Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:25, 24 November 2011

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Media This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Radio This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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

Populist and Libertarian?

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexuality/homophobia allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All of the abovementioned material is now stored at sourcewatch.org at their Matt Drudge page, and has been updated and expanded. Off2riorob cites undue weight, and that's probably the only valid argument for excluding it in toto. There may also be a question mark over some of the sources, possibly, but definitely not the majority. Some other editor, not me, should craft an appropriate sentence or three for inclusion. It could be fun to count the number of times this material, in various forms, has been edited in and out of the article (hint: it's a lot of times).  Jabbsworth  05:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcewatch.org is a wiki, and the article thereon appears to be exactly compliant with edits made by Jabbsworth here. Discussions at WP:RS/N make this abundantly clear, and if the same person wrote both copies of the exact same wording, then there is a possible violation of Misplaced Pages policies about referring to one's own writings as a possible source for any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're getting a little confused. SourceWatch is . not . being . used . as . a . SOURCE. Am I getting through? I do not expect any data to be added to the article using Sourcewatch as the citation. Is that clear? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse on this issue?  Jabbsworth  12:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Matt Drudge.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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

disputed content now at the BLP noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE: My post at was "refactored" by Jabbsworth. The content of it is undeniable, and his posts here are the height of disingenuousness for a person who has abused multiple accounts on Misplaced Pages. Cheers - and I invite anyone to read the facts as written. Collect (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, there is now a section at wp:BLPTALK that has extended linking prohibitions all over wikipedia. I last read BLP years ago, and expecting it to be a stable policy, was not aware of this change, until now. So, without providing you a direct link, if any editor wants to do as suggested by Nomoskedasticity and craft a brief summary of that data, you need to go to the SourceWatch.org site, search for "Matt Drudge", and work with the data already collected there. Cheers.  Jabbsworth  03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The rule was present when Ratel was indeffed for gross abuse of WP:BLP quite a while ago -- I would have thought that could not have elided your notice. Meanwhile, your spamlinks to sourcewatch.org are tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, the BLP rule is not truly applicable here anyway. Nevertheless, I won't provide a link because smart editors can type web addresses themselves  Jabbsworth  14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow -- I fear you do not get it. WP:BLP is a strong policy. Your continued and deliberate violations of the policy are disturbing. Your claim that the policy "is not truly applicable here" is sufficiently erroneous as to alarm others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You have shockingly poor reading comprehension skills! You seem unable to parse and understand almost anything I have said. The BLP policy's terms specifically state that the non article space restrictions apply to links (no links here!) that contain material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" — none of which applies to the material at SourceWatch. This is like beating my head against a wall. I'm going to have to start ignoring you if you continue tendentiously with wp:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT  Jabbsworth  23:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And due it may affect living people, then I have to ratify myself and repeat here what I posted in the BLPNB: it is not allowed to post a link to an outside wiki where that content is posted. If that is not outing yourself at least it is a BLP violation, a non-allowed way to circumvent the forbiddance and the respective consensus, even if circumvention was not the purppose. This argument was repeated by every user here, at the BLPNB and at the ANI, so I thought it should not be responded with a complaint to an admin due an alleged stalking. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gobbledegook. Stick to the Spanish wikipedia, as you have been repeatedly advised by many editors. Your long list of blocks may soon be extended if you carry on disruptively like this.  Jabbsworth  23:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Unassessed Radio articles
• Unknown-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Unknown-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles