Jump to content

Talk:Drudge Report/Archive 5

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

Relevance of "Parody site" section

It seems to me this is just used to gain more hits for the owner of the parody site. It does not appear directly relevant to the article. The Drudge Retort is not widely known nor is it appropriate for any encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohner (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Retort at drudge.com is very well known and has hundreds of references in the press as a left-leaning parody site of the Drudge Report. It definitely deserves a mention here. Even Matt Drudge has commented on it, saying he often visits it. ► RATEL ◄ 05:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
A mention would be fine. The section of coverage is absurd. If it's so notable go make an article for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Section moved to end to de-emphasize. It's interesting, to me anyway, and mentioned in the same breath as the DR all over the place (numerous cites). ► RATEL ◄ 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Which means what? Seems that it is grossly overweighted considering how totally trivial that site is. Collect (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I doubt any of the Wikipedia editors have a stake in the parody site so not a COI situation. Maybe some people just find it interesting or funny. Anyway, I don't have any first-hand knowledge but based on the sources the DRt is possibly notable in its own right but vastly less important than DRp, so a whole paragraph plus picture seems like too much weight. I think starting its own article where it can fend for itself in terms of notability and coverage, and leaving only a single sentence or so with a link here would be a good approach. Wikidemon (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, ok, I'm outnumbered on this one, but it seems a shame. I found it made the article more interesting, and I like to include information that gussies up a page when I can. ► RATEL ◄ 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press

The AP story is relevant on the DR page. Almost every time the story has appeared in the media, the DR is mentioned, mainly because it is the worst offender, as Hitwise showed. ► RATEL ◄ 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The AP's apparent primary target is Google. Most of the articles on the AP actions (taken as the AP is nearly bankrupt) are about the search engines. [1], [2] , [3] Note specifically that the AP did not name any site at all. Collect (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with your shortened edit. Watch this space, I think we'll hear more about this soon. ► RATEL ◄ 04:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Design section

Collect, I am concerned at the way you've tagged everything as citation required. Why would you need a citation for self-evident facts like hotlinked images? It's viewable right there on the page (just right click any image on DR and see where it is hosted). You are calling for sources for the obvious. It's like saying that we need a source for the fact that the DR is a website at all, since that may be OR as well. ► RATEL ◄ 12:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Self-evident facts" need sources when there ia any issue raised. OR is frequently "obvious" to the person using it. Alas, WP policies are clear -- "self-evident facts" are not a valid claim. One can not make such statements without a secondary source. Collect (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I never wrote that section, as a matter of fact, but I've let it stand because nothing in it is inaccurate. It's all verifiable with your own two eyes. I'm sure sources can be found, if anyone has the time. I'm just concerned because of the agenda I see emerging to reduce the page to a stub. ► RATEL ◄ 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I searched and searched and did not find WP:SELFEVIDENTFACTS anywhere. I safely assume it is not a redirect to WP:RS at least. Collect (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The verifiability rules of Wikipedia state that sources must be added for material likely to be challenged. Now who in their right mind would challenge facts such as that the DR has 3 columns, uses teletype text, and hotlinks images, which are all observationally factual items that nobody but you has ever challenged? Your editing here is becoming disruptive and contentious. ► RATEL ◄ 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am challenging the sourcing of the claims and assert that it is OR at best. WP:NOR does not say "except for what one editor says is self-evident" as an exception. And please redact any attacke, thanks! Collect (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

alexa etc.

The fact that comscore showed an increase in one year somehow got deleted -- which is rather unfair, no? I fixed the misuse of the compete.com stats -- the visitors increased by 20% over the year, and the rank went down by 20 (not a "20% decrease" by a long shot). I added comparitive Alexa figures as showing how other "political sites" fare makes sense lest the figures just be presented in a vaccuum. And I added Greenwald's opinions on all horrid right wing extremist sites -- seems we should properly represent his opinion, right? Collect (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm, if something was deleted that should be there, it's possible, I'll check, things can get lost in the hubbub. 20% or 20? I must have misread that page, I'll check that too. Using comparison sites is not our business here, no OR please, no selections we make for comparison, else I'll choose HuffPo, who are eating Drudge's lunch (seriously). Greenwald: let readers decide who Greenwald is. This isn't Readers' Digest. You can use an adjective like "liberal" (if he is a Liberal), if you are so concerned to filter data for readers, but not what Greenwald said about anyone else. Come on, Collect, this is beginner's stuff. ► RATEL ◄ 14:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add HuffPo indeed. Listing numbers without anything to compare them with is not all that useful, as I had pointed out long ago. And, IIRC, you were the one who brought Greenwald into the article. It would be POV indeed if we deliberately keep his opinions out of it. Collect (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, just to be toally fair to you, I added HuffPo -- seems like it offers another fair comparison. BTW, the cite you gave for the drop from .6% -- doesn't back the claim. It is also of interest that Internet growth makes that comparison a tad odd -- the question, at best, is what the viewership was, not what the percentage reach was. Alas, Alexa does not give that stuff out on your cite. Collect (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You must find a better source for calling Alexa rubbish, m'kay? The site you were using (and which I was going to ignore to keep you satisfied), is actually a very small site in traffic terms. And ALexa is not good with small sites, as I said somewhere else on this page, and as everyone knows. So I gave you an inch, but you took a yard, trying to force "extremely" in there. tsk tsk. ► RATEL ◄ 15:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a copypaste of what I wrote on the OR noticeboard about Alexa:

Before we all start bagging Alexa, consider this opinion from a webpro: "Alexa has about 16 million toolbars installed which is a pretty good sample market, kind of like taking a poll. It shows a sampling how many people view your site that have the toolbar installed. So you can interpolate the results. Of course to some people who hate Alexa, there is the possibility that out of the 16 million people who have the toolbar installed not one of them visited their site. That would be a bummer for them, but it is still a rather significant sampling that cannot be ignored."

Alexa's own disclaimer:

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.[4]

So, reliable in popular sites like Drudge Report. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Alexa a "primary source" according to WP? Collect (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know too. On the face of it, Alexa is collating information (traffic) generated by million of others, so should be secondary. ► RATEL ◄ 03:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, wikipedia states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.

and from WP:SECONDARY

* Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5]

Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable secondary source.

Interesting. ► RATEL ◄ 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.naa.org/blog/digitaledge/1/2008/06/Nielsen-Drudge-Report-Leads-Top-30-in-Sessions-per-Person-More-Newspapers-Join-List.cfm asserts copoyright. Using essentially the entire body of the article as a table is a copyright violation very clearly. If you wish to say that using the entire table is not a copyvio, fine. Collect (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


And one0third of an entire table remains a copyvio. Collect (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, get an admin's opinion. ► RATEL ◄ 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[5] is copyright. The full text of its table on web sites was deleted as a copyright violation, and has been replaced with an extract consisting os 1/3 of the entire table forming the substance of the article. Is this a copyright violation? Are other copyright violations present? 15:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Are other copyright violations present?" Fishing for trouble, almost like policy shopping, just another example of tendentious editing. ► RATEL ◄ 16:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Replacing my text refactored by another editor (Collect) without my permission ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(Attempted edit to alter original RfC post removed)

Actually, the malformed RfC was not appearing on the RfCPol page, and moreover spurned the neutral wording guideline, IMO. But you don't seem to want the help other editors offer. ► RATEL ◄ 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As no one but you has suggested in any way shape manner or form that the wording is not neutral, I would ask that you redact that charge. Try AGF. Collect (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you or did you not malform the RfC? And did I or did I not try to correct it for you? That's the first issue. Secondly, you are supposed to state the problem/question completely neutrally, not in a leading fashion. Your question in the RfC is leading, and the one I substituted was neutral. ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Here's the case that says it is not copyvio: the article is 666 words long, and I have extracted 96 words from a table (14% of article), which cannot be rephrased. Thank you. ► RATEL ◄ 15:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: if you remove the numbers, I've only quoted 28 words, or 4.2% of the article. ► RATEL ◄ 16:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, don't you think you're taking this all a little too seriously with the RfC? Before we get to the question, I'm thinking, why are we including detailed statistics about other websites in the first place? A little traffic information might be useful, but I'm pretty sure that extensive tables of raw data from other sites is a violation of one part or another of WP#NOT. As to the copyright question, I would think that lifting an entire table is iffy. Tables of data are copyrightable (as opposed to individual pieces). The question is not what percentage you lift of the entire work the table is in, or what percentage of your own work is based on the table, but rather that you copied the entire table rather than the minimal part necessary to make your point, i.e. what Drudge's traffic stats are and that they are substantial but far less than sites like google. We could argue this, but it would take an experienced lawyer to get an authoritative opinion but even there, the lawyer would probably say it all depends, and because this is a free project we don't really want to make content decisions that are close enough to the copyright border that the decision rests on legal arguments most Wikipedians don't understand. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions are always measured, Wikidemon, and I appreciate them. I actually have access to a copyright lawyer in my family, and this passes muster in his opinion, but I won't say any more on that because it may compromise my identity. But since you seem concerned, I may re-make another, much smaller table, with a few bits of data from here and there, to make essentially the same data point. It should be fun. Let's see if we get any more comments. ► RATEL ◄ 17:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"Make essentially the same data point" is not, as far as I know, a valid thing in WP -- and using multiple sources sounds a lot like using OR and SYN to "make your point." WP is not a place for anyone to seek to make a point, especially not in any article which seeks to be NPOV. Collect (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Making a data point is establishing a situation at a moment in time, a profile, for readers to grasp. The data you need to do this is easily available in published sources, as you can see from the cites. Later, when the situation changes (as it always does with traffic), you can add in a new data point. With a few of these, a trend emerges. Hope this helps. Please remove the POV tag article, which you appended directly after making this comment showing your misapprehension of what I said. ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Alas -- your edits made a big deal of DR going down by 66% in usage <g> and so on. I would suggest that your "point" was not a "data point" and further that such material is not found elsewhere in WP. The purpose is to get the article right, not to make your "data point." Collect (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
If simply quoting the 66% stat is = making a big deal of it, then I suppose you are right. ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The link in the RfC is to the article. So it's as if someone is asking whether an article is a copyright violation. Can a link be provided to the table, or the table and the article if necessary? I am hesitant to comment on this issue except to say that there seems to be an awful lot of acrimony. What is the key information in the table that needs to be included here and that's relevant to the Drudge Report? Can it be put in words instead of a table? I thought we worked out some of the tough and contentious issues finally, so whatever the outcome of the RfC maybe a break from Drudge related articles would be helpful? Both of you can always come over and help out at Barney Frank. Okay, bad joke I know. Sorry. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we're looking at the table captioned "traffic statistics" in this version. And the policy I found is WP:NOT#STATS, which in my opinion gets triggered long before we get to the data copyright question. Even though the table is interesting to look at, other than Drudge's own statistics isn't that encyclopedic or relevant to Drudge Report. The policy page mentions "confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness" as being the problems, as well as the need for explanatory text to establish context. But there is a stylistic concern (do we really want all the articles about sites to have a traffic statistics page, and if not, which ones should have it?) and a practical one (these numbers change constantly, and have to be maintained or else they get stale). There was some discussion above, which I did not follow, about whether site traffic measures are reliable or useful at all for us. What about a few select quotes or numbers with reliable secondary sourcing indicating the site's overall size and importance, and then a citation or external link if needed to a place where one can find a table? Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, I diagree that the stats advice at WP:NOT#STATS is triggered. The table is eminently readable and makes a clear picture for readers of Drudge Reports place on the online news world. It's extremely legible and informative for me, and therefore for many others too, I'd say. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The current table of stats is far less than was earlier insisted upon (along with all the Alexa stats which I am still unsure come anywhere near RS, nor am I sure all the other stats and claims are very relevant at all either - but the other editor has made it hios goal to have them in here) [6] shows the teensy bit of copyright material which was insisted on earlier, and on which I demurred. I also sought to use the "one month average" as being less volatile, but instant values were substituted for those. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

off topic from RfC material reinserted in RfC

I tried to get the off-topic material into a rational section, but was immediately reverted on the huge change. So it is now back in place in the middle if the copyright discussion. Collect (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Material unrelated to the RfC

(moved from RfC section)

The entire issue of copyright is the function of a RfC on copyright. And calling a very neutrally worded question anything else is rather a good example of avoiding WP:AGF Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Collect, you tried to insert an unreadable, malformed paragraph on Alexa, replete with statements about it being "extremely" inaccurate. This is a) incorrect (since Alexa is NOT inaccurate when showing stats for relatively popular sites like DR) and b) not the place to engage in a critique of the various traffic measurement algorithms. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
You insisted on using Alexa, contrary to my advice. You used outdated data from Alexa. You made SYN inferences from the data. You deleted all comparable sites, then said I should add the HuffPo data. So I did -- and you deleted the data you had seemed to want <g>. I do not consider any such data relevant in the first place, it is ephemeral at best, and nknown to be highly inaccurate. I consider use of copyright data for purposes of SYN to be improper, and doubt that Alexa etc. qualify, at absolute best, as anything other than "primary sources" and not valid for WP:V. Further, this RfC section is for comment on the copyright issue, and the above charge does not belong here in the first place. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Simply quoting the stats Alexa provides is not SYN. You don't like Alexa because it shows DR is sinking on some parameters. I took out your HuffPo stuf because you inserted such a bad, malformed paragraph (and BTW, where did you learn how to cite? Your typical citation is <ref>http://www.somewebsite.com/somepage.htm</ref> Please learn how to do it properly. These data points, while ephemeral on a moment-to-moment basis, nevertheless do form trends that are extremely useful for people to know and which definitely ADD to the article. In addition, the comparative listing of other direct competitors, like HuffPo, can be found all over the media, and for good reason, since it is the sort of comparison people want to know. While no stat is definitive of itself, a collection of such stats from different sources, as we now have in the article, sets up a clear picture. Sites like DR live or die by their traffic stats. There is probably no more important information than this to provide about the site, and since Alexa and Nielsen et al are quoted in relation to DR in many secondary sources, it's fair game for this page. ► RATEL ◄ 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And adding date and time to the refs - you seem to have left that off -- you seem to forget that I do that on ephemeral sites. And since I still did not find a RS for your claim that you only "quoted" the 66% decklline, would you tell us the exact RS we can find the quote? It would surely assure me that you did no SYN for sure! And I fear using a lot of disparate primary sources all of which disagree with each other seems an odd thing to assert as giving a "clear picture" when one site shows up 70% in a year, another shows 66% down in 5 years (waiting for the actual cite for that) and another shows a 20% increase in 6 months, I would suggest that all not much clarity has been added. And you really should do your criticisms of me in a new section else some might feel you are derailing the actual questions posed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This diff shows your rotten cites (sans dates). M'kay? Do you know what SYN means? It's taking data from different sources, tying them together, and forming an opinion not sourced elsewhere on that basis. There is no way you can link a figure of 66% (a "percentagisation" [I love a good neologism] of a stat change) to SYN. The other stat inconsistencies relate to the startup of new agencies measuring stats or a change in their algorithms. We can expect the various agencies to become more stable over the next few years and to agree more and more closely, which may also lead to consolidation in the industry. ► RATEL ◄ 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Cite using the term "66%"? Cite asserting that .6% of 2003 internat usage is three times the .2% of 2009 internet usage? Taking multiple unrelated facts - even from a single source - and making an inference from them is SYN or OR at the outset. "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. " " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." and so on. Alexa is a primary source. A pretty poor one if you read the opinions of some. And since in the past five years no such "stabilization" has occurred, I suspect that asserting it is here is wrong. Collect (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • outdent. You need to RfC if quoting stats directly from the stats creators is OR. I'd be interested in the outcome, because traffic stat suppliers like Neilsen et al have stats available, including long-term aggregated stats, and then they also have text+table reports on their websites for the media. So where is the line drawn? Not for us to decide, we need a ruling. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you intend to post on the NOR noticeboard? Heck, I will. Collect (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

archiving

Why don't we just enable auto-archiving here? Manual archiving is not as careful about removing posts within the past two weeks, and auto-archiving can be set up to prevent any problems. I trust no one objects? Collect (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The article has a recent NPOV sticker but there seems to be no corresponding discussion here. Is there any significant outstanding issue? If so, please summarise so that it may be addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the history, I observe the tag being placed in this edit without a clear justification. I have removed it pending articulation of actionable points. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are entering into an article you have not edited, but is being edited by a User you clearly have a past with. You then remove the tag within 15 minutes w/o bothering to look through the history to see why since he obviously had a reason and thought it obvious to those involved. Looks kinda suspect. Soxwon (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken - I have already edited the article to correct a significant error - the date of foundation was out by two years. As for the tag, I am still awaiting details. All I see above is bickering about traffic statistics and copyright. These are not POV issues but matters of fact and policy. We either require a POV discussion to support the tag or the tag should be exchanged for one which more accurately summarises the issue. As for my presence here, it seems that this is a hot spot which requires input from many editors to establish consensus and good order. Many hands make light work ... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
So good of you to show up now that most of the major conflicts are over. You're presence and its timing w/relation to Collect's RfC cannot be denied. Soxwon (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I am here because the article seemed to be the focus of the RfC. It is the purpose of RfCs to attract editors as, the more editors we have, the easier it is to establish consensus. I have no axe to grind about the Drudge report and so hope to provide a fresh and neutral perspective. So, what is the NPOV issue, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
At the moment the issue is over the wording of the traffic: inflated v. affected. However, it is not with the DR that I fear you have an axe to grind. Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
A single word seems too petty an issue to warrant a tag upon the entire article. Anyway, my offering is increased which conveys the essential fact without the extra baggage of inflated. Is that all? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Collect added the POV tag when I used the term "data point" in discussion above. She responded with "WP is not a place for anyone to seek to make a point, especially not in any article which seeks to be NPOV". I pointed out that she was misunderstanding and misinterpreting my statement and to remove the POV tag, which was not done. Note: Collect is edit warring several pages, and was rebuked for such by admin Gwen Gale: diff ► RATEL ◄ 00:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As the issue seems to relate to the traffic statistics, the tag should focus on this and so I shall move it. Reading that section, I notice that the presentation repeatedly compares the site with the Huffington Post, as if this were a left/right horse race. This may be interesting journalism but we should aim higher as such commentary seems too partisan and ephemeral for us unless this particular competition is the focus of external comment. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ads

Sites with ads get revenue from the ads. I thought this was obvious, but apparently it is not. Is there a consensus that we should state directly that "ads generate revenue"? Collect (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were asked not to edit political pages by Gwen Gale? If so, why are you active here again? Secondly, of course we need to be told where the revenue comes from. Otherwise, people could understandably assume the Report is paid by a political party or interest group for its activities. Sometimes ads only provide a small, supplementary income to websites. It needs to be explicitly stated that advertising is what underlies the Report. ► RATEL ◄ 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So? Why not ask Gwen about these specific edits? Collect (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty flawed reasoning, I think it's naturally assumed ads make money and pay bills. Soxwon (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Look, I own several websites that run ads. The advertising, as with so many sites, only make supplementary income. The main income comes from clients using the sites. ► RATEL ◄ 02:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And with Drudge clearly having more viewers that you likely did, would you say such a site would be construed by anyone seeing the ads as not making money from them? When it says "Support the Drudge Report. Visit our advertisers"? I would suggest that anyone seeing that and not realizing those ads provide revenue is in a very sorry state indeed. Collect (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite. Many sites are supported by political parties, others by corporations, others run at a loss, others are charities, others sell things, etc. Many of these sites also have advertising, but only to supply a supplementary income stream. In the case of the Report, it is entirely funded by the advertising. This is one of the key aspects of the site, which is why the site lives or dies by its traffic. ► RATEL ◄ 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Support Drudge Report. Visit our advertisers" seems to have floated past you entirely. I would suggest it means that he gets money from ads and if you visit the advertisers, you will support the site. I do not know precisely how else it could be read. By anyone. Collect (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh god, this is so tedious. The statement you quote from the website tells us nothing informative about how the site is actually funded. Thousands of websites have "click on the ads to support us" prompts, but the nett revenue is negligible. The Report is solely funded by the advertising, and this is an important fact about the site. Indeed, it may be one of the most important facts about the website. Other political sites are funded in different ways, which may include advertising in the mix, but this one is funded only by ads, and wikipedia should state it so. That's my last response on this. ► RATEL ◄ 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Where does HuffPo get money? Does its article detail "sources of revenue"? Collect (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
1) Find out yourself, and 2) insert the data into the HuffPo article. This gives you something constructive to do. ► RATEL ◄ 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Try to avoid snarkiness. The issue is real, and snarkiness ill-suits discussion. Collect (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

new study on the Drudge Report

I found this and thought it may be of interest to other people: New media vs. old media: A portrait of the Drudge Report 2002-2008 by Kalev Leetaru.
i'll leave it with you... Perry mason (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

...seriously?

Does the drudge report page really have to categorize it as being "conservative"? That's just mimic talk. LaRouxEMP (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The language used should be written like "... Drudge Report, seen by many as being conservative leaning, is a news aggregation website." The sources listed view the website as conservative, but unless Drudge itself states it is a "conservative" site, one should not say it is one as it is their opinion. Trainerboblol (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No. We should avoid such phrases like "seen by many" and instead focus on what reliable sources state. I'm a pretty big fan, but it is worth noting that even FoxNews notes that the site is conservative. — BQZip01 — talk 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see why we wouldn't use such language, but you cannot deem a website conservative based on others' opinion. Here is a source, referencing UCLA-led research, that isnt so quick to throw the conservative ball in Drudge's hoop... --76.205.169.145 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Quoting the "weasel words" link you attached, "the application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality... although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative..."
By applying this, wouldn't calling the site conservative be an opinion, one that should be avoided? To completely fix it, one needs to reword the entire sentence by putting "a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable." --76.205.169.145 (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
To fix it, all we need to do is add where the source comes from. The problem with this is that those opposed to any labeling will always find a source and say "See! Here it doesn't mention it is conservative!" so we end up with a single word and 5+ references for that word. I think we can all generally agree that the site has a conservative tilt while the Huffington Post has a liberal tilt. I have no issue with adding other descriptors to either page (tea-party, progressive, anti-semitic, racist, etc), BUT they should be backed up by reliable sources. I think anything that is described the same way by 3 or more major news outlets or peer-reviewed scholarly articles can probably be kept pretty easily. To that end, I believe we could/should add the qualifier "is generally considered by most XXX to be conservative/liberal" and then cite the sources. — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only taken inquiry into this matter because as I was reading the article written on the Huffington Post, I noticed it too used the labels "conservative" and "liberal". I erased both terms and reinstated that they were both progressive news websites but it seems as if someone wants this to remain a debate over titles and reverted my edits. Please make these articles as neutral as possible as a lot of people understand these two terms to have many connotations and can be quite inflammatory for those on the opposing aisle. LaRouxEMP (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This was all extensively debated in the archives. Please read the archives before deciding to change the consensus based on your likes and dislikes. ► RATEL ◄ 14:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting moreover that consensus can change. Collect (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur that this has been extensively debated already with a prior consensus and I also agree consensus can change. However, I would also recommend contacting those users if we are going to have another discussion about it. If we cannot come up with a viable solution, on the talk page, we should then try other means. Let's see what we can come up with here first, though. (Collect/Ratel, I know you guys already know this. This comment is meant for the newbies). — BQZip01 — talk 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of text

"In April, 2009, Associated Press announced that it would be examining the fair use doctrine used by sites like Google and Drudge Report to justify the use of AP content without payment.[20][21] On May 4, 2009, the US Attorney General's office issued a warning to employees in Massachusetts not to visit the Drudge Report and other sites because of malicious code contained in some of the advertising on the website.[22] In March, 2010, antivirus company Avast! warned that advertising at the Drudge Report, New York Times, Yahoo, Google, MySpace and other sites carried malware that could infect computers. "The most compromised ad delivery platforms were Yield Manager and Fimserve, but a number of smaller ad systems, including Myspace, were also found to be delivering malware on a lesser scale, Avast Virus Labs said."[23]"

I though people would agree with the removal of Text with WP:UNDUE but apparently somone disagrees so on to discusion. to me personally an "investiagtion" that is not mentioned had any impact a year seems kind flanky to include. Again Malware Seems Flaky to include to since i highly doubt the inlcusion warrants a paragraph if half a dozen websites have this malware why inlcude only Drudge, i dont think any other Subjects mentioned here include it in thier article. so any thoughts? Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no undue weight issue. The issue about using content without payment is still brewing, and I get alerts about it when it references the Drudge Report. I've seen some recently but not bothered to update the section, as it still appears to be in process. The malware issue is real, was widely reported, and caused some controversy because it was seen as a partisan attack on the DR when emanating from the DoJ, but now it's come from Avast! too, so there is clearly a real issue. Why would you want to remove this stuff anyway? ► RATEL ◄ 08:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou i was unaware that the of the the continuing investgitation, we probaly should reflect that. Secondly, again you make legitimate point with the malware. I think Will move the malware to the Controversy section as the text in seems more appropriate fitting there. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we may need some tweeking cuase it does not seem to fit any where in the article as is. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Avast most specifically did not say Drudge was the problem - rather it blamed the ad servers (notably from Yahoo and Google) for the malware ads. In point of fact, any editor who seeks to put the malware ref here should also place it in the New York Times, Yahoo, Google, ESPN and other WP articles to be fair. Collect (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That does not follow. Other editors maintain those pages; they are responsible. Don't start with the othersuffexists line please. ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You are thus presenting an excellent argument for making sure that readers here do not get the false impression that Drudge was singled out. WP specifically states that false impressions must be avoided in articles. In short, by your position, we must include the full statement about the real problems - Yahoo and Google ad-servers. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arnold and Drudge

Drudge ran the "Arnold love child" story back in 2003. Sorry that the blogger failed to see it. [7]. Takes a bit of wind out the sails on that claim, doesn;t it? Collect (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not take the wind out of the sails of that claim at all. That was a single link to a National Enquirer story in 2003. While the Schwarzenegger revelation raged across the entire world media in 2011, the Drudge Report totally ignored the story. It's the most curious omission in the site's entire history and has garnered quite a bit of attention. I returned the entry and posted a second reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmaespe (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The accusation was the Drudge refused to link to any article critical of Arnold. The 2003 example specifically linking to a "love child" story is proper counterpoint to the claim made. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no accusation here -- just a fact. While the biggest sex scandal in Arnold Schwarzenegger's career undid his marriage and his legacy in 2011 -- reaching the front pages of People and other publications -- Drudge ignored it. Granted, he had a link to a National Equirer peace that MAY have been about the same story in 2003. But it also may not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmaespe (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And clearly since Drudge carried an earlier charge, there are problems with listing the uncontested allegation from mediabistro. Whether it was the same kid or not is not relevant (t is a different kid, by the way) - the charge here is that Drudge deliberately did not run a story against AS. The point is that he has. In fact, Drudge does not list every story ever run in People Magazine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is there anything about Arnold in the opening summary section? If any mention belongs in the article, it should be in the body instead.--CSvBibra (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Italic title

Is there a specific reason that the title is in italics? I don't think I've seen that anywhere else, and even though (or perhaps because) it echoes the font on the Drudge site, I want to change it to regular font. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad; it looks as though newspaper articles get italic titles. But Drudge isn't a newspaper. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"popularist"?

Still amazed that there's any ambiguity as to the political leanings of The Drudge Report. A cursory glance at the site reveals it to be nothing but pure right-wing propaganda.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.111.112 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims require reliable sources to back it up. Otherwise, it is just opinion and has been previously discussed. (see above & archives). Buffs (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that people associated with the site (or people who are simply fans) have pushed hard here to maintain the impression that drudgereport is something it isnt. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - just editors who follow the Wikipedia policies about biographies of living persons, and neutral point of view. Collect (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why the facade of acting like Drudge Report is anything other than a conservative news media outlet?

He is a major GOP news outlet who pushes and links to other conservative news media stories. This isn't really up for debate. These are news stories re Drudge Report just over the past week or so: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/the-notes-must-reads-for-wednesday-october-3-2012/ (Drudge Report a conservative news aggregator) http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/debate-raddatz/index.html (Drudge Report a conservative outlet) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-video-pastor-hurricane-katrina (Drudge Report part of conservative media) http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/04/echoing-rnc-conservative-media-converts-5-year/190368 (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://gawker.com/5948428/two-reasons-the-drudge-report-video-might-still-be-worth-watching (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/10/02/drudge-teases-obama-video.html (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/12/pollster_explains_why_he_asked_voters_whether_conservatives_were_race_baiting.html (referencing Drudge Report as conservative media outlet) http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20121002/NEWS/121002050/Drudge-Report-Hannity-seize-2007-Barack-Obama-video-from-Hampton-University-speech-cite-racism?odyssey=nav%7Chead (Drudge Report a conservative critic of Obama) http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/259579-obama-phone-video-puts-spotlight-on-fcc-program (conservative Drudge Report)

Excwpt for the fact that it links to a great many non-conservative news stories. BTW, some of your "sources" do not support the claim you wish to ascribe to them. Collect (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

using Wikipedia's voice to call the site 'conservative'

Has been discussed on this talk page at [8] (note User:Ratel is banned for socking), [9]] User:Ratel is banned, [10] User:Ratel is banned, etc. Wikipedia's voice can not be used to make any absolute claim of fact based on opinions - the curent wording is accurately sourced, and there is no reason to try overturning what was clear consensus even though repeatedly pushed against by a banned user. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

sources used to cite Drudge as a "populist" do not indicate that he self-describes as a populist

they are bad cites and are misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a book cite for the quote - I suspect that it had been in before and had been removed by someone in the past - but it is a quote now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of "some" vs. "many" or "most"

The insistence on stating that only "some" consider the website conservative in tone is misleading, as it implies that only a minority view it that way---where in fact I have seen very few, if any, sources describing it as anything other than a conservative news and commentary website. A sentence such as "DR is widely considered conservative in tone," or "many consider it conservative in tone," or "most consider it conservative in tone," is more accurately descriptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Find a reliable source making the explicit claim of "most". That is how Wikipedia works - using material from reliabkle sources, and stating opinion as opinion. Opinions != fact. Since we have a directly contradictory source for the claim, the use of "some" is warranted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please describe your "directly contradictory source" against the claim that The Drudge Report is a conservative new aggregation website. A second hand quote from a book that describes Matt Drudge the person as a conservative populist isn't even per se contradictory. In the same passage, he plainly calls himself a conservative. A direct source stating that the Drudge Report is *not* a conservative news aggregator would be "contradictory". I have yet to see such a citation. 137.200.0.103 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A 2005 study placed the Drudge Report "left of center." The study compared various sites, and Drudge was clearly not the right-most. And calling a person "conservative populist" does not make the website "conservative populist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A ThinkProgress study of the the Drudge Report reveals the popular internet aggregator has linked 184 times to InfoWars and World Net Daily, two right-wing conspiracy websites.http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/07/18/532051/report-drudge-linked-to-conspiracy-websites-184-times-in-the-last-year/?mobile=nc

Check out his site right now and tell me his headlines/images do not promote a partisan, right-of-center message, an uncited 8-year-old study notwithstanding. I'm starting to wonder if DR employees are editing here. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! You consider all right-of-center sites to be "conspiracy websites"? Sorry Charlie - the two sites you so quickly dismiss are not "conspiracy websites." I think that may indicate where the problem is. The New York Times mentions WND 66 times, and Infowars 33 times. Infowars routinely links to the Huffington Post! Looking right now - the main link is that notorious right-wing website - Gallup. Second is the New York Times. Top of first colum - Rasmussen Reports. Top of second column - Politico. Top of third column - The Weekly Standard. Looks pretty well balanced from here, to be sure. Yet you think these are "right wing sites"? Not. Collect (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
lolwut? Unfamiliar with Alex Jones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.247.227 (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the website - and noted it links to Huffington Post. Not the sign of a "right wing conspiracy website" - while Jones may be characerised by some in that manner, that does not mean the website should be so characterised. Collect (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at DR and tell me what headline he has on his entire page that is positive towards Obama or Democrats. Pick any day of the week. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
So you consider Gallup to be "right wing" in some way? Politico is "right wing"? Huffington Post is "right wing"? Your position that anything which is not specifically pro-Obama is "right wing" is ludicrous silly season bloviating. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

More sources labeling Drudge report a "conservative" website

It's a bit of a joke, but apparently someone thinks we don't have enough sources.[11] More sources labeling Drudge report a "conservative" website:

FurrySings (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A study in 2005 placed the Drudge Report "slightly left of center".

Should we drop the paragraph on this 2005 study? Calling Drudge "left of center" seems to be a rather uncommon view. The Professor Mark Liberman ref in the paragraph points out that the study made a rather appalling math error in their model. Hell, we could add this same study to the ACLU article with a similar paragraph calling the ACLU "right of center". Alsee (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

DrudgeReport.com's favicon

There's nothing in the article or online (that I can find) explaining why drudgereport.com uses the same blue "eye" favicon, aka bookmark icon, as CBS News. Why would he do this? Because CBS was the home of Edward R. Murrow, a pioneering journalist? CBS's logo must surely be trademarked. Has no one in the media noticed this? Strange. 5Q5 (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you noticed?

I've been a reader of the DrudgeReport since its inception and I see a radical change. Have you noticed that when the site refreshes (which is often, like every several minutes) it goes to the top of the page instead of to where on the page you were reading? To me this is significant! It's OK (I would say) but you see ads via 'AdChoices'. Currently, the Wall Street Journal is being advertised. Secondly, there are a lot of 'stupid-looking' pictures of the face of Hillary Rodham Clinton to lead into his links on the Clinton Family Foundation (news). Do others notice what could be payback? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC) PS: They look like real photographs at current speeches, but may be photo-shopped.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drudge Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Drudge Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Revenant

Should there be mention of the rather bizarre claim that the Drudge Report made about the main character of The Revenant and the bear 121.217.214.209 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Politically conservative

An unregistered editor has been repeatedly removing "politically conservative" from the lead section, despite the fact that it is supported by several reliable sources:

  • MacAskill, Ewen (October 3, 2012). "Conservative media release old video of Obama in so-called 'explosive' exclusive". The Guardian. Retrieved June 27, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • The Associated Press, "Drudge Report, Hannity seize on 2007 Barack Obama video from Hampton University speech; cite racism," Clarion Ledger, October 2, 2012, http://www.clarionledger.com/viewart/20121002/NEWS/121002050/Drudge-Report-Hannity-seize-2007-Barack-Obama-video-from-Hampton-University-speech-cite-racism?odyssey=nav%7Chead[dead link‍]
  • Lee, Kristen (October 19, 2012). "Republicans pounce on Obama's comment that Libya deaths were not 'optimal'". New York Daily News. Retrieved June 28, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Deruy, Emily (October 18, 2012). "Why This 'Obama Phone' Ad Is Misleading". ABC News. Retrieved July 4, 2016. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Rutenberg, Jim; Carter, Bill (2001-11-07). "A NATION CHALLENGED: THE MEDIA; Network Coverage a Target Of Fire From Conservatives". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-04-21. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Can anyone who opposes the inclusion of "politically conservative" please provide reliable sources supporting their contention? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Reliable source" is completely arbitrary. I would call the sources you list as amongst the most notorious there are, missing only The New York Times and Fox. Conservative and Liberal have also become something of a buzzword to be inclusive for anything left or right.

Report by CNN of The Drudge Report; #HillaryHealh

This is in response of the Drudge Report using a photo of Hillary Clinton going up the stairs.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/08/media/drudge-report-hillary-clinton-fall/

Also, in response to the #HillaryHealth Tweets:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/08/armed-with-junk-science-and-old-photos-critics-question-hillaryshealth/

Where should I place these articles?

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Probably in Drudge Report#Controversial stories, errors and questions about sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
This content has been repeatedly removed by the same editor, first with the comment "irrelevant" and second with the comment "The photo was not falsified and hence not a 'false story'". There is no basis for the removal. The content meets all of our policies and guidelines and certainly qualifies under the current heading of "Controversial stories, errors and questions about sourcing." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Illegitimate son

I'm not sure this really is a top-level detail for the Drudge Report, and we should look for BLP sourcing... but if you keep it, do you suppose "illegitimate son" should hyperlink to bastard or son of a whore? :) (actually, much to my dismay, we don't have a good article for the second option yet) Wnt (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2016


I put in a request a few weeks ago to correct your statement that they put out a false story about bill clintons son. They said they were lied to about the original story by a source from the Times. Fix this or remove it. You're allowing the uninformed to edit articles, it would be better to allow public edits if your standard is to not investigate or update your own information. 2602:306:C469:E5B0:2D10:80A:9A52:D8DE (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find a request from a few weeks ago, especially since this is your first edit. What are you talking about? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016


I suggest someone add the part where Drudge claims Walter Isaacson of Time magazine lied to him about the DNA test for Bill Clintons son.

SOURCE: http://www.mediaite.com/online/drudge-doubles-down-on-clinton-love-child-claim-there-was-no-dna-test/


Deanroydavis (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The "Isaacson lying" story doesn't appear to been picked up by the mainstream media, suggesting that it's not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. On the other hand the broader story of Drudge pushing the Clinton love child theory was picked up by The Washington Post, so I'm not against inclusion of that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You should remove the part about Matt paying the Obamacare fees a year before they were do.

Small businesses and sole proprietorships are exempt from providing Obamacare to their employees, but not for themselves. As a small business, he would have to declare his own income and pay his taxes quarterly, meaning that he may, in fact, have paid the tax prior to 2015 - along with thousands of others Americans. It might be sort of slimy to include that in your article as a truism, and use as it's citation an article that only claims it's possible he was lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btjnark (talk • contribs) 23:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Can you please provide a reliable source or two supporting your contention? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please modify the bit about Ben Shapiro

It says, presently, that "Ben Shapiro of townhall.com". It would be less time-bound to say "Ben Shapiro, writing for townhall.com, ..." 173.245.131.67 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done I just removed "of townhall.com" since "... writing for townhall.com, wrote ..." reads awkwardly. Readers can check the footnote to see that he was writing for townhall.com. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2016

The link to the 2005 report showing Drudge the the left of center does not back up that claim. However, the link from that page to a 2014 Pew report shows Drudge to be quite right of center. http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ Please correct or remove the link and update the statement to show that Drudge is substantially to the right of center as reported in 2014 with this link as evidence: http://www.pewresearch.org/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08-2/ 98.234.136.160 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done Thanks! I couldn't find the 2005 report itself, but I fixed the problem by removing the wikilink, which I agree was misleading and unhelful, and adding a reference to the source that describes the report as stated. As for the Pew chart you linked to, that's a good chart but I don't think we can cite it without referring to the report it's a part of. Are you willing to go through that lengthy report and find the useful tidbits about the Drudge Report? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

Concerning this bit, DrFleischman, Washington Times and The Washington Examiner are not RS, wouldn't you agree? I removed the others based on WP:DUE - there's already a Financial Times reference, it seems that adding the other minor ones is only to give undue weight to an already credible statement (see also WP:OVERREF). I noticed the Washington Times is also used as a ref in other parts of the article, though I didn't check all references yet. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if you look through the RSN archives, you'll see that the Washington Times and Washington Examiner are often treated as reliable news outlets, as biased as they often are. They have a staff of professional journalists and editors and are widely cited (the Times especially). When it comes to labeling a media outlet such as Drudge as "conservative," it strikes me that other conservative media outlets may be seen as some of the most reliable sources for this type of assertion - if of all sources the Washington Times and the Examiner call Drudge conservative, then it must be conservative, right? As for there being too many sources, that's never a WP:DUE (neutrality) problem; there's nothing in WP:NPV about the number of sources. Rather, it's a potential citation overkill (stylistic) issue. I'm generally sympathetic to citekill issues, but I hesitate here since inexperienced editors are constantly trying to get the "conservative" label removed from this article, and we could use the firepower of this wide variety of sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I always saw someone saying "it's not a reliable source" every time those two came up in talk pages... I guess I have some reading to do. Thanks for the pointers. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Far-right

I removed far-right from the lead since it was poorly sourced for contriversal material here. DrFleischman reinserted it here, stateing there is nothing unreliable about this sources. From what I see the only source listed for that statement is a 6 year old textbook that in the whole book, which is largely not even about the Drudge Report, mentioned it once in passing. Stronger sources are needed for such a statement classifying Matt Drudge and the Drudge Report as far-right. Looking at the history of the page it was recently added to the article by Snooganssnoogans here, with a slow edit war going on to keep it in the article despite several edits challenging that addition and no one going to the talk page. So unless better sources are found for this, it should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a book that was edited (i.e. fact-checked) by SAGE Publications, a reputable, established publisher. The fact that it's a textbook, or that it was published 6 years ago, or that it was a passing mention in the source, none of those bear meaningfully on whether the source is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Again completely undue for controversial claims about a BLP, you are more than welcome to find better sources. Until then, it is a laughable source for that label, it completely fails weight for such a claim. Especially given the history of one of the authors. PackMecEng (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow. I thought we were talking about the reliability of this particular source, not anything about undue or weight (by which I presume you're referring to our neutrality policy). And your mysterious comment about the "history" of one of the authors doesn't advance the discussion. What about the history of which author? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I have been difficult to follow. Yes, when I was saying a better source is required that was an argument from WP:DUE. That a stronger source is needed to make that claim. Yes the publisher is generally considered a RS and text books are allowed. But that more or a more authoritative source on the subject is required, perhaps something dealing specifically with the Drudge Report and how it is far right. Also as far as I can tell it falls under WP:BLPSOURCE since the Drudge Report is an extension of Matt Drudge. So with that care must be taken with "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" and given how you two have been edit warring over the past week with several people challenging that specific entry it would be prudent to beef up the source. Shouldn't be hard to do if it is not a fringe viewpoint. Lastly I was refering to Dr Lee Salter and the conviction for assault on a female student of his noted here. Which does not make him less of a expert in the field of media, but perhaps is not someone to spotlight as a source since that is no longer what he is best known for. PackMecEng (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to admit you've lost me in the intersection among our verifiability, neutrality, and BLP policies. I have never known them to interact that way. I was going to suggest you post something at WP:RSN, but that's about the reliability of sources, and now you're saying this is a neutrality or BLP issue, so perhaps WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN are the appropriate places? You'll have to decide since I'm totally befuddled at this point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have explained the policies that apply in this situation and why they apply. Since the first edit summery it has been an issue of weight and BLP policy. Do you have a policy based argument to refute that? Otherwise it will be deleted. PackMecEng (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First off, don't threaten to edit war just because we're having trouble understanding each other. That doesn't facilitate consensus-building. Second, I'm still not clear on what policies you're saying this content is in violation of. Specifically, many of your original and ongoing arguments certainly sound like verifiability arguments, but now you're saying this is really about neutrality and BLP. Pick your poison. If you say all three, then that's fine, we can go through them one by one, perhaps in separate subsections. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
So that is a no on policy based arguments then? PackMecEng (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
No it's not. I'm saying I don't understand your concern sufficiently in order to respond to it in a meaningful, policy-based way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Second Pass

Okay, lets try this one last time. Start fresh and we can find out if there is any reason to keep far-right in there. I will list the policy based reason I think it should not be included and we can go from there.

1 - BLP applies here since Drudge Report is a direct extension of Matt Drudge. As such WP:BLPSOURCE is applicable, specifically the section that states "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". The source listed for that claim is poorly sourced, and a stronger one is required to make that claim.
2 - It violates WP:LABEL also applies. The section of the policy is "may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Given that only one weak source is given for the claim with no in-text attribution, it fails this section.
3 - It does not meet the WP:DUE, again because of the poor sourcing and lack of wide spread reporting that refer to them as far-right. As such is amplifying a minority opinion and giving it undue weight.

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

This is PRECISELY the kind of crap that reveals the overwhelming bias of Wiki editors and Wikipedia at large. Listing Drudge as 'far right' in the introductory statement is specifically meant to defame Drudge. Period. This should be removed. Drudgereport is a news aggregate site run by Conservative Matt Drudge. That is a better statement. But why even attempt to edit when leftist Wiki editors with an agenda will just restore it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.5.200 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.
  • BLP: BLP does not apply to websites. The content in question is not about Matt Drudge. Your take on our BLP policy is understandable but there simply isn't support for it. I have little doubt that a consensus of disinterested editors would find it an example of WP:CRYBLP.
  • WP:LABEL: We describe the political ideologies of groups and media outlets all the time, and arguments for excluding them based on WP:LABEL always fail, which is why we see such descriptors all over Wikipedia. This is because standard ideological descriptors such as these (liberal, conservative, far left, far right, etc.) are informative, non-value-laden terms used by a wide array of reliable sources. It's not the same thing as calling Drudge Report a "cult" or "controversial." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:DUE: WP:DUE is not about quality of sourcing. If the source satisfies our reliability criteria, which this one does, then per WP:DUE it actually must be reflected. Regarding in-text attribution, I am not opposed to that; we can include an additional section in the body of the article that lists which reliable sources call Drudge Report conservative, which call it right-wing, and which call it far right. Perhaps that would be an acceptable resolution?
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
So a few things here.
  • Since Matt Drudge is the face and main editor of the website the views of the website are his views. That is why when mentioning the views of the website, it is mentioning his views. You see this when other source are referring to the Drudge Report they put it in terms like this "Matt Drudge is firing warning shots at Trump". Then they go on to talk about stories covered on his website. Indicating that the website is his personal views. Also per BLPN [12] is the closest I can find relating the Drudge Report to Matt Drudge.
  • For label, are you trying to suggesting that far-right is not a value laden label? That is the term our own article ascribes to Nazism, chauvinist, xenophobic, racists, and terrorists... There are absolutely negative and contentious views with that term. Which is why for far-right label applies.
  • With Due, you focus on the first part poor sourcing. Which is not the whole argument. The part that actually gives the source we sight weight, and not a fringe view, is wide spread reporting of it as fact. Which it does not and is giving a larger voice to a minority viewpoint.
Now with all that, I have nothing for or against labeling the Drudge Report far-right. But with all that listed above, the source needs to be improved. Again, I am not saying the source is not reliable. Heck I would pretty much be happy with just two or three sources listed after that claim. Like we do for conservative and right wing, both of which are much less contention but far better sourced in our article. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Does my addition of the Wired source resolve this matter then? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually when I looked at the source added, I decided if I could find a better one that supports the claim that Drudge is far-right. One that actually talks about the site being far-right and not lumped into a single unexplained sentence. I am having the darndest time. Got about 3 pages into the googles and no big sources seem to be calling them that. I see a lot of right-wing and conservative, but none calling them far-right. Even Salon makes the distinction that they are conservative and not far-right. PackMecEng (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the following bolded language be removed from the article?

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

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

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

Survey

Neutral would not using a fringe label for him in the lead. NPV also indicates we describe disputes if there is weight to the claim, otherwise it is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. This also touches on WP:LABEL, which far-right easily qualifies under. PackMecEng (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to body or remove Far right is often seen as a derogatory label. It seems the sources for the claim are of limited weight. Springee (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - per PackMecEng. It's risible to call Drudge Report "far-right" as it doesn't meet any objective definition of the term, but I'm sure it will end up staying anyway. WP doesn't do NPOV on political topics. Edgespath24 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Undue. I also don't like the weaselly, "has been described as" passive voice either. When ever you write like that, add the attribution and see if it looks DUE when the attribution is up there. In this case it doesn't. It's better to just call it whatever it's uncontraversially described as by a reasonable majority, without any attribution or passive voice. Edaham (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Undue weight, I don't like the weaselly wording either, and I agree with @Edaham's proposal. (Summoned by bot)  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:LABEL. Minor passing references should not be used in this manner in an encyclopedia. For some everything that disagrees with their viewpoint is "far-left/right"/"alt-left/right". Buffs (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep — This is undisputed in reliable sources. It belongs in the lede. We should also remove "has been described as". What does that mean? It's WP:WEASEL. Carl Fredrik talk 21:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove - The standard for "far right" continues to be redefined by people who seem to have an agenda in doing so. Specifically tell me where Drudge has posted a link to the Daily Stormer. These increasingly zealous edits by left-wing editors wishing to ride in on their high horse to tell us all concerned with the truth about why their view of politics is "indisputable" by linking to some clown writing for a random rag of a paper is destroying the reputation of this encyclopedia. "Conservative" perfectly defined Drudge Report's leaning for years. This should apply as long as Huffington Post is labeled Marxist, since the objective standards for once commonly agreed upon labels have changed for political expediency. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:Undue. Conservative is supported by sources, far-right is not. One or two passing references by opinionated sources does not give far right due weight to be included. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
It is verifiably false to say far-right isn't supported by sources. The sources are reliable. Wired and SAGE are reputable publishers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • remove. It's totally fine to call it Conservative, even right-wing, but "Far-right" is more subjective, value-laden, and likely to cause repeated objections. FWIW, I think it's also poor form to shoehorn value-laden adjectives like conservative and liberal into the first sentence, before even defining the damn subject. I'd much like to see articles like this begin: "X is an American newspaper or news website, full stop. Founded in 1992, it has won several awards. It has a (liberal/conservative) editorial stance, and predominantly features (liberal/conservative/libertarian/Martian) writers..." Slapping a label onto the first sentence, even if it's a widely agreed label, seems to serve only the interests of those seeking to disregard it right off the bat. Significant biases and controversies should certainly be described in the article, maybe even mentioned in the lead, but should not be the first thing a reader sees. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove In writing journalese, especially headlines, authors often go for the shortest words possible, even if they are not the best ones to use. For example, "Sticks Nix Hick Pix." And all writers tend to alternate phrases in order to lessen tedium. Instead of every fifth word in an article being "conservative," they thrown in a few "far rights" for variety. Reasonably competent readers are able to determine what the writer means through the context in which the terms are used. Furthermore, the comment is original research, we would need a competent reliable source to make that observation. TFD (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove per reasoning of Animalparty (talk · contribs) also per WP:LABEL. Perhaps a section named reception to include such opinions, giving them whatever due weight may allow, would be a better place for that type of content. Some sources may verify the website is conservative, some might verify the website is right populist, or whatever. This would be similar to how many media articles have.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Edaham, outside of the scope of this RfC, if the "and far right" is removed from the sentence, do you have any suggestions to improve this sentence? A whole bunch of sources call DR right-wing and a whole bunch call it conservative. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes DrFleischman. How about, "The Drudge report is an American conservative, right-wing news aggregation website"
    I've put "American conservative" together and linked to conservatism in the United States, as the editorship is made up of conservative editors but it is an aggregation of news which includes sources from outside the US. It is uncontroversial to flatly state that they are right wing without attribution as it is well cited in the body. Anything further than that requires attribution and would be pushing against the UNDUE boundary. The whole "variously described" part, is a text book example of weaselly phrasing. What ever adjectives you put after a statement like that are going to sound weak, controversial and ambiguous. Edaham (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    works for me Buffs (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just an aside: While I don't agree with where this RfC is going, my edit is to be read as reverting what is essentialy a WP:VANDAL edit, which also removed that the site is a news aggregator. Do what you will now, but the IP edit was disruptive. Carl Fredrik talk 19:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead of This Entry

The first sentence in this Wikipedia entry reads:

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

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

HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions. It was founded in 2005 by Andrew Breitbart, Arianna Huffington, Kenneth Lerer, and Jonah Peretti.[3][4] The site offers news, satire, blogs, and original content and covers politics, business, entertainment, environment, technology, popular media, lifestyle, culture, comedy, healthy living, women's interests, and local news.

Notice a difference?

Only the Drudge entry uses not one, but two political adjectives as a description in the opening sentence. Both entries provide information on their political leanings (Drudge is right; HuffPost is left) further into the entry, but only Drudge leads with it.

The HuffPost entry could lead with:

HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post and sometimes abbreviated HuffPo)[2] is an American liberal, left-wing news and opinion website and blog that has localized and international editions.

The Wikipedia guidelines state that Wikipedia entries should have a neutral point of view. The choice of words used in the opening sentence for the Drudge entry and the fact that information is included in the opening sentence does not come across as a neutral point of view.

P.S. I had never seen the Drudge website before, but I am a regular reader of HuffPost. This critique does not come from a partisan angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not mean even-handedness to subjects but that articles should reflect how they are usually described in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The HuffPost is described as being liberal in its Wikipedia article. So reliable sources have stated that it is liberal. Should we move that adjective to the opening sentence? I ask that question honestly.Auctoris (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Lead change to "right-leaning"?

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

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

I suggest mirroring the wording of the opening sentence in the HuffPost article and describing the Drudge Report as a "politically right-leaning news aggregator". Then, like the HuffPost article, the Drudge Report's full political leanings are discussed in the appropriate section of the article. What do you think? -- Auctoris (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Slight issues with article

I would suggest that "(last known)" be dropped from the "Owner" field, seeing as how the article states that Drudge has been confirmed to still be the owner in the last paragraph of "Political leanings". The sentence "Site viewership is also down nearly 30 percent in that same time-frame." also appears to be out of place with the rest of the lead, perhaps that could be fixed also. 91.129.108.3 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drudge_Report/Archive_5&oldid=1148914444"