but spiraled down quickly with the inflammatory and often obnoxious tone by Ratel ("game, set, and match"). Ratel, you would probably do well to read [48], as someone posted earlier, since it describes your actions perfectly. I'm happy that my changes were considered, debated, and ultimately resulted in a compromise (by referring to Drudge as conservative rather than the DR website), but the experience has turned me off from being a potential contributor in the future.Zooplibob (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Poor baby. You're the first newby I've seen to come out with statements like "Any attempt to revert back to the previous revision will be considered vandalism and promptly removed" (as you did above). Maybe you should learn to walk here before you start throwing your weight around? ► RATEL ◄ 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Stop it, Ratel. You're alienating even those who would have tended to support your position. You're being an absolute jerk now, and you need to stop. H2O Shipper 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And that coming from someone whose only contributions to this discussion have been trolling comments. Hmmm. I need to keep Clark's Law in mind sometimes. ► RATEL ◄ 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Point out where I've been "trolling." I actually agree more with you on the content than I do with the other views. However, you seem to have taken the view that this is a battleground of some kind, and that insults are somehow appropriate. This type of behavior is reprehensible, Ratel. You're way out of line here. H2O Shipper 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
<---outdent
Additionally, Ratel, I've found that those who refer to things like Clark's Law and Hanlon's Razor when referring to people with whom they are disagreeing are normally suffering from a lack of anything constructive to add to the debate. Perhaps a new rule that "the first person to invoke Hanlon's Razor or Clark's Law in a debate loses." H2O Shipper 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, I tried to be patient with you, but your arrogant, insensitive attitude has made it near impossible to try to come up with a solution as you incite anger and problems rather than help to fix problems with remarks and comments that seem to have the purpose of trolling rather than trying to help. WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, and the Golden Rule would be a good place to start. /rant Soxwon (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outlink) Drudge links to about two hundred constant links. Including every major online newspaper and opinion site and every findable syndicated columnist. Including Salon, Slate and the Huffington Post. No sign of anyone missing that I can tell, yet you think the list is biassed in some way? Schade. Collect (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We can certainly mention the "comprehensive list of links" if you like. It's not worth arguing over whether the end-page link collection is selective or not. It probably is, looking at the preponderance of conservative commentators, but it's not that momentous. ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Preponderance"? I doubt it. I count 14 "conservative" links, and well over a hundred "liberal" ones. Seems like a full roster, in fact. Collect (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting interpretation. I see a long list of conservative commentators listed on his site. ► RATEL ◄ 13:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Start at column 1 -- I will not yell. Count (and I suggest Itar-TASS is not "conservative") Note every single liberal blogsite on the list -- none missing. And, more important since the accusation was made, no reciprocal links. Collect (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Look, re: the reciprocal links thing, Drudge leeches images from these sites' servers and deep links into their sites for stories. A lot of them get upset about that. IOW he takes liberties with them, so the links and the Google ranking boost it gives is a a quid pro quo. I'm sure you understand. Nothing for nothing in this world. Thanks for the input. ► RATEL ◄ 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


(outdent) You asserted "reciprocal links" and that was inapt. You now assert that the places are upset with Drudge. For that sort of claim, I would like an actual source. The ones I found upset were primarily upset with Yahoo and Google news which try to index every story from every source with images (AFP was the biggest complainant about this), which Drudge does not do at all. I fear you wish to debase what is probably the least leeching web news aggregation site of all. Collect (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Shows how much you know. Some sites even put up images to stop Drudge leeching, eg [49] He's a well known image hotlinker (big conflict with Yahoo about it). Then there are people who have had their photos stolen, as they claim. [50] ► RATEL ◄ 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
See AFP's fights with Google and Yahoo. Drudge is nothing in comparison. As for the photo at issue -- without knowing the source of the photo (clearly the photographer released it to some publisher, else no one could have it) one can not specify "Drudge dun it!" with any certitude at all. And clearly Drudge removed it as soon as he was told, which is what the copyright law says to do. As for all this -- it is irrelevant to any claim that Drudge's links are in any way, shape, manner or form political or that he gets paid in any way by the links he has. As for "shows how much you know" I assure you I am familiar with the economics of web enterprises. Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's edit with sources

The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by conservative Matt Drudge. The site consists mainly of links to stories from the U.S. and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and current events as well as links to many columnists. Occasionally, Drudge authors news stories himself based on tip-offs. The Report originated around 1994 as a weekly subscriber-based email dispatch. It was most famous for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish the story.[1].

  1. ^ "Scandalous scoop breaks online" (html). BBC News. 1998-01-25. Retrieved 2007-06-23.
  • Right, there's the edit, without the final sentence in the paragraph. I don't think we need to source the "conservative Matt Drudge" because he has self-described as such. The section on Conservatism in the body of the article needs to be summarised into the lead somehow, but I'm not totally happy with the final sentence by Soxwon quoting HuffPo as a source. I'd prefer something like: "The site is considered to be conservative-leaning (or just "conservative").[cite EB, FT, etc]. ► RATEL ◄ 08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


We source Matt Drudge as conservative, the extra sentence is POS and piling Ossa on Pelion since the discussion I read did not posit having the word appear twice. Collect (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's edit did put it in their twice, once for Drudge and once for his website. They are two different entities, after all, and we have excellent sources for the website being labelled conservative. ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The version I saw did not do so, and the HP cite is ludicrous -- it is pure opinion and must be properly labelled as opinion. Collect (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
HP? HP? I was using FT and EB. So you removed the edit without even checking the sources used, right? ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My version did indeed have the word Conservative in their twice, you can't get around the fact that some feel the site itself is conservative and as such I felt it should be added Soxwon (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the famous UK Independent newspaper, says that the Drudge Report "has a clear conservative bias." [51]

And the news aggregation aspect has no such bias- Such bias as you may see is in the now infrequent reports by Drudge himself -- which are a tiny part of the site. Collect (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on now. The bias is in the wording of the links on the site. Drudge makes up the wording. And in it's in the stories he highlights as well as the choice not to highlight other stories. It's subtle. But just because it's a little subtle doesn't mean people can't spot it, as the multitude of sources for the conservative tag show. I'm really not sure why you are beating this dead horse. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So you gave up on him only linking to conservative? Only having conservative headlines? Clue: Most of his headings are from the sources. And EBonline is a good -- wiki. Still. And not owned by EB. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
EB Online is part of the same corporate structure as print EB, with the same CEO, and I've already told you that the same phrase quoted from online EB as regards DR is in the print version, haven't I? I suggest you study Encyclopædia_Britannica. It makes clear that they are very fussy about contributions, that every contribution is carefully vetted by experts in the area, and that it is quite unlike wikipedia in this way. As for the headlines: my take is the same as the rest of the universe, that is that the site is conservative in tone (and I have oodles of confirmatory sources), whereas your impression is almost unique. You are virtually alone in seeing the site as even-handed. WP doesn't feature unusual or fringe viewpoints like yours, just the mainstream. ► RATEL ◄ 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
They certainly had been "legally separated" in the past -- but that does not alter the "flagged wiki" nature of EB. And specifically the fact that the reference is in the HP article -- there is no reason to hide that fact as cited. And the sentence in which it is found makes the context clear -- that HP was founded as a "liberal" site as it viewed DR as "conservative." Collect (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
See below the flagged nature is bull, as is the "legally seperated." Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've protected the page for 3 days due to edit warring. It's gotten really bad, with one established user violating WP:3RR twice in a short period. Please attempt in good faith to resolve this discussion here on talk before the protection expires. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

I think it's pretty evident that the Drudge Report leans to the right. However, I also think it's pretty evident that reliable sources are needed for any claims likely to be challenged. Additionally, the last sentence in the current lede is awful: "The website is considered by many to be conservative in tone." What does that even mean? How could it possibly be sourced? Who are "some"? That sentence HAS to go, period. Would someone with the powers to do so please remove it? H2O Shipper 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The final sentence contains weasel words, is what I think you are trying to say. ► RATEL ◄ 03:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I said what I was trying to say. I'm in no need of your interpretation. H2O Shipper 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The subject is on lock until we reach a consensus, the discussion for which is above. Soxwon (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hence the rewording in the proposal above (please read it, I'm not sure of the wording.) Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

EB

I can't believe I have to do this. Here we go, if you go to the EB online and click on the about us: http://corporate.britannica.com/about/ link you'll find out they are indeed a part of EB. It's also in the print version. Stop making nonsense edits PLEASE! As for the ridiculous claim that it is a "flagged revision wiki" please provide where that is stated as I don't see it in the list of examples. I'd also like to see where you can compare the Editors of EB to wikipedia as they are the ONLY listed contributors to the article. Soxwon (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated what had been true in the past. Try WP:AGF. And you can clearly see that you are able to "suggest revisions" to any article, and that such revisions are "reviewed." Have you participated in the WP discussions about "flagged revisions" at all? Collect (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape.

A wiki enables documents to be written collaboratively, in a simple markup language using a Web browser. A single page in a wiki website is referred to as a "wiki page", while the entire collection of pages, which are usually well interconnected by hyperlinks, is "the wiki". A wiki is essentially a database for creating, browsing, and searching through information.

A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Generally, there is no review before modifications are accepted. Many wikis are open to alteration by the general public without requiring them to register user accounts. Sometimes logging in for a session is recommended, to create a "wiki-signature" cookie for signing edits automatically. Many edits, however, can be made in real-time and appear almost instantly online. This can facilitate abuse of the system. Private wiki servers require user authentication to edit pages, and sometimes even to read them.

None of those apply to EB which has been a respectable encyclopedia for years. The discussion section of EB has made it clear it is NOT a wiki so please STOP. Soxwon (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)FWIW, the EB article has been, indeed, altered and no longer supports the claim that the EB calls the Drudge Report "conservative." It now says "was widely viewed as conservative" which is noticeably different from the prior wording. Collect (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, haven't you been busy. ► RATEL ◄ 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh? What precisely do you mean by that comment? I periodically recheck cites on pages I watch -- especially when there are redlinks or the like. Don't you? Collect (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me AGF and say "Sure you do!". BTW I don't think the change makes much difference. EB still supports the fact that the site is widely viewed as conservative, which supports the text. ► RATEL ◄ 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
And your implication is that I own the EB or the like? C'mon now! That fact is that the EB does NOT say the site is conservative, making its use now quite improper. Find a different cite or just remove the claim. Collect (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a "James Canterbury" submitted a suggestion that resulted in the change on March 4, just when our conversation here on that exact sentence was underway. How strange is that? That change history is clearly and publicly displayed at the EB website under the "Topic History" button, so it's public knowledge. Now what would the chances be that one the editors here were responsible for putting pressure on a source document to change its wording, and just how ethical is that? ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
The EB is no longer accurately cited for the claim made. Collect (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Now that I look at it, Collect, you may have something. Why not change the lead ("lead" is a valid alternative to "lede") wording to reflect the new EB wording, which is that the site is widely considered to be conservative? ► RATEL ◄ 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a note: Britannica has reverted the wording to "a conservative news and commentary Web site". ► RATEL ◄ 22:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Another note: Britannica's page on Matt Drudge describes him as an "American journalist who was best known for the Drudge Report, a conservative news and commentary Web site."[52]

What your angry letter shows is that the EB is mutable, which is what I said before. That you got them toi "revert" a change you did not like proves absolutely nothing, as is apparent to everyone else. Collect (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look a few lines up, you flip-flopped when the EB supported your argument. Soxwon (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Collect, more to the point is that seasoned, professional encyclopedia editors at EB looked at the cases for and against, and came up for the conservative tag. So we now have the results of independent arbitration to cast light on this debate. ► RATEL ◄ 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope -- you stated that you suspected the eidt was improper, and made a big deal of this article. You were the "squeaky wheel" and that is all you have proven. Care to post the text of what you wrote to them so others can see? Collect (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I simply pointed out to them that the DR is referred to in numerous places in the format that they originally had used, and directed them to read this page to see both sides of the argument and come to their own decision. Their editor obvious did not find your arguments persuasive. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Post your missive to the EB here and we shall see what they found "persuasivve" Your "outing" me as "James Canterbury" fell flat, didn;t it? Collect (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. What makes you assume that I thought you were Mr Canterbury of EB?
  2. What makes you think I discussed anything to do with you at all when I wrote to them?
  3. Do you often have feelings of paranoia?► RATEL ◄ 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) "Looks like a "James Canterbury" submitted a suggestion that resulted in the change on March 4, just when our conversation here on that exact sentence was underway. How strange is that? That change history is clearly and publicly displayed at the EB website under the "Topic History" button, so it's public knowledge. Now what would the chances be that one the editors here were responsible for putting pressure on a source document to change its wording, and just how ethical is that?" was your post. Nuff said. And please redact the personal attacks, they do not belong in any article, talk page, or anywhere else. Collect (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not outing. And as for the comments about paranoia, if the cap fits, wear it. ► RATEL ◄ 13:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Some study about Drudge's bias?

I seem to remember this article citing a study that showed that Drudge was less biased than other mainstream news outlets. Is there a reason why it's gone, or is my memory just foggy? - Chardish (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one such study, though that's not the one I remember. - Chardish (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

the one you are thinking of is the UCLA one that is in dispute Soxwon (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
UCLA still stands by it. Collect (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the study that found that The Wall Street Journal has more "liberal bias" than any news outlet surveyed. Hahaha ...aaaah.. ahahahahaha! Bwahaha! (Wipes tear from eye). ► RATEL ◄ 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
If it's published information that is in dispute, it still makes sense to present the findings, as well as present noteworthy criticisms of the findings. I see no reason to inject personal analysis into any of this. - Chardish (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, we can put that garbage on the page, why not? Just be sure to include the many caveats that come with it. ► RATEL ◄ 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Your personal opinions have been iterated. This page is to discuss the article. Collect (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Pointing out my apparent tautology makes you as guilty as I of straying off topic. ► RATEL ◄ 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, media sources all suffer from bias. We know this. That is why we do not selectively ignore media sources under the auspices of assumed bias. - Chardish (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to say it's conservative?

The intro already says "the site reflects Drudge's conservative political stance." I object to having "conservative Matt Drudge" in the first sentence. This is undue weight, redundant, and inconsistent with the standard for newpaper articles. As soon as political labels and affiliations of the owners are added to the articles of the Wash Post, New York Times and other media, I will accept that this is normal. Although, even then someone will have to explain why we have to say the same thing twice? I think it's a very reasonable compromise to allow the website and Drudge to be characterized as conservative. The sources support that so I'm happy to live with it, despite other articles not being held to the saem standard, but lets not get crazy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. This is not a "newspaper", this is a gossip and news aggregation website. So please stop comparing apples to oranges. For a closer comp, see HuffPo.
  2. One descriptive word that characterises the nature of the owner of a site is hardly undue weight.
  3. The man is conservative is one point; the site is conservative-leaning is another. We are not "saying the same thing twice". ► RATEL ◄ 02:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


ChildofMidnight, the compromise we fashioned was that the site itself and its characterization would be left to the reader. We would just report how it was viewed by various sources and that Drudge was conservative. Read above and you will see that is what it came down to, thank you. Soxwon (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned eleven times on the page that the Drudge Report (or Drudge himself) is conservative. This seems very extreme. In contrast, it is only mentioned two times on the Huffington Post page that the website is liberal, and that page has no section devoted to the site's liberalism. I agree with ChildOfMidnight that the point is being driven in a bit too hard. One does not need to quote every single person who says Drudge is conservative. - Chardish (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For even more contrast, George W. Bush is mentioned as a conservative only once, and Barack Obama is mentioned as a liberal three times. We do not need to call Drudge a conservative eleven times. Chardish (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the conservatism section should be overhauled considering the agreement about the first line (also the second conservative in the opening paragraph should be edited out). Soxwon (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the multiple mentions of conservative is warranted given that there is controversy over the issue with the UCLA study and all. Also, we keep getting driveby editors who delete the word when they see it, and they have to be convinced all over again to allow it to stay. Having a section on "Conservatism" where we make it extremely clear the word does apply has stopped a lot of the driveby editing. So let that section stand please. But I won't oppose Soxwon's removal of the lead's second mention. (BTW, was George Bush a conservative? True conservatives would argue with you on that one). ► RATEL ◄ 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would ask Childofmidnoght to please stop ignoring the Talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 02:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to have the last line in, it should have it reflecting his views w/o the extraneous "conservative." Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This article was much better with an NPOV first sentence. This article is about the website (and links prominently to the article about Drudge himself which says he's conservative right in the first line). Having the last sentence in a one paragraph introduction assert that the website is identified as reflecting Drudge's conservative politics seems the best approach. Having the first sentence of the intro use the "Conservative Matt Drudge" bit is too much (undue weight). Are we going to refer to people with their political affiliation as a first name? Liberal President Barack Obama? Liberal Nancy Pelosi? Come on. This is silliness. No one is trying to hide the politics of the site and its owner operator with a clear and accurate encyclopedic sentence in a short intro. The sentence that states clearly that the site is identified as being conservative and this reflects Drudge's politics is very reasonable and is the proper way to communicate the information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It was not WP:UNDUE, it introduces the person who runs it and how they stand politically. Soxwon (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
And yet it's not the Matt Drudge article. It's the Drudge Report article. And the other sentence identifies the politics of Drudge as it relates to the website. This is a much better way of communicating the significance then throwing in the word as if it's his first name. The politics of the owners of other newspapers aren't even mentioned. Why not? SHouldn't Newsweek and the NYT's politics be in the first sentence too if your logic is solid? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to give ChildofMidnight credit here. It is a bit much to say the site is run by "Conservative Matt Drudge." Since when do we identify people that way. Does Sean Penn's page say that he is a "Liberal American film actor?" We already have a section devoted to the claims of conservatism. Do we really need conservative in front of Matt Drudge, followed by many citations to open the article. It is quite a distraction if you ask me. 24.187.128.136 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
If it bother's you ppl so much, why don't we just go back to labeling the DR conservative and be done with it. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I second Soxwon on this. Why not go full circle back to "The DR is a conservative news aggregation website", which is how it is described all over the place (so many cites it's not funny), and gets the concept across succinctly? We can then either delete a lot of the other "conservatives" or drop them into footnotes. Yes? ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> The reasons it's not appropriate in the first sentence are numerous and they've been discussed previously. The website doesn't self identify as conservative. It's not the most notable aspect of the website and isn't a neutral way of presenting the article. This makes it undue weight and POV. As has been mentioned numerous times, we don't identify websites or news organizations by their political affiliations or perceived biases in the lead sentence. It's quite reasonable to note the politics of Drudge and the perceptions of his website as conservative in the introducution, but it's excessive in the first sentence and against consensus. If you want to move it up from the last sentence I don't have a problem with that as long as the wording and sentences flow. Again, look at the articles for the New York Times, Newsweek, etc. etc. etc. etc. I am happy to support identifying the site as politically conservative, but there's no reason it needs to be done in the first sentence as if it's the most significant aspect of the site. It comes across as an attempt at POV pushing rather than encyclopedic presentation of information, which is why numerous editors have objected to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved it up to the second sentence, but it still seems undue weight. I think it made sense where it was. Please note that the Village Voice and teh Guardian Newspaper, both reknowned for their political slant, don't mention politics in this way. I would also note that checking out some of the citations, they don't look reliable at all. I hope we can agree to a fair compromise and move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for simply deciding what you want consensus to be, and then going right ahead and installing your version. You are not even trying to make this collaborative. And your arguments are daft. Taking them in turn:
  1. doesn't self identify as conservative - so what? It doesn't have to "self-identify" when hundreds of sources have identified it as such, and MD has never repudiated.
  2. It's not the most notable aspect of the website - it actually IS the most notable aspect. Almost every mention of the DR in the media has an explicit or implicit mention of the site's political leanings! I have thousands of citations for that.
  3. a neutral way of presenting the article - it is totally NPOV. Sources abound.
  4. undue weight - ONE WORD is not undue weight in any way.
  5. we don't identify websites or news organizations[this is not a news organisation, for the nth time) by their political affiliations or perceived biases in the lead sentence - yes, we do (HuffPo). And if it's sourceable and true, why ever not? Sums it up nicely. Is it shameful to be conservative?
Once again, I ask ChildofMidnight to wait before changing the page. Your arguments are weak. The sources are RS, despite your attempt to cast them as "not reliable at all". ► RATEL ◄ 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
One of the "sources" is shown to be mutable, and does not support the claim made for it (though you did emend the cite to show the actual quote). You position is clear from preceding posts, so fully iterating it is not that necessary. "One word" when repeated over and over and over can very well hit WP:UNDUE. Collect (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I can live with the lead as Collect has it now. I think Soxwon would too. I realise Conservatism section needs to be rationalised and reworded. Can we move on to that? Or is ChildofMidnight going to keep warring the intro? ► RATEL ◄ 13:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, from what I remember there was an RFC requested and the overwhelming majority was against your point of view. ChildOfMidnight is right about the consensus. It seems like you are the only person still arguing for your lost cause. 24.187.128.136 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it seems like a number of ppl came out of nowhere to suddenly object to conservative. You seem to mistake you opinion and another person's for being consensus. My edit had all the parties involved satisfied save you. Now it seems as if the dispute has not been handled after all. I'm going to request this page be locked (again) until we can sort this out. Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues to be sorted out

This is ridiculous. Alright, the issues that need to be solved:

1)Where conservative should be mentioned in the lead
2) How many times conservative should be used
3) Fix the conservatism section

I have asked for a temporary block so we can fix this once and for all w/o all this nitpicking and edit-warring. Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A block would be in order. Some editors here have no interest in consensus-building. Two small notes: 1) take into account that I have been maintaining this page for years. I am well aware of WP:OWN issues, and I try to listen diligently to criticism of content when it makes sense, but just remember, I'll be here editing this page for many more years. If unsupportable edits are forced onto the page because of sheer numbers (thanks probably to some behind-the-scenes canvassing), they'll eventually be removed. 2) I have written to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subversion of their content and pointed their editorial staff to this Talk page. They'll soon see why that change was suggested by one of our members here, and I hope they will revert it, and lock it. Indeed, I have requested same. ► RATEL ◄ 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Eh? Are you accusing me of "subversion" of the EB? Schade! Try AGF on this -- and I doubt that they will use WP as their source when the wording is clear! The dfact is that the old wording there was factually incorrect, and the new wording is factually correct. Remember how you insisted they would never emend any errors on thier pages? Collect (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything, per se. But if the caps fits, etc. To "subvert" is to undermine, and getting EB to change the concise and correct description (correct by popular acclaim, for not all the myriad of sources I have can be wrong) they had for the DR into something mealy-mouthed and badly parsed is exactly that — an undermining of EB. We'll see what they do. ► RATEL ◄ 02:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, it's funny how you fought tooth and nail for EB, constantly saying it is not a flagged WP. Then, when they change their writing to contradict your wording, their credibility suddenly drops and you accuse Collect of subversion. You can't have it both ways.
EB online is actually taking baby steps with public revisions. Maybe this will teach them a cautionary lesson. ► RATEL ◄ 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

24.187.128.136 (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point actually, I'm for going back to Drudge Report being called conservative. Soxwon (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Total agreement from me. ► RATEL ◄ 05:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine calling it conservative once, preferably with a phrasing like "popularly considered to be conservative" with those half-dozen cites or so, and being done with it. It's simple: if its status as conservative is considered controversial, we shouldn't be calling it conservative. But if it's widely assumed to be conservative, we should report that fact. - Chardish (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! The only place it's considered "controversial" is here, on this talk page! You wouldn't have every 2nd newspaper casually calling it conservative if it were likely to provoke Letters to the Editor. It's simply not controversial, the weird UCLA "study" (that found the WSJ was left wing and that Fox News is "centrist") notwithstanding. ► RATEL ◄ 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say it was controversial? But really, the UCLA study is worth including, without your scare quotes around the word "study". - Chardish (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning, but the widespread dispute takes away from its reliablity and weight. Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that in the lead conservative once is fine, but you'd be hard pressed to have an entire article about it w/o using the word again. Soxwon (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

LoL the ongoing battle about the conservative label despite the obviousness of it all. Look on DR right now on 3/9/09, an article called "WIKIPEDIA scrubs Obama page clean of critical entries..." Ya like Drudge does not have any eyes on Wiki articles eh? Muhahah! Jason Parise (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
DUDE! Those are the guys that were vandalizing Baseball Bugs' page and others b/c they wouldn't let them cite the WND (which is where the article comes from). They tried to freep him and a couple others. Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: The EB cite had been updated to the current wording on that site, and is now backdated to a former wording of the Huffington Post article. I would trust the current wording is what should be cited. Collect (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead (again)

Since ChildofMidnight keeps making edits, let's beat this horse yet again. What should be in the lead. You have to mention conservative once at least. My thoughts were to label Drudge, say what sites claimed it was conservative and let the reader decide. Any other suggestions? Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the lead as is. Subject of page is noted as cons. and so it the creator, in one word. Simple, informative, concise, honest. ChildofMidnight (an account created in Nov 2008) is also making disruptive edits elsewhere, and embroiling himself in the Barrack Obama controversy that hit the headlines recently, eg diff ► RATEL ◄ 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen him there, I've been in the thick of it as well Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refactor your comment and refrain from personal attacks and casting aspersions and conspiratorial insinuations in my direction. I'm able to discuss the content issues and guidelines that apply here. I expect you to do the same. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The distinctive attribute of Drudge is his willingness to go with less verification than other journalists. Sometimes it gets him a "scoop," as in the Lewinski story, sometimes he just screws up, as in the Ashley Todd story. His site is a news aggregater first and a speculative reporting site second. He describes himself politically: "I’m not a right-wing Republican,” he replies without batting an eye. “I’m a conservative and want to pay less taxes. And I did vote Republican at the last election. But I’m more of a populist."
I like our last sentence in the lead- "Encyclopedia Britannica and the Financial Times have characterized the site as conservative." But I don't think it's useful to repeat the word "conservative." Once is enough. We've got it in that sentence. He sees himself as "populist." A federal judge noted that Drudge "is not a reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer. He is, as he admits himself, simply a purveyor of gossip."
So in the lead we should characterize Drudge once as "conservative," via the Britannica and Financial Times cites, and, if we add anything else, it should be "populist purveyor of gossip." Or some variation.
Anyway, I ramble. Say conservative once. That's probably enough in the lead. The rest comes through in the article. But if we must say more in the lead (which I don't think we should), then we should have some variation of populist, willing-to-take-a-risk-with-other-people's-reputation-in-order-to-be-first sort of news site. Concisely, of course, unlike this ramble of mine. Basically, I like what we have.
Robert1947 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a disputed tag. At one point Ratel offered a compromise, but now he has returned to a his way or the highway approach. There is no consensus for the first sentence to read the way it does. There's an article on Matt Drudge and it says he is conservative. This article is about the Drudge Report and it says it is "widely viewed as conservative" right there in the introduction and has a whole section for this issue. Anything beyond that is undue weight and POV. Please follow our guidelines. There is no article or other case where people are referred to with politically charged terms in other articles to influence the content. Again, the intro says the Drudge Report IS widely viewed as conservative. We don't need to say it more than once. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus, you weren't here. The WP:UNDUE and WP:POV are your opinions, don't lecture me about the guidelines. I've changed my stance, the Drudge is conservative (so many links) and think it should be changed to reflect that. Matt's affiliation can then be dropped. Soxwon (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
So if you and Ratel agree to something that amounts to consensus? I'm not sure that's grounded in policy. If you review the talk page I've made my position quite clear numerous times. I'm willing to compromise. Flexible on placement. But saying it's conservative more than once or saying "The Drudge report is a conservative website" in the first line is too POV and undue weight. It's accurate to say it's widely viewed as conservative. If you want to work it in earlier in the paragraph that's fine. But please don't insist that the way you want the article to read is the consensus version when there's been a dispute over this issue for quite some time now with numerous editors weighing in and many of them disagreeing with your position. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you'd bother to read the discussion above you'd realize that the majority were in my favor so please stop flaunting your ignorance. Soxwon (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you're flexible on placement, I'll go for one mention in the first sentence. All the rest can drop out of the lead. ► RATEL ◄ 04:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a way to work the site's conservatism into the first sentence after noting "The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website that consists mainly of links to stories from the U.S. and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and current events as well as links to many columnists"? I don't see how it's possible. Those are the key encyclopedic bits that explain what the site is. There's also that it's operated by Matt Drudge and the other major facts that are included in the rest of the introduction, which is why my preference is to say, "The site is widely viewed as conservative" at the end of the paragraph. That seems to flow the best. I'm also open to phrasing that says, "The site reflects Drudge's conservative politics." That is a clean way to note that Drudge is conservative (if you think that needs to be noted in the introduction) and that the site is conservative without saying conservative twice. I believe these statements are the most consistent with what the sources say and with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have alternative proposals I'm happy to consider them and see if we can work out a compromise that we can all live with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, CoM, that first sentence you've crafted is a classic run-on sentence. It's clumsy. I posit that we take the example of the DR's opposing website, HuffPo, and use a similar formula, namely: The Huffington Post (often referred to on the Internet as HuffPost or HuffPo) is a liberal[1] news website and aggregated weblog founded by Arianna Huffington and Kenneth Lerer, featuring various news sources and columnists. So ours would read: The Drudge Report is a conservative[1] aggregated news website founded by Matt Drudge, featuring links to various news sources and columnists. etc. Hey, what could be better than copying verbatim another wikipedia page, one that seems to generate no controversy at all? ► RATEL ◄ 08:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is a run-on. I was trying to put the key stuff first and see if there was a way to work in the determination that the site is conservative. Because the key bits about what the site is and how it operates have to comes first, I don't see how it's possible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Such would be less clumsy and far less accurate. Whle HP relies exclusively on links to one side of issues, DR clearly links to just about any news source out there, which is a different system for sure. Collect (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
He links to "any source out there", but with a transparent motive. He may link to a story about a poll that puts McCain ahead, and right next to it he'll link to a story about Obama's illegal alien aunt. See below. The emphasis, juxtapositioning and story choice is entirely, unarguably conservative, as all fair-minded sources on the internet agree. So to say that it is "inaccurate" to call it a conservative site is either foolhardy or deliberately obtuse.

Image:Drudge-report.png

So again, I think mirroring WP's page on HuffPo, the DR's acknowledged competition (even acknowledged as such by Britannica), is most appropriate. ► RATEL ◄ 12:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) and you elide the headlines where Drudge showed Obama well ahead -- has it occurred to you that I can find NYT headlines which are "conserative" and claim that they prove the NYT is a right wing paper? Current head is "OBAMA: TROOP MOVE TO MEXICAN BORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION" which I guess proves Drudge is an Obama spokesman? Try again, and do not just try using a single headline if you wish to make a broad claim of bias. Collect (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? Are you still trying to say drudge is unbiased or even-handed? You're wasting my time! Talk to the hand. ► RATEL ◄ 13:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
What I said was that your "example" proves absolutely nothing at all. You provide no evidence whatever when you give such an example, the example is factually written, major papers give similarly "biassed" headlines all the time, the NYT has had muchh more "right wing bias" in some headlines, the current Drudge headline seems, if anything, to promote Obama, and your "talk to the hand" comment is totally useless as far as improving the article. WP:TEA Collect (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The example I have was one of thousands. I am not going to argue with you about whether the DR is a conservative site or not. It is, and I have so many sources for that that I am simply going to ignore your input on this from now on. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 14:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
To illustrate my point (how absurd that I actually need to make this point at all!), the US editor of The Daily Telegraph recently said Drudge's deft selection of links helps build a conservative case against Obama every day.[53]
This discussion is degrading. We're supposed to be intelligent and collaborate, not take indefensible partisan positions. ► RATEL ◄ 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Proof by iterated assertion is no proof at all. As for saying you will ignore someone's input on this page, I find that quite contrary to the goals and guidelines of WP. As for the editorial opinion of a Daily Telegraph writer, I find it singularly uncompelling as "proof" of anything. Collect (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There are now 5 links on the Matt Drudge page to support the DR being conservative. Here are a few more: [54] Soxwon (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Kindly avoid personal comments. Your first cite says that showing the Swedish flag is clearly biassed. Huh? Second one same as the first! Third one calls Breitbart the conservative. Fourth one is a null story. Fifth one calls Rush the conservative, and does not apply it to DR. Sixth one (from 2003) says DR is "conservative-friendly" and is a teeny bit old. Seventh one does not use "conservative" about DR at all. Eighth one (Guardian, of course, calls the WSJ part of the "conservative media" And "Their weekly agenda was hammered out every Wednesday at a meeting chaired by Grover Norquist, a rightwing Leninist who believes in an ever-shifting tactical alliance." Aha -- a conservative conspiracy alleged by a Guardian edtorialist! Sorry -- not RS. Ninth is MediaMatters -- an unbiassed RS? Not. Tenth makes absolutely no claim about DR being conservstive. Eleventh not only does not call DR conservative, it says he was backing Hillary! Twelfth does not call DR conservative. Thirteenth (Newsday, 2005) refers mainly to DR with regard to harming the ill-fated Miers nomination. Fourteenth is pay cite from 1998 which appears primarily about the Clintons. Fifteenth is the exact same cite. Before giving long lists of "cites" it would help to make sure that they say what is being claimed for them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The second is hardly the same as the first, though many were OR because of implication. Here are a few more: [55] (Few conservatives would make a similar miscalculation. Many of the first generation of new media platforms, including Limbaugh's show and Drudge's Web site, first flourished because of a conviction among conservatives that old media were unfair.) [56] (The Drudge Report, a conservative Web site, this might be used already), [57], [58] (Allen's campaign on Thursday released the excerpts and a statement to two conservative media outlets: the Fox News Channel, and The Drudge Report), [59] (Some publishers see a political shift to the right and cite the growth of a conservative media that include Fox News Channel, talk radio and Web sites such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax and Townhall.), [60]. Soxwon (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article already says the Drudge report is widely viewed as conservative. We don't refer to people as "conservative Matt Drudge" or "liberal Barack Obama". So that word needs to removed. I made a suggestion on a way to indicate that the website reflects Drudge's politics. I think the guidelines and standards for article writing are quite clear about undue weight and POV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Where two cites use the exact same words from the same source, they are not separate cites. And using general comments about many sites to make a specific claim about a single site is OR, and using multiple cites to add together claims is SYN. I note you redacted the list of cites, making it difficult for others to see how far afield they were. Collect (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Which use the same articles? Also, they all label the site as Conservative. Along with the five in Matt Drudge's and the six here that makes 11 sources. Challenge them on an invidual basis if you want (I'm tempted to say that Mediamatters is legitimate, but I'll hold off). All I'm saying is that with 11 sources all claiming the site is conservative, that must mean something namely that it is conservative. Soxwon (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> And in case that's not enough, here are more: [61] (But Miss Parker said the White House uses articles from Salon Magazine, a kind of liberal Internet alternative to the conservative Drudge Report) [62], [63], [64], [65] (picked up so quickly by such conservative outlets as the Media Research Center, a watchdog group, and the Drudge Report Web site), [66]. I can keep going...Soxwon (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Highbeam as source: pay cite. Free part does not support your claim. NYT: "Much of the criticism comes from a group of conservative media voices and outlets, including Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show, The New York Post's editorial page, The Drudge Report and some commentators on the Fox News Channel" which referred to criticism of Clinton and other media specifically an ABC exec who said "he had no opinion on whether the Pentagon could be considered a legitimate enemy target." Oops -- the exec was the President of ABC. So if saying that the Pentagon was not a legit target on 9/11 is "conservative" let's get the full claim cited. Next NYT "Democrats have long claimed that the circuit has corralled conservative thinkers, and more important, conservative media, into a disciplined message of the week that gets repeated attention from Web sites like the Drudge Report, Mr. Limbaugh's radio show, Fox News's prime-time talk shows and the editorial pages of The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal." which specifies that the Dems call Drudge "conservative" - it is not stated as a NYT opinion.

the (late?) SF Chronical calls DR "conservative" but I suggest that when the other cites from there get added, the nature of its opinion will be valued quite low <g>. Newsbank pay cites are not usable on WP, and the free part says nothing about DR. And Andrew Sullicvan does not speak as a factfinder, but as an editorial columnist. You can say "Andrew Sullivan says" but then his other opinions (woo woo!) can ger used. All you have is SFC -- and it is not exactly neutral and unbiassed, is it? Collect (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your reasoning behind dismissing the NYT, Highbeam I highlighted what was there. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sites claiming DR is conservative

[67] (But Miss Parker said the White House uses articles from Salon Magazine, a kind of liberal Internet alternative to the conservative Drudge Report) [68], [69], [70], [71] (picked up so quickly by such conservative outlets as the Media Research Center, a watchdog group, and the Drudge Report Web site), [72][73] (Few conservatives would make a similar miscalculation. Many of the first generation of new media platforms, including Limbaugh's show and Drudge's Web site, first flourished because of a conviction among conservatives that old media were unfair.) [74] (The Drudge Report, a conservative Web site, this might be used already), [75], [76] (Allen's campaign on Thursday released the excerpts and a statement to two conservative media outlets: the Fox News Channel, and The Drudge Report), [77] (Some publishers see a political shift to the right and cite the growth of a conservative media that include Fox News Channel, talk radio and Web sites such as the Drudge Report, NewsMax and Townhall.), [78][79][80],[81], [82], [83], [84] pay site article available online: Move-on.org Target's AP Fournier for Alleged Pro-McCain bias, [85], [86], [87]. Surely you can find enough acceptable links there to put the word conservative back in the opening line. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The opening line is that Drudge as a person states he is conservative. The issue here however is the idea that one can make the blanket statement that the site qua site is conservative, and that is quite iffy as your best sources are unabashedly on the left, and view anyone to the right of Clinton as "conservative." And that requires much better cites than given heretofore. Collect (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, I agree that you've got more than enough RS's to support the assertion that the Drudge Report is conservative. As to whether Drudge himself is conservative, that would be another question. (But I don't think that's the topic of discussion.) Last note: I think it would strengthen your case to pull the links that don't explicitly call the Drudge Report conservative, but that's just my opinion.
Collect, are Encyclopedia Britannica, the NY Times, Washington Times, and Washington Post all unabashedly on the left? arimareiji (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopedia says the Drudge Report is "generally viewed as conservative". That's exactly what's in the article. Why are you so focused on promoting a particular characterization of this website? Why not try to do the same for the Village Voice, New York Times, Washington Post etc. There are sources that state their coverage generally reflects a certain political view. But to say something is a conservative website, or a liberal newspaper you have to have more than that. Drudge has said he is conservative and its in his article where it belongs. To say "The Drudge Report is a conservative website" is inconsitent with numerous guidelines including undue weight and NPOV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
It's undue weight and NPOV to report what a host of reliable sources on both sides of the political spectrum say? If you could quote the pertinent wording from a guideline that supports your position, it would be really helpful. arimareiji (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll remove some of the one's that don't say it explicitly, then put up the final list. Soxwon (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji, I think I we may be misunderstanding each other. The issue (at least as I understand it) is whether the word conervative should be in the opening paragraph twice and whether the first sentence should say "The Drudge Report is a conservative news aggregation website". I am saying wording of that sort is undue weight and NPOV. The wording of the sentence that says the Drudge Report is "generally viewed as conservative" is completely reasonable and consistent with what the sources say. The only dispute as far as I am concerned is the way we refer to Drudge as "conservative Matt Drudge". I have suggested an alternative way of communicating his politics that is more appropriate and doesn't overweight the lead paragraph with two assertions of conservatism and it was how we had the article at one time. But Ratel won't agree to anything that doesn't have the word conservative in the first sentence. I have no objection to noting that Drudge Report is considered conservative as long as it is done appropriately according to our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If the article were on Drudge himself, his political affiliation would be more important and should take precedence. It's on the Drudge Report, though. Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with making a point of calling him out as conservative when doing an article on his website: It smacks of ad hominem. If your objection is only to using the word conservative twice, I'd concur - it's awkward. But I don't think it's appropriate to give precedence to Drudge himself rather than the website. arimareiji (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Note that I did not remove "was generally viewed as conservative" as that is quite a distinct statement from stating that it "is conservative." The EB, in fact, does not say "DR is conservative" as is now quite clear. And where opinions are cited, they must be attributed to the person making the statement, as opinions (strangely enough) are not facts. See WP:RS etc. Collect (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Popping in here, as a way to maybe get some middle ground, we have enough reliable sources calling the Drudge Report conservative. Yet, it is a little harder to prove Matt Drudge. So how about removing the part calling Matt Drudge a conservative out and leave the portion: "generally viewed as conservative" in. That way there would only be one mention of conservative in the lead and we would be using the correct wording as backed up by a variety of reliable mainstream sources. Brothejr (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Brothejr: I concur; you beat me to it by virtue of the fact I tried to write two replies at once. ^_^ (But be careful, you accidentally knocked off the tail end of Collect's comment.)
Collect: I personally prefer Encyclopedia Britannica's wording for a more nuanced description elsewhere in the article. But 1) it's in the minority in not directly calling the website conservative, and 2) "conservative" fits the quick-summary style of a lede better than "generally viewed as conservative." arimareiji (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about cutting off Collect's comments, my labtop has been behaving badly recently! Brothejr (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be going around, I just had to take mine in the other day. Sorry if it was infectious. arimareiji (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Any claim in the lede which is not borne out by the RS cites is an improper use of cites. A summary should not sacrifice accuracy. Collect (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are enough sources calling it conservative that it would be accurate. Brothejr (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming here from RSN. Collect, you're in the wrong on this. Drop the WP:STICK. Drudge as a "conservative media site" is WP:V; it's referred that way by liberals and by conservatives. And as long as counterparts like the Huffington Post are called "liberal," I don't see a problem with that. The best you can hope for is to show your own RS that it's something else, and then that POV can be included (subject to WEIGHT), also, but I don't see you citing anything.

Separately: thirteen footnotes is WP:POINTy, and one use of the adjective "conservative" in the lead is sufficient. THF (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Some book quote in the "conservative" tag saga

"For instance, Matt Drudge, conservative Internet news source and gossip behind The Drudge Report..." From Media and Culture with 2009 Update: An Introduction to Mass Communication Page 290

"Drudge is openly conservative and he receives financial support from conservative groups..." From Media Now: Communications Media in the Information Age‎ Page 122

"Drudge clearly favors conservative and Republican causes, but he does not hide it" From Attack the Messenger Page 134 [88]

"...while Fox, Drudge, and conservative talk radio are militantly conservative." Meditations of a militant moderate Page 217 [89]

And hundreds more where those came from. ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep -- you can show that he, personally, is conservative. That does not excuse trying to use the label on the entire site. Opinions must be properly described as opinions. Jimbo is a libertarian, AFAIK, but that does not make WP a "libertarian site" does it? Collect (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The article's subject is not Drudge, it's the Drudge Report. It doesn't matter how many sources there are that call Drudge a conservative, or libertarian, or a Bokononist - he's not the subject.
We have ample sources which refer to the Drudge Report as being conservative. As Child of Midnight observed earlier, it's painfully awkward to repeatedly throw around the word conservative. Therefore, drop the conservative label on Drudge himself from the lede, and append it to the article's subject. arimareiji (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Arimareiji. Brothejr (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Arimareiji. ► RATEL ◄ 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New opening

Alright, check out the opening and see what you think. Soxwon (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the number of citations, I still think it's overweight and POV to refer to it in that way in the first sentence. Many (most?) of the sources phrase it as being viewed as conservative, which is not quite the same thing as saying it's a conservative website. And even if we're going to refer to it that way, something I'm willing to consider, I think it's overkill to do it in the opening sentence. Please note I tried to achieve a compromise edit that can be viewed in the article's history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Nooo, they say it is conservative, that's why I picked them. They're RS and don't say viewed if you bothered to read them. Soxwon (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You have the same story there twice. You have a columnist story that is not a reliable source. You have partisan websites (Huffington Post). Please remove all the illegitimate sources. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be non-partisan (which is Huffington) I have replaced the cite with the proper one. Soxwon (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The new editwarred opening on your part is absurd -- NO WP guideline says to have excessive numbers of cites, es[ecially when many do not support the claim. You are also brutally manhandling the consensus about the opening of the lede, which I find disturbing. This gameplaying on having more than a dozen cites in the first line of an article is not going to impress anyone at all. Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Collect, I shall support your position if and only if you show credible sources in the media that paint the DR as non-partisan or even left-leaning. Notice I said sourceS and CREDIBLE. Otherwise, mate, it's simply your weird opinion, and your soapbox issue. ► RATEL ◄ 02:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK -- the UCLA study is directly RS by WP guidelines. WP guidelines say even a single RS source has to be given weight. Plural sources are not required. Apparently you are more important than WP guidelines. Collect (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but my sources trump your disputed one. Soxwon (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Collect, you cannot use one highly controversial source as reason to exclude hundreds of accepted ones. No way. Certainly, we'll mention the UCLA study in the body of the page, and we do. That's it. ► RATEL ◄ 02:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources which are not RS nor support the claim do not belong in the article. Note that the 15 redacted cites given only had ONE which met those criteria, and were removed lest others check them all out as I did. Collect (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just an observation, 13 citations in the opening para of the lead sounds like WP:UNDUE... Its always better to include the material of refs in the main body, (for ex: "so and so argues ...") and the disputed POVs as well or else we may run into the risk of WP:SYNTH. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who said "widely viewed as conservative" would be proper. At one point the article had over a dozen separate uses of the word "conservative" in it, reaching overkill status -- you might want to look at older versions of the article and WP:OWN wrt some editors here -- I entered hoping to find a middle ground. Collect (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the website is conservative, and I never have. But referring to it in this way in the first sentence is POV and undue weight. The New York Times is self described as liberal, but we certainly don't, and shouldn't, have the first sentence of that article be "The New York Times is a liberal newspaper..." The Drudge report is a news aggregation website that is widely viewed as conservative and whose owner/ operator is conservative. But it doesn't self identify as conservative and it isn't appropriate to give its politics so much emphasis over the operations and type of website that it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The NY Times is self-described as liberal? When did they say that? arimareiji (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
See [90] Daniel Okrent, Public Editor of the NYT: "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? Of course it is." " These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed. " "Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."" "But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading." "On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires." And so on. Case made. Collect (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Except that the column ends with "The public editor is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own." arimareiji (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the 5th time on this very page that we have had to point out that a one-man news aggregation and gossip website that puts up links to online newspapers IS NOT A NEWSPAPER AND CANNOT BE COMPARED TO A NEWSPAPER! Maybe the CAPS will grab the attention of the people who refuse to absorb this bagatelle. ► RATEL ◄ 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe the caps will serve the same function they usually do, to warn the reader that someone is trying to shout down a discussion. Your comment has little to do with the conversation that was going on. arimareiji (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


WP does not allow use of images which are copyright except under very limited cases. I am far from certain that the images involved fall into that category. Especially one which spans the full page. Collect (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why not go away and make certain before deleting it? ► RATEL ◄ 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"Go away" is not a helpful sort of comment. I have asked what the policy is -- though the wording is very clear that this is unlikely to be the exception to the policy. BTW, taking two copyright images, combining them, and asserting "public domain" is unlikely to work either. Collect (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
If you were alert you'd notice that neither of those logo are copyrighted at source. ► RATEL ◄ 14:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Each site specifically has a copyright notice on it. Did you miss them? And per [91] and "Screenshots are usually copyrighted, with exclusive rights to use them, to copy them, and to make works derived from them reserved to the copyright holder. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others — do not upload images that violate others' copyrights." And "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission — this does not include most web pages or images." Which appear to apply. Collect (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Low res, low quality versions of the logos are used to illustrate a point made all over the internet about drudge.com, which is that The Drudge Retort is a social news site originally set up as a left-leaning foil to the popular conservative-leaning Drudge Report news aggregator. [92] . But if an admin objects, we'll remove it. Logos are used all over wikipedia, btw. It's all about context. ► RATEL ◄ 14:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

outdent) Saying other people violate copyright is not a valid reason to ignore it on WP. The rules here are very strict, and I suspect for good cause. The site you used is copyright, and is not needed in any article. And using two copyright images does not make a "public domain" image. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Get a ruling. Others are not violating. The images shown here are validly used in context (see the screenshot at Google. ► RATEL ◄ 15:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The PD template at File:Drudge-retort.png is certainly bogus. If the original logos are copyright (and they are bound to be), combining them creates a derived work, something reserved to the copyright holder. You might be able to claim fair use, but you cannot validly claim PD. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed to Fair Use. ► RATEL ◄ 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"Drudge Report" in its distinctive form is registered as a trademark. Just like the Wikipedia trademark, the Yahoo trademark, the AOL trademark etc. Per WP:TRADEMARK "Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell, Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, company, or entity." "However, when in doubt err on the side of caution per non-free content policy by assuming that the logo is copyrighted." Thus any added use is contrary directly to WP policy and guidelines on two grounds -- that the use is restricted to the infobox,and that logos must be assumed to be copyrighted. Collect (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Show me on the trademarks database where it's a registered trademark. ► RATEL ◄ 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) Drudge uses a circle-R. Circle-R means registered, unless you know something about the symbol I do not know. "<title>DRUDGE REPORT 2009®</title> " Collect (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

When this came up five years ago after "K Street" used a screenshot and the logo, Drudge threatened to sue for infringement. At least on the face of it, Collect has a very strong point. arimareiji (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Minor problem -- LAW states that the presumption is with the existence of the trademark. Second, the trademark list ststes clearly that not finding a "hit" does not mean the trademark is not registered! So much for your cavil -- the circled-R is prima facie evidence that a trademark right is asserted. No other interpretation is likely to pass muster. Collect (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If it is not on the database, and that database goes way, way back, then is it not a trademark (unless it is in process), and that's my considered opinion, signed RATEL® ► RATEL ◄ 12:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
And since the cite you give says it should NOT be used to rule out a trademark, then it is clear that you wish to not use the site as it says it should be used. Amazingly enough, I suggest the trademark office is a better judge of its reliability than you are. And that the "circled R" must be taken as a claim of trademark (even an unregistered trademark is covered by WP policy, by the way). Cavil over about the cite being more infallible than the Pope? Collect (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
As I said before, get a ruling. Are you disappointed that you did not get the support you clearly wanted at the copyright board? For shame! ► RATEL ◄ 13:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We have the outside opinions and the outside board made it clear that copyright issues do exist (note the change in image size, etc. and your dropping of the ridiculous "public domain" claim. They did not back you. And your assertion that "circled R" has no meaning is absurd. As for your edit summary of "tut tut" try making ones which help the process. Collect (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what is the issue here? Is DRUDGE REPORT a trademark / service mark? Certainly so. Is it a registered US trademark? No What is a circle-R? Used in the United States it is a claim that a mark has been registered with the US patent and trademark office - it may only be used in connection with registered marks; using it to assert a trademark when the trademark is unregistered may be considered trademark abuse and in fact lessens, rather than increases, the protectibility of the mark. It can conceivably be used legitimately for purposes of illustration, analysis, or humor (as in Ratel's affixing it to a Wikipedia name, which itself is a curious case because online account names are not ordinarily the subject of trademarks). Is the "Drudge Report" logo copyrighted? Probably not, because it is stylized text and stylized text cannot be copyrighted. It is conceivable that the amount of the slant and the shadowing are distinctive enough, but that is an off chance. Is the Drudge Retort use of the Drudge Report logo legal? Unclear - it depends how they are using it. Is Wikipedia's use of the Drudge Retort logo legal? Yes - it is fair use for any copyright purposes, and a non-trademark use for trademark purposes. Does it violate NFCC? Probably not - NFCC applies to copyrights, not trademarks, and the image does not appear to be copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, the use is questionable because it adds very little to the article, and is there mostly as a curious novelty. That concern might suggest removing the image, whether or not it is infringing - it seems irrelevant. Wikidemon (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Mostly the same as what Wikidemon said, but with a big caveat about whether trademarks have to be registered to be viable:

  • Meaning of circle-R.
  • Presumed viability of online search for registered trademarks, but not for all trademarks. The disclaimer is for TARR rather than TESS, but it can be extrapolated.
  • Drudge's assertion of it being a trademark holds some legal weight ipso facto, but any claim is more difficult if it's not registered. Also, reinforces that using circle-R for unregistered trademarks is a no-no.

And what Wikidemon said at the end is worth repeating: "...it adds very little to the article, and is there mostly as a curious novelty. That concern might suggest removing the image, whether or not it is infringing - it seems irrelevant." arimareiji (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also note no one has given anything near proof that Drudge is using the circled-R illegally. That is SYN at best, and legally we should presume correct usage. In addition the "public domain" claim is still being used for an imsge including trademarks, and including editorial commentary about the trademarks without cites. Collect (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If he's using a circle-R on a trademark without a federal registration then it's an improper use. Yes, that's synthesis, which is allowable on talk pages and for purposes of making policy decisions - just not as article text. But all that is moot. The trademark status of an image or name does not factor into whether it is allowable here. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue is that there is no evidence that the circled-R is being used improperly. WP guidelines say an allowable use of a trademark is a single use in an infobox. Collect (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, no. There is no guideline that limits use of trademarks. If there were we would have to strike out nearly every word on this page, could not depict apples, etc. The relevant part of WP:TRADEMARK is about copyrights. But reproducing a trademark within an article is not a trademark use. A trademark is only used when it is associated with a good or service for purposes of designating the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the good or service. As an aside, if we see that Drudge is using circle-R, and we see that the mark is not on the federal registry, that's conclusive evidence that the mark is used improperly. Again, that is a red herring too. The entire question of trademarks is a red herring.Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In case you missed it, the federal registry explicitly disclaims perfection. So since you state it is perfect, and the site says it is not, we are left with you as supreme arbiter of truth. Neat! By the way, where did you get your J.D.? Collect (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Temporarily leaving alone the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the later uses of the logo/trademark/whatever fail on two grounds: 1) As Wikidemon observed, they add almost nothing to the article; 2) They're patently (no pun intended) original research. For these reasons, they should be removed.
Back to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, "Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell, Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, company, or entity. Seems clear to me, but I would think it's already been mooted by the previous two reasons. arimareiji (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the WP:OR angle. But while we're dancing on pinheads, we should be careful to note the distinction between logos and trademarks. Anyway, I don't see how the rule would preclude commenting about and showing as necessary alternate versions of a logo. Also, I haven't missed the USPTO's disclaimer, but that disclaimer does not mean the site is unreliable. It's as reliable as any primary government document - census records, county recorders, lists of legal decisions, etc. That introduces WP:SYNTH and WP:OR issues if used directly to support a statement in an article, but for discussing what to do about a trademark on the talk page, they're perfectly reliable. If a trademark is not in their system, then it's not registered. The problems come mostly from unregistered marks, marks in some part of a hearing process, status updates that take a short while for the office to process, and people having trouble with their search terms in the search feature.Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
It's remotely possible that someone could find a WP:RS discussing these comparisons. But IMO, until then it's pure OR to present any editor's conclusions about the typography and formatting of Drudge and friends, or to beg the conclusion by presenting comparison images "for the reader to decide". Not to mention the question of whether it's even particularly relevant, as you pointed out. Would you concur, or am I out in left field on this one? arimareiji (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur - only, I would remove them and associated text on grounds as original research / not significant or reasonably relevant to the subject of the article. It's kind of funny but random parodies of things are not encyclopedic unless and until they get significant coverage indicating that they are notable. And even then, we don't litter each subject Weird Al sings about, or that Jon Stewart cracks a joke about, with a section about the parody. No harm mentioning copyright / trademark grounds as contributing to the concern, but if that's what it rests on that's subject to reasonable dispute. Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not OR. There have been quite a few articles published on the parody of Drudge Retort at drudge.com vs Drudge Report at drudgereport.com. The graphic simply illustrates that. Moreover, trademark law is all about competing use of trademarks for commercial purposes, not an illustration in an encyclopaedia. That's why Drudge threatened the news service that appropriated his logo and look. Also please note that Drudge has abused ® by placing it in the title of the page without actually registering it, and note that it comes AFTER 2009, so it looks like he is claiming trademark status for the phrase "Drudge Report 2009" — a phrase we are not using anywhere (except here). ► RATEL ◄ 22:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Drudge asserting that other people copy him is unduly self-serving. If you have any reliable sources, including them now would be a very good idea. arimareiji (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(Incidentally, I wouldn't call "K Street" a news service. More like "infotainment," to steal Al Franken's coined word.) arimareiji (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Some sources, just from a quick search, not exhaustive or definitive:
Some people might not notice a difference between the two Web pages. The typography and page layouts are almost identical. [94]
Drudgeretort.com: What's there: A liberal-slanted headline site to counter the supposedly conservative-leaning Matt Drudge. [95]
Other ones too, like [96] Do a web search and there are hundreds of mentions.
Also note: please look at the page Coca Cola and note the photo comparisons of different products. This is only one example of a similar approach to what I have taken here.
Also note: if "Drudge Report" were in fact a registered trademark, don't you think he'd put it right up there on the page, right after the big DRUDGE REPORT graphic? He doesn't do that because it's not a ® ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The NY Daily News is barely a reliable source. It's a tabloid both in design and nature, and I seriously doubt its Gossip column is one at all. (I'll wait for consensus on that one.) The Gawker is a blog, absolutely not a reliable source. You pointed at the NY Times without a quote, but it only says that the Drudge Retort is a parody site. If you can find a genuine RS to use, more power to you, but I'm not going to do the searching as you suggest. arimareiji (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Wrt Coca Cola, yes it contains comparison photos. But the crucial question is "Is the contrast between images being used to support a conclusion, or as 'evidence'?" Not even remotely. arimareiji (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Circled-R is an international symbol. That you do not like the fact that it has a meaning does not mean that the meaning is wrong. WP tells us to believe assertions of trademark and copyright rights. We are not to do OR and say "but this one is not copyright" or the like. We are not the lawyers (nor did you tell me where you got a J.D.). Collect (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you might want to take a look at some of the discussion that's been taking place about OR and notability concerns. If the comparison image evidence fails on those two grounds, and preliminary indications are that it does, then wouldn't that moot the question of whether it fails on trademark/copyright issues? arimareiji (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'll vouch for this particular piece of WP:OR. OR is just fine on talk pages. But even on talk pages, anonymous editing is one of the pillars of the project, and we survive based on the strength of our contributions, not our resume. But let me introduce another legal point - this issue is moot, and reaching a decision on moot issues is not very helpful. Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The issue is only moot if PD is removed as a basis for one image, and fair use removed as the basis for the other. Neither is essential in any way to the article. Collect (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like the undercurrent in this section of policy shopping to score points against one editor: me. I've also had a small group of editors, who are posting on this page, following me from page to page trying to confront me and embroil me in interminable editorial conflicts. I may have to make a report. ► RATEL ◄ 23:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I have followed you nowhere, confronted you nowhere, embroiled you nowhere. You, in fact, asked me to ask about the copyright policy above, so calling anything "policy shopping" is odd. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Why do you assume everything is about you? Secondly, how are you "improving" this article by removing a graphic that actually aids readers in understanding the reality of the DR's famous parody site (one that even Drudge himself visits)? You are flailing around, straining at gnats, to find something, anything to justify the removal of this inoffensive illustration. Why? Is this to improve the article, or are you one of those nauseating partisan warriors trying to sanitise WP of anything you personally consider harmful to the cause or you personally don't like? ► RATEL ◄ 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, I'm not sure what you're on about because I've never seen you before that I can recall. Your argument is somewhat perplexing: You were endorsed as correct on the "conservative website" issue, and on trademark/copyright, but if you're not backed up on OR then you're being picked on? File a report if you want to, but I don't think you'll like the result if an uninvolved admin looks at this page and decides someone needs sanctions.
As far as "policy-shopping" goes, your argument is somewhat akin to saying that if you get pulled over on suspicion of drunk-driving because you're driving erratically, you can't get busted if the real reason is that you were smoking a joint. That doesn't fly. arimareiji (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatism

I attempted to remove some of the conservative overkill. It's not done by a longshot but see what you think. Soxwon (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll look -- the aim here is to make an encyclopedia article, not anything else. Collect (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
How many times do we have to go over this. You cannot honestly call the Drudge Report a "conservative news aggregation website." There is a whole section dedicated to the perceived bias. Mentioning the bias in the lead sentence is overkill. Mentioning the bias by labeling DR a "conservative" site is absurd and dishonest. It was removed but it seems the partisans can't live without that word there. Use your head, not your opinion. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Great, here we have the 24.187 IP guy who wrote this on my talk page and got blocked (again) for it: [97] Looks like he's going for the trifecta. ► RATEL ◄ 04:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have problems with an IP, report it to an admin. I am sure they will help you as proper. Talk pages for articles are not the proper venue. Collect (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Ratel, that link you provided is hilarious. Thanks for posting it. Btw, everybody here agreed to remove conservative from the opening line. Let's keep it that way. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a news aggregation website. And it's widely viewed as conservative. There's no need, nor is it appropriate (per undue weight and NPOV) to call it a conservative news aggregation website. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite having 13 reliable sources saying it is? Soxwon (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't dispute that the Drudge Report is conservative any more than I dispute that the New York Times and Washington Post are liberal. But I don't think it's appropriate to start those articles with statements like, "The New York Times is a liberal newspaper" any more than its appropriate to do so here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point ChildofMidnight. Why do Soxwon and Ratel have such a hard time understanding that point? 24.187.132.100 (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
In response to Soxwon's comments about the 13 "sources" - I can provide 1000 sources saying The New York Times or Washington Post is liberal. Do you want to rewrite their opening sentences? 24.187.132.100 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Key word: reliable sources. Blog rants, forum comments, "research centers," etc don't count. If you can find genuinely reliable sources, I would say go for it. HuffPost already is so labelled. arimareiji (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Of course there are reliable sources calling the New York Times liberal, including the paper itself and its public editor [98]. The issue is still whether per undue weight and NPOV assertions of politics belong in the first sentence. The Drudge Report does not identify itself as conservative, but as there are numerous sources that do, I think it's entirely appropriate to note that it is widely viewed as conservative. But being characterized in that way doesn't mean the first sentence should be "is a conservative news aggregation website". We don't run around identifying people by political labels nor do we do this with media. It's POV, biased, and silly. "Barack Obama is a liberal politician"?ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I note with amusement that the inappropriate comparison between the DR and various newspapers continue (one man gossip website vs large media organisations). It gets worse. Many "liberal" newspapers employ conservative columnists (I think I refer to one or two on the archives of this page, which just shows how persistently this bogus comparison is raised). Secondly, I support what Arimareiji says. If you can find enough solid RS cites to label those newspapers progressive or conservative, you should do so, and argue your case if challenged. ► RATEL ◄ 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Might you list some conservative columnists at HP? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Might you show how your question follows logically from what I said? Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You said "many liberal newspapers employ conservative colimnists" Since you have placed HP in the past as not necesarily being "liberal" I was curious as to what conservative columnists are "employed" by it. Simple questions, and I find your edit summary to be in quite poor taste. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>He was referring to the NYT specifically w/that comment. The HP wasn't and that's really a loaded question. Soxwon (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Specifically" Nope he did not. Collect (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If you take it out of context sure. However, if you take it for what it was (a response to the previous editor) it was defending the NYT. Soxwon (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You act like DR only links to conservative news stories. There are always links to stories on news, entertainment, finance, sports, etc. Seems like you are hell-bent on taking BIAS and spinning it into the foundation of the site, which is absolutely ridiculous. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Current headline: DUKE COACH SLAM DUNKS OBAMA: FOCUS ON ECONOMY NOT NCAA PICKS" (Link is to a Fox News-hosted AP story. Fox changed the headline, by the way, to emphasize the Duke response. Other sites hosting the same story title it things like "Obama going with Tar Heels to win it all")
Other top stories, all copied and pasted from current page without even scrolling down:
  • Commanders: US ready for any North Korean missile... (Actual news article)
  • 2 US journalists from Al Gore's media outlet detained in NKorea... (News combined with OMGALGORE)
  • US admiral condemns China's 'aggressive' actions... (Actual news article)
  • UN seeks tax on oil to create $750 billion 'Green New Deal'... (News combined with OMGGREENIES)
  • Panel says world should ditch the dollar... (Actual news article)
  • World economy to shrink 'for first time in 60 yrs'... (Actual news article)
  • 7.9-MAG QUAKE STRIKES OFF TONGA... (Actual news article)
  • Wave of Strikes Hits France... (News combined with OMGUNIONS)
  • MYSTERY: WHO IS BEHIND OBAMA 'TELEPROMPTER BLOG'? (Complete and utter bullshit)
  • Guantanamo Detainees May Be Released in USA... (News combined with... Oh hell, this is just stupid alarmism in headline form)
In any event, the point is moot. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to the Drudge Report as conservative. --GoodDamon 19:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

original source -- is not Britannica.com

Where britannica.com reprints an article (and gives full credit and copyright notice for it), in fact, it is improper to asseret the source is EB. In the case in pooint in the article, one source so cited is actually from Crain's, and was not written nor anything by EB -- it was news. "Liberal media's voice grows stronger. Crain's New York Business, 10/13/2008 by Flamm, Matthew" "Copyright of Crain's New York Business is the property of Crain Communications Inc. (MI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Crain's New York Business, 10/13/2008, Vol. 24 Issue 41, p8, 1p Item: 35348590 " seems quite clear. Might the cite be emended? Collect (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that they would include an article from Crain's shows that EB online is not an encyclopedia. Not a reliable source. Not to mention the fact that when an edit is suggested, pages are immediately changed. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse the revert considering that majority of the sources aren't EB (and your opinion of EB's reliability isn't fact). Soxwon (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The unreliable "sources" that you keep citing mention bias, not the foundation of the site. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What? First off where do you get your news since the USA Today, NYT, The Hill (official congressional newspaper), Fiancial Times, and Washington Times aren't good enough (hardly "unrealiable" it helps to look at them) and second what does the foundation have to do with it? Soxwon (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure who we're talking to here, but I would think that rather than describing it as a "conservative" site, we would just say it is a site, then shortly after (in the lead or body) say that it is generally considered to have a conservative focus, and perhaps explain succinctly what that means, e.g. are Drudge's own occasional contributions editorials on conservative opinions? Are they more apt to pick up matters from the conservative press or conservative blogs / fringe groups, etc. It's subtle, but there is a distinction between being a conservative site and a site with a conservative leaning, and I suspect the second is more accurate. Wikidemon (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine by me. Seems logical. All I pointed out above was that a cite as presented was incorrectly presented. WP copyright rules should be adhered to wrt cites. Collect (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon seems to understand what Soxwon and Ratel do not. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a funny thing for a block-evading sockpuppet to say. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Since conservatism does not define the site (unlike Huffington Post where liberalism is its foundation), the word conservative does not belong in the lead sentence which is supposed to give factual information, not argumentative. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's funny, I have a number of notable and reliable sources that disagree with you. Soxwon (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine, why don't y'all agree here then do it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Conservative will stay out of the first sentence. If you revert you are going against consensus. Collect, Childofmidnight, Wikidemon, and myself have reached an agreement so stop edit warring. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That's hardly concensus considering Ratel, Brothejr, arimareiji, Good Damon and I disagree. Soxwon (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that clarification of what exactly is meant by conservative should be indicated. Is there a source that says his editorials and the news articles he links to tend to be critical of Democrats and/or advocate Conservative positions? After all, Drudge doesn't write most of the storieson the website, he puts headlines on them and links to them. Which is why I think even the second sentence is too early for political characterization, but I'd like to reach a compromise and move forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't don't know the issue or the sources enough to take a position, I'm just trying to help clarify things and see if there is a middle ground. Calling someone or something a "conservative X" is a bold statement. That might make sense when talking about a site whose very essence or purpose is to be conservative, e.g. Conservapedia. In this case it sounds as if Drudge is just a little more likely to pick up and pay attention to stories coming from more conservative sources. Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is why Hillary's campaign had very close contact with him? Ah yes -- she is a well-known right winger. Collect (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly places where it's referred to as a "conservative news aggregation site". There are also lots of places where it's not characterized that way. I just looked through Google Books based on a serach of Drudge Report, and the vast majority of sources do not describe it that way. These are better sources than those being used to describe it that way in the first line. The sources that I found go into some detail and history about the site, unlike those strung together for the purpose of characterizing the site as conservative in the first sentence, generally do not describe it that way and often use terms like gossip, blog, or news in their descriptions of the website. I am open to a compromise, but Wikipedia isn't the place for POV pushing. Just as it would be inappropriate to open the NYTimes article by saying "The New York Times is a liberal newspaper" or to say "Fox News is a conservative television news program" it's also inappropriate to do so here. Let's include the characterization along with others that are notable in appropriate context and with appropriate explanation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those "strung together" sources showed a wide range of sources that agree that the site is indeed conservative. Soxwon (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No articles mention bias in the opening sentence. I have posted a fair compromise. 24.187.132.100 (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Problem is you didn't make sure that was accepted. Soxwon (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to gauge consensus

Given that there's ontoing edit warring over the "conservative" designation, can we get a quick reality check to see how much support and opposition there may be and (briefly please!) the nature of your reasoning and how strongly you feel about it? I'll start...Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I prefer ChildofMidnight's version.[99] (it is considered to be conervative, rather than it is). Main reasons: (1) saying it is in the lead conveys the incorrect impression that it is a defining feature or purpose, whereas I think per the sources it is simply a characterization that many people find about the site; (2) sources are not unanimous - most reference don't describe it either way or think it it is worth mentioning, which seems to confirm #1; and (3) describing things as "conservative" and "liberal" when it is not a key feature is unduly polarizing, and is itself a POV even if true because it creates an undue emphasis of the place things on the conservative / liberal spectrum. In life there are very few things for which it matters whether they are conservative or not. It is only tangentially related to what the thing is, a news aggregation site. For me the issue is pretty clear although I don't really feel strongly about it because it does not seem terribly important or harmful either way. Wikidemon (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
My concern for the wording has flagged, I don't care anymore, put CoM's wording if it means we can move on w/it. Soxwon (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer the wording that stood for many months until the current brouhaha, which is that it is a conservative website, for that it how it is described all over the place. It's actually rare to find the formulation considered to be. However, to circumvent this endless issue I have re-instated CoM's version so we can all get on with life. ► RATEL ◄ 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to go through this process periodically every few months. We all get together and list a wide variety of sources that clearly implicate the DR's conservative bias, and come to a resolution: that it would be spitting in the face of reality to suggest that the DR did not have some sort of conservative leaning. This entire debate is pointless and always has been, with the opposition usually grasping at esoteric straws in order to get the 'conservative' label off the first paragraph. Really makes you wonder why some people care so much about that when everyone know's it to be true. My vote is and always has been a STRONG INCLUDE on the conservative label, and to suggest otherwise strikes me as being very dishonest with other agendas likely in the background. Like...oh I dunno, the effort to ressessitate a dead political party/ideology one little media battle at a time... Jason Parise (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexa

Alexa may not be an accurate gauge of site usage as it counts only those who sign up for Alexa -- thus it may be as accurate as the Literary Digest was in 1936. I ran across this a few years ago when I was helping a collectibles appraisal site, and learned that Alexa can be off be a factor of ten from other measures of site populartity. It also can show extremely rapid changes in usage for any given site, and the volatility of its figures is also a problem (I saw some vary by a factor of three in a single day). Collect (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexa is only one of the sources for the traffic stats section. ► RATEL ◄ 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance of speculation about traffic and revenue. Collect (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Speculation? Where? And you really think an article on a website should not look at issues of traffic and revenue? ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes -- speculation as to revenue is still speculation, as your source indicates. It is not based on factual material, as a Dun & Bradstreet report would be. And absent a reliable source for traffic, that part also is speculation. WP is a place for facts, not speculation. Collect (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm an inclusionist, you obviously are not. I let others decide how speculative the various traffic stats are. ► RATEL ◄ 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) I am a person who feels the purpose of any article must be to convey information relevant to the subject of the article to the reader. Adding material which is not relevant is not "inclusionism" it serves to obscure the actual information in the article. " On April 16, 2008 many users reported dramatic shifts in their Alexa rankings. Alexa confirmed this later in the day with an announcement that they had released the "New Alexa Ranking System" claiming that they now take into account more data sources "beyond Alexa Toolbar users".[19]" appears to indicate that any historical use of Alexa rankings is invalid. Nature of the site you cite? " McAfee Site Advisor rates the Alexa website as yellow, with the warning, "In our tests, we found downloads on this site that some people consider adware, spyware or other potentially unwanted programs,".[22]" [100] also indicate concerns that Alexa uses fudged systematology for rankings. [101] etc. as well. Alexa is not a genuine source for actual web traffic data. [102] and a bunch more available. Sorry -- Alexa is free and at best you get what you pay for with it. Collect (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If Alexa is not a RS, how do you explain this page: Wikipedia:Awareness statistics. ► RATEL ◄ 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As it is not an encyclopedia article, who cares? I showed you cites for Alexa being way, way off in usage stats. The article you found was one used for internal amusement (there was one which said WP would become number one somewhere in the 25th century) but I would suggest that taking such stats seriously does not work. You get what you pay for. Collect (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The question of Alexa rank / stats being suitable to report in an article about a website, and how to report (e.g. in prose or in an infobox) would seem to be a broad one that applies generally across Wikipedia. So surely someone has thought about this before and there is a consensus on the matter. It strikes me that Alexa data is not reported for most sites but I'm not sure. Does anyone have a link? Wikidemon (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Even the wikipedia article on web traffic references Alexa several times. Of course it is not foolproof and does not represent 100% of internet users, but it agrees quite well with other traffic measures (once the site reaches a certain threshold of significance). I don't really care one way or the other. It's simply one measure of traffic, not perfect, but it's something I would be grateful to learn if I came to the Drudge Report page on wikipedia looking for broad information. But that's bec I am an inclusionist, as I said. Collect and his ilk seem bent on restricting information provided to the minimum. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Where you have multiple sources for his web traffic already in the article, there is no need to add one which is specifically known to be unreliable as well. As for referring to my "ilk" I ask that you redact such stuff as not belonging in this talk page. Collect (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, no redaction from me at all! You and your ilk have done nothing but delete material from this page since you arrived here. Obviously you consider contributing to wikipedia to be the same as removing as much material as you can get away with from certain carefully selected politically sensitive pages. And on topic: there is absolutely nothing wrong with using Alexa stats, inter alia. It's not as if the page only quoted those stats. It's one more data point for readers. ► RATEL ◄ 10:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPA and consider this my "heads up" to youu. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
((Yawn)). When I have some time, I'll look around WP for more pages that cite Alexa, and if it is indeed quotable, it will be re-inserted. I haven't seen it condemned on the RS Noticeboard either (quick, that's something for you to arrange!). ► RATEL ◄ 13:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I take no side in this dispute, I just thought it prudent to point this disclaimer on the Alexa site:

The traffic data are based on the set of toolbars that use Alexa data, which may not be a representative sample of the global Internet population. To the extent that our sample of users differs from the set of all Internet users, our traffic estimates may over- or under-estimate the actual traffic to any particular site.

In some cases traffic data may also be adversely affected by our "site" definitions. With tens of millions of hosts on the Internet, our automated procedures for determining which hosts are serving the "same" content may be incorrect and/or out-of-date. Similarly, the determinations of domains and home pages may not always be accurate.

Sites with relatively low traffic will not be accurately ranked by Alexa. Alexa's data comes from a large sample of several million Alexa Toolbar users and other traffic data sources; however, the size of the Web and concentration of users on the most popular sites make it difficult to accurately determine the ranking of sites with fewer than 1,000 monthly visitors. Generally, traffic rankings of 100,000 and above should be regarded as not reliable. Conversely, the closer a site gets to #1, the more reliable its traffic ranking becomes.

And as an aside, they rank the Drudge Report 727. If you think that's close enough to number one to use so be it. Soxwon (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, precisely so, which is why I stated above that sites with significant traffic, like DR (~3M/month), are well within the confidence interval. Everyone who looks at traffic knows that Alexa cannot be used to assess low traffic sites. But Alexa's figures are in line with Nielsen for popular sites, give or take. Probably the best way to handle this would be a new wikitable with rows for Alexa, Nielsen Online, ComScore and Google Analytics, and columns for 1st & 2nd traffic readings, and a trend column showing % up or down. ► RATEL ◄ 14:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
We have RSs now for web traffic. Adding a less accurate cite is not rational. And since the article is on DR, adding all the economic and web tables is not logical -- we should stuick with an article as to what DR is. I note we do not list graphs for other articles in this manner -- so putting it in here dpes not appear to be normal procedure. And, of cource, as soon as you put in "trend lines" you are specifically hitting OR in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether cited to Alexa or some other more (or less) reliable statistic, (1) the fact that Drudge Report is within the top 1,000 (or even if it were the top 5,000) sites on the net is very notable, and (2) if credible and uncontroverted, the proposition that audience has declined is significant... but if the sources differ I don't think it's important enough to bring up and would in any event require a disclaimer in the article about that. Whether or not it is OR is an interesting question. I would tend to think not, but it is a primary source. If used strictly to point to statistics, it's like a number of other data aggregators we point to, e.g. film articles pointing to the tomatometer and metacritic scores. But obviously, a secondary source that comments on the Alexa rank would be preferable because that gives a confirmation from the sources that the Alexa rank is worth talking about, and also the context. I would argue as a matter of consensus that unless someone can point to a general rule on Wikipedia about quoting Alexa data, because it's reasonably disputed we should leave it out and seek more reliable information. Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The matter of decline is disputable -- two different cites were combined in OR to show a decline from 3 million to 2 million, even though the lower one said it was a sharp increase from 1.2 million up to 2 million <g>. Using Alexa as an indicator of increase or delcline is iffy because of the high volatility of Alexa in the first place (I gave cites in the Talk page above). As we have a couple of acceptable sources, adding ones which are iffy seems non-utile. Collect (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed - hence my disclaimer, "if credible and unctontroverted". By Occam's razor I would argue that it probably is a real decline due to the public's losing interest in political issues following the election. But the lower Alexa stats could be a fluke, or explainable by some unknown technical change that affected the site's rankings. Any fact that needs to be supported by Occam's razor and plausibility arguemnts is probably OR anyway. If the site truly is suffering a decline in popularity a RS will write about it soon enough. If there's an encyclopedic and notable issue that the fortunes of politics-related media wax and wane with the election cycle, again, some RS will write an article about it but that could better be centralized in an article devoted to the topic rather than repeating a mention of the election cycle in each of Wikipedia's articles about politics-related news sites. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I did some reading about Alexa vs Nielsen (vs etc.) and it's an eye-opener, with many people claiming Nielsen is even more flawed than ALexa based on some convincing evidence. In fact, it seems the science of monitoring internet traffic is in a state of some flux at the moment, with nobody having a foolproof algorithm. Nevertheless, I agree with wikidemon's take on this issue and will keep an eye out for a report on DR traffic. ► RATEL ◄ 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "The Huffington Post (Web site) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-03-03. [The Huffington Post] was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a news and commentary Web site that was widely viewed as conservative.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference FT-cons was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drudge_Report/Archive_4&oldid=1136679927"